The Syria War?

[jordan179]

As I write this, Obama appears about to take America into another war -- probably a small one, though it might wind up bigger than the Lightworkers expects it to be.  His stated plan is to launch limited cruise missile strikes, targeting the individual military units he judges "guilty" of launching chemiical weapons strikes.  He is explicitly not

Comments

[belvarius]

Quite frankly, I don't want us getting involved in Syria, especially when all Obama wants to do is make a symbolic gesture of punishing Assad. The limited strikes Obama is calling for aren't going to do jack to dissuade Assad and as Jordan pointed out could provoke a far larger and much more serious conflict. I really don't see an upside for us right now in doing this and I hope if Congress tells him NO that he actually respects it.

[ford_prefect42]

Congratulations: you have established a new "worst case scenario" congress tells him "no", he does it anyway, draws us into a completely illegal war, and nothing is done. Thanks, i was wondering how this could get worse.

[belvarius]

Oh no, if he's told no and does not respect it there will be something done. An immediate and swift impeachment followed by life imprisonment would be the best thing. A far worse outcome would be the rest of the world realizing that a man who commands one of the strongest militaries in the world and uses it to conduct blatantly illegal wars cannot be left in power, and thus they try to remove him from power.

[kalance]

It's worth pointing out that, technically, the President does not have to seek permission from Congress when committing troops or ordering military actions. He is the Commander-in-Chief. Only Congress can declare war; but that's more of a diplomatic distinction really.

Under the War Powers Act, the President has to notify Congress of any such intent; and involvement is limited to 60 days(+30 days to withdraw). However, he is not restricted from taking any such action without their blessing. Also worth pointing out that both Reagan and Clinton have violated that act without repercussion.

Obama is free to launch all the missiles and air strikes he wants, so long as he doesn't put troops in Syria for more than three months.

Whether or not he is/can be charged with war crimes afterwards, is another matter...

[xolo]

I seldom agree with you 100%, but here you've hit every major point.

[galadrion]

I see that there are already protesters out against this, and I can't help hoping that they're the usual knee-jerk anti-war Democrats. 'T'would be some beautiful irony...

[jordan179]

LOL, yep, and most of them voted for Obama, too. :)

[maxgoof]

Bashar al-Assad, insofar as he has any right to be the ruler of Syria, has the right to put down rebels by whatever means he deems necessary, provided that these means do not extend to unprovoked attacks against other sovereign states.
Really? I'm not so sure. Let me try re-wording this

[jordan179]

Well yes, Assad doesn't even have the right to rule Syria, under Natural Right doctrine. Nor really does any regime outside the modern West have the right to rule any other country. From a Natural Right POV we can smash those regimes at will, and treat their officials as so many jumped-up criminals.

But I'm talking International Law here, which is more about managing international conflicts than providing a free hand to anyone who wants to start them.

Under International Law, yes, Obama could round up all the Republicans and feed us into meat-grinders. And unless he started raiding other countries to catch the Republicans who fled there, he would not be providing a just cause to anyone else to attack him for this

[kalance]

Hmmm...(rewords):

Abraham Lincoln, insofar as he had any right as the President of the United States, had the right to put down the succession by whatever means he deemed necessary, provided that these means did not extend to unprovoked attacks against other sovereign states.

"Right" may be the wrong word. "Responsibility" seems more accurate. A leader has a responsibility to maintain civility and order within the borders of the nation they lead; which often extends to subduing rebels

[jordan179]

I deny that Lincoln was categorically wrong for restoring the Union. Had the principle of secession without consent of the national legislature been accepted, the Union would have fragmented into at least two parts after the election of 1860, and not only would the two parts probably have warred again and again and again (see Timeline 191) for an exploration of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series

in which the failure of the North leads to three follow-on wars, the last of which sees the Union finally re-united at the price of terrible atrocities on both sides and a postwar world of continual terrorism, but very well might have led to repeated future fissions of the former United States with a consequent Balkanization and nigh-continual war

[lostboy_lj]

The levels of this administration's boobery are soaring off the charts in this episode. Consider this snippet from an LA Times piece.

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.As Mark Steyn pointed out the other day, that would make "a great caption for a Vanity Fair photo shoot of Obama gamboling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard", but as a military strategy, it's right down there with Meade letting Lee escape into Virginia, or the Nazis invading Russia in their J.C. Penny Spring Casual attire. It's worse than stupid, because even stupid strategies are often kept secret, instead of meticulously described on the front pages of every national newspaper