This is the question asked by a ToI article, with an answer supplied in the lede:
If Congress rejects military action, he retains the high ground of having intended to help. If Congress approves, he will have demonstrated moral and political leadership.Well, yes, so what: nothing to see here, move along, ladies and gentlemen? Obama comes out smelling like roses and that's it?
Maybe he does, as far as internal US politics go. As for the world, at least the part that is relevant to the issue of Syria's bloodbath: just the opposite. To remind you, the Middle East regimes, as a whole (with very few exceptions) don't understand and in general couldn't care less about the intricacy of democratic politics. The word of the ruler is the only thing that counts. And when the ruler repeatedly doesn't deliver on his promises, when his threats come out to be empty, the only possible response from the locals will be derision and loss of face.
After the prolonged mumbling and stumbling on Egypt, the inaction on Syria will only strengthen the already existing view of US as a powerless and rudderless entity, quite safely discarded by the scheming groups of local population - no matter what exactly their scheming is concerned with.
Not to mention Russia, China, Iran and other folks busily fishing in the local muddy waters.
Update. And more:
The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Barack Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria — a decision he took alone, after he had sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to speak out passionately and urgently in favor of military action. It is now fearful that, in the end, domestic politics or global diplomacy will ultimately lead the US to hold its fire altogether.And this alone could lead to dire consequences, as you can easily imagine...