President Barack Obama appears poised to take the country into yet another military campaign, according to the Washington Post. With critics mocking him over his repeated references to “red lines” in warning Syria, Obama seems to feel compelled to now act even if it could result in an expansion of the war. He is reportedly considering a two-day cruise missile and bomber campaign to hit targets unrelated to the chemical weapons of the country. It will cost hundreds of millions at a minimum, but we appear now to be at perpetual war even as we cancel key environmental, educational, and scientific programs (including program cuts this week).
The campaign seems to be the result of public line drawing and face saving. Obama said early on that he would not stand for the use of chemical weapons. That was apparently ignored and now the U.S. must act to fulfill the threat. The question is why the United States must remain in a perpetual war footing to enforce such demands. China continues to avoid such military action and then in countries like Iraq, China comes in after we spend hundreds of billions to seize assets and contracts.
We clearly need to act in the wake of this chemical attack. However, given the recent disclosure our tacit approval of the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein against Iran, we look hypocritical in using the weapons as the reason for a further entry into the Syrian civil war. If the world is unwilling to punish Syria through the United Nations, the question is whether we should continue to enforce our demands through military action.
Even before the U.N. report, Secretary of State John F. Kerry has already announced that the use of chemical weapons is now “undeniable.” Combined with Obama’s earlier “redline” ultimatum, that announcement would seem to commit the U.S. to once again launch large-scale military operations.
I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing.
We all share the outrage over the use of chemical weapons and the need to seek sanctions. However, no one seriously believes that destroying facilities for a couple days is going to materially change anything in the country. It reminds some of Clinton attacking largely empty tents in Afghanistan with 70 Tomahawk missiles. These attacks will clearly have a greater impact than Clinton’s destruction of tents at the cost of over a $100 million. However, the question is what we expect to be achieved beyond sending the message that we are not to be mocked or ignored. With the long lead into the attacks, Syria has likely taking efforts to prepare for the attack and moved around assets. The danger is that we will cause an expansion of the conflict and push Russia and China to even greater support for Syria.
What do you think?
On a TV program about President Eisenhower (he was a Republican), I was reminded Ike chose NOT to intervene when there was an uprising in Hungary (after WWII) that the Soviets were brutally suppressing. Ike feared our intervention would start a nuclear war with the Soviets, and Ike backed off.
Ike also warned us against the power- and money-hungry “military-industrial complex”:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ”
(I feel confident that most of the people advocating for us to intervene in Syria have stock in companies that will profit from making more war.)
There will not — in our lifetimes or even the next 100 years — be peace among the various warring religious and/or tribal groups in the Middle East; those hatreds and rivalries have existed for hundreds of years. Regardless of all the posturing in government and lobbying circles about the “need” to intervene in Syria (or wherever) for “humanitarian” reasons, the REAL reason is the need to keep the oil flowing to us — and for the “military-industrial complex” to continue accumulating power and wealth from endless wars.
How do we really know the CIA or some other non-Syrian groups didn’t ratchet up this “revolution”?
And, how do we know the “rebels” are any better, or more in love with us, than the current Syrian regime is?
If we took ALL the money we are now spending, have been spending, and WILL be spending putting down wars in the Middle East — to keep the oil coming — and spent that money on research to get us off our oil addiction, we just MIGHT be better off in the end.
Jill,
I’ll stipulate that it is a symptom of a much larger problem than just our own domestic war criminals.
Obama is fascist scum.
whens the revolution starting? Soon i hope.
I believe in equality. If we are going to kill people, we should start with the people we think are most responsible for the deaths of innocents: Assad, his military, advisors and cohorts, to the best of our ability. And I believe with modern satellite and communications monitoring technology kept secret by our military, we probably know his GPS coordinates within a yard.
If we are going to intervene anyway we can end the conflict entirely for a million dollars, and kill the guilty with as little collateral innocent damage as possible.
The president really backed himself into a corner with that red line business. Yep, better to go on a reckless campaign that has little support in our country and risk our troops just so that one man can save face. And, of course wage this campaign from the comfort of the oval office.
I have no like for the Syrian government and the Assad regime surely needs to be replaced by a legitimate and benevolent government. But why should we risk our necks everywhere all the time.
I wonder if the US will give an ultimatum like they did for Saddam Hussein where he could get out now, or face invasion; or the one to the Afghan government to hand over Usama bin Laden or we would invade.
Two days bombing. Laughable. Might as well say the bombing campaign will happen Thursday from 9:00AM to 5:00PM with these 25 targets and the jets will arrive from the South West at 25,000 feet. And say “don’t move those target munitions / equipment before we get there and move it back before we leave.
But if these theatrics are just to save face how about sparing the lives of the civilians that will invariably be killed by bombing some abandoned building in the middle of nowhere. There Mr. President, you accomplished something. now lets move on.
“The White House has declined to say whether the administration would take action in Syria without Congressional backing, Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis reports.
On Monday, spokesman Jay Carney said only that “members of Congress with a particular interest in this matter have been consulted”.
The only congressman known to have spoken with the White House is the House Republican speaker John Boehner, who confirmed he had a “preliminary communication” with the administration about Syria. But it seems likely that administration officials have also discussed the situation with the leaders of the relevant congressional defense and national security committees.
But with Congress in recess until Monday, 9 September, and no indication it will be urgently recalled, as will occur with Britain’s parliament on Thursday, it is hard to see how there can be wider consultation, let alone authorisation, from Congress for any imminent military action.
The White House is risking a repeat of the controversy that beset Obama in 2011, when he launched a limited intervention in Libya without Congressional backing.
Congressman may be out of town, but a similar debate is already hotting up, with Republican representative Justin Amash tweeting today that a US strike against Syria without Congressional authority would be “unquestionably unconstitutional” (guardian)
Glenn’s twitter links to candidate Obama’s opinion about unilateral presidential use of force.
From what I’ve read… We will act even without UN approval…. Does this mean are leaders are war criminals….. Well we know they are…. But… It seems the UN sanctioning of the newest conflict would be an induction that a majority of voting members approve…… Nuremberg redux…..
Yes Gene, I understand that fact. But it’s more than those two war criminals. If you put this before and independent fact finder, a whole lot of world leaders are going to jail. We already know that chemical weapons have been used by Assad and some of the rebels. Those weapons have receipts from very powerful nations.
Further, this gas appears to have been modified in a way to make it dissipate much more quickly than sarin. As much as many of the world’s “leaders” love to much around with weapons, not every one of them has the capacity for sophisticated modification.
This isn’t just protection for Bush and Cheney. It’s definitely about protection of the guilty though.
“Death is death whether it comes from a gas or a drone bomb or Apache helicopter gunfire.”
True enough, PC, but read some first hand accounts of the (usually few) survivors of chemical weapons attacks. There’s a reason that they were universally scorned after WWI. They are cruel, often agonizing, deaths that come from an indiscriminate weapon.
Because if we acknowledge the power of the ICC, then we’d have to admit they have jurisdiction over Bush/Cheney Co. and Obama for their crimes, Jill.
It’s really that simple.
My only question is: under what authority will the proposed action be taken?
“Chemical weapons” just another manipulative propaganda “WMD” buzzword. Death is death whether it comes from a gas or a drone bomb or Apache helicopter gunfire.
I find this despicable. If you listen to administration lackeys they are very careful in what they are saying. They will say, yes, there was evidence of a gas attack. Then they go on to say there are really, pretty certain it was Assad. Well, don’t you need to be more than really, pretty certain before you bomb another nation? You almost certainly will kill civilians. I’m sure the dead and their families will appreciate that it wasn’t gas which caused these deaths. For the love of god, why is the response war?
We have an ICC. Even if we had to try Assad in absentia at least a court of law allows actual evidence to come to light. Right now, USGinc. says, we have the evidence, trust us. What is the reason I should trust a govt. which has repeated lied about spying on the world, who has used cluster bombs and drones which killed civilians, who has manufactured evidence of WMD’s to go to war in Iraq? Why is this nation, along with its cronies allowed credibility to present “evidence” and then go to war on the basis of the “evidence” they produced. It is madness to pretend that the US is some kind of neutral party in this conflict. It is madness to ignore the number of civilian deaths left in the wake of both Bush and Mr. Peace Prize. There really is an elephant in the room and very few in the international community will comment on it.
The ICC is ready to go according to the Guardian. Why skip a legal way to bring whoever did this to justice in favor of killing more civilians? It’s depraved. I think USGinc. will not pursue a legal avenue because it might lead to very embarrassing facts. Yet and impartial, evidenced based trial is the only way to the truth. No one has to die at our hands. I do not consent.
I think . . . snow and gravity.
Everyone knows what happens when you roll a snowball downhill.
It’s going to result in a lot of civilian deaths, further destabilization in the region and invite a wider, possibly global, conflict.
But it’ll be great for the defense industry’s bottom line.
That the U.S.A. tacitly approved Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran, has been known for decades. Perhaps only admitted officially, recently. Germany and France provided Iraq with the technology and materials.
I was momentarily confused by the necessity of the U.S.A.’s military response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrians.
I checked my world atlas, and, indeed, there are no other nations geographically between the U.S.A. and Syria, who could possibly respond to this problem.
Since there exists no United organization of Nations which could sanction Syria for this alleged transgression, the U.S.A. must act, immediately!
As a proudly imperialist nation, we must not shirk this opportunity to renew the world’s faith in the size of our genitals, by attacking yet another country too small to fight back.
The “red line” was a comment made off the cuff, w/o the teleprompter. That was a HUGE mistake.
I am waiting for an explanation from the Administration of the difference to a Syrian family between an artillery shell with high explosives coming through the kitchen window, killing all the family and destroying the house and an artillery shell with nerve gas that kills all people. Specifically, why is the former not a reason to launch a cruise missle, but the latter is?
They changed the script, erasing the name “Sadam Hussein”, then replacing the name “Bashar Assad”.
Remember the Bush II gassy propaganda that got us into Iraq?
Deja voodoo all over again.
Propaganda is an institutionalized characteristic of decline in historical terms.
I would not rule out that the use of chemical weapons is a false flag operation by the rebels to allow America to intervene on their behalf.
The Syrian Government would be mad to use these weapons after the US talked about red lines but the rebels have much to gain if they can trick the world into thinking that the Syrian government has done so.
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.