G.O.P. Lawmakers, Once Skeptical of Obama Plan to Hit Syria, Back Trump

In 2013, as President Obama sought congressional support for strikes against Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack, he did not find takers in Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky or Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, both Republicans.

This week, both men — now the majority leader and House speaker — gave enthusiastic support to President Trump’s missile strike on a Syrian air base for which he sought no such approvals. It demonstrates once again that even in solemn issues of war and peace, politics can shift dramatically depending on who is in the White House. Several other Republicans who were skeptical of Mr. Obama’s proposal also gave Mr. Trump’s strike a thumbs-up.

“I don’t know whether he had in mind knocking out a tent and a couple of camels or what,” Mr. McConnell said Friday, explaining his view that Mr. Obama had lacked the clarity and focus of Mr. Trump on Syria. “But this was a strike that was well-planned, well-executed, went right to the heart of the matter, which is using chemical weapons.”

Fifteen years after Congress voted to wage war against Iraq, lawmakers in both parties remain divided and ambivalent about giving any president its explicit blessing to enter theaters of war, even for limited operations.

The divisions are less partisan than ideological — formed by individual views of both war and the proper scope of executive power — and they have contributed to congressional paralysis in foreign policy that marked the latter years of the Obama administration and continues into the Trump administration.

Congressional authorization to use force in Syria eluded Mr. Obama. A measure to do so in 2013 passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but did not garner enough support in either party to get a full congressional vote — nor did any other authorizations to attack the Islamic State.

In the end, Mr. Obama used the skittishness of Congress to avoid action in Syria in 2013, a decision that would haunt the rest of his presidency. It particularly shaped the perceptions by congressional Republicans of his foreign policy fortitude.

Much has changed beyond control of the White House in the intervening years. After Mr. Obama decided not to attack Syria, he entered into an agreement with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to help dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. At that time, American voters showed very limited interest in engagement in Syria.

While the program showed initial promise, it has become increasingly clear that Mr. Putin did not keep his end of the bargain. Russian military forces moved into western Syria.

But while the horrific images and reports of the last few years may have served to solidify widespread congressional support for the limited strike of this week, the fault lines in Congress on what to do next remain.

Noninterventionist types like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and a host of liberal Democrats in both chambers disliked that any move was made without congressional authorization. Others, likes Senators Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, have tried to drum up support once again for congressional authorization of future activities.

Calling the Trump administration strike “a clear signal that the United States will stand up for internationally accepted norms and rules against the use of chemical weapons,” Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that any future actions would require Congressional review.

More From The New York Times: