We previously discussed the curious step of President Obama seeking approval for a new war while insisting that he does not need such authorization to attack Syria. Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has referred to a one week period for Syria to comply with U.S. demands or presumably face an attack. It so happens that the Senate is set to vote this week, but opposition in this country is extremely high to yet another military intervention by the Administration. Moreover, unsuccessful in his earlier pitch for a free war, Kerry is now trying to sell the world on an “unbelievably small” military campaign. The U.S. seems to be saying that President Obama just needs the world to let him attack briefly to show that he cannot be dismissed or mocked in his earlier red line announcement. However, Kerry suggested a new red line in turning over control of the weapons and Russia has now announced that it will ask Syria to put chemical weapons under international control. That would undermine further the U.S. rationale for war if Russia says that it is moving to comply with Kerry’s demand. However, State Department handlers are trying to again walk back from the Secretary’s public statements.
Kerry was speaking on Monday alongside his British counterpart, William Hague, when he set a new red line for war. He said “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week – turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.”
As has become a common scene with Kerry, a team of State Department officials quickly rushed in to clean up after his latest slip. The Department insisted that the reference to a week was merely “rhetorical,” though the Administration continues to insist that Obama could simply ignore a negative vote in Congress.
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.
While Kerry conveyed a week deadline and did not indicate any restriction on unilateral U.S. action, the State Department asked people to ignore his precise words and just take the statement as an attempt to show that Assad has “a history of playing fast and loose with the facts.” Of course, as opposed to those how play fast and loose with words.
I particularly liked the comment for Hague when asked about the decision of Parliament not to allow Britain to enter another American-led war. Hague responded that “[t]hese are the two greatest homes of democracy and we work in slightly different ways and we each have to respect how each other’s democracies work.” Yes, the difference appears that the British government respects the need for a legislative consent for war while the United States now has an unabashed Imperial Presidency.
Source: Guardian
Personally, I think the dictator that gasses to death civilians should him or herself have a very short life expectancy. And, since I doubt that Assad has that to worry about, I think lobbing some missiles at him will, at least, exact a price for his nefarious mideed, and cause him to think twice next time.
Further, this Administration may actually have a decent plan in mind they are not making all that public. It has to do with supporting the “good rebels” while deliberately starving the bad. To hope to do this hinges on preventing any more gas attacks.
If a nation state does not declare war and yet attacks another nation state then there is a breach of duty to make the world aware and the world safe for democracy. Does anyone recall Woodrow Wilson? Make the world safe for democracy. What a high goal. What is this apCray we are getting from Obumbo? Make the world safe for the self imposed Police.
Well someone call the Police because that Obumbo guy is a goddamed thief.
Jill, I just said what we want is irrelevant, not that we shouldn’t give it a shot. 🙂
I do though believe that this issue will be decided politically, in Congress, just like everything else is. It will be a partisan decision having little to do with the actual question and everything to do with 2012, 2016, and the whole ball of wax that is the way the House and Senate does business these days.
L.K.,
We should still try like hell. There are real doubts being expressed, even in the Senate, as well as internationally. This means, we lowly peons aren’t alone. Obama is getting push back that he never expected. Russia agrees that Assad should put his chemical weapons under international control. Evidently Assad has agreed to this.
Kerry of course, rejects this idea because it would mean he doesn’t get Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USG’s war!
Dredd, I agree with you. It is a complete lie to say there won’t be boots on the ground, when already there are.
Deja vu all over again.
What the citizens want is irrelevant.
I recall that during the banking meltdown before the vote on a bailout was taken there were reports that that about the same percentage -80% – of calls to politicians were urging them to vote “no”. Let the banks fail and rebuild a better system afterward. If loans need to be made make them to the insurance companies that insure pension funds, directly to homeowners, protect the retail industry etc. We see how that worked out.
Even if that was a bad idea the pressure brought to bear on the government should have had some effect on the way the bailouts were structured, the magnitude of the reforms and the way the industry would be allowed to configure itself going forward.
IF the citizen’s opinions and overwhelming dissatisfaction meant anything. It didn’t. I doubt that it does now.
Another comment “lost”…
http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/syria-least-helpful.html
When Syria was a US Ally (or at Least Helpful)
Posted on 09/08/2013 by Juan Cole
One of George Orwell’s keenest insights in 1984 is the kaleidoscopic character of modern state-to-state relations, wherein countries go from being allies to enemies and back again, and government spokesmen and the press report on each situation (friendship or enmity) as though it was eternal.
As the US prepares a possible missile attack on Syria, it is worth remembering the times in modern history when Syria was cooperative with the US or even an ally (yes). I’m not sure on whom this record of cooperation reflects worse, but it shows it is a Realist world out there…
1. In 1976 as the Palestine Liberation Organization and its Muslim and Druze allies were poised to take over Lebanon, Syria received a green light from the US and Israel to invade and put them down, strengthening the right wing Christian militias that were rivals to the PLO.
2. In 1985 Syria intervened with hijackers holding passengers on a US airliner hostage in Lebanon to free them, and was thanked when it succeeded by president Ronald Reagan.
3. In 1989, Syria supported US and Saudi attempts to broker a deal among Lebanon’s warring factions, leading to the Taif Accords that brought the Lebanese Civil War to an end.
4. Syria fought as an ally of the US against Iraq in the Gulf War in 1991.
5. In the 1990s, Syria attended several peace summits aimed at ending the Israel-Palestinian struggle. Then President Hafez al-Assad accepted George H. W. Bush’s invitation to talks, and later he met with President Clinton during the latter’s diplomatic push.
6. After 2001, the US sent captured al-Qaeda operatives to Syria to be tortured by that country’s secret police.
7. Syrian intelligence let the United States know when it discovered an al-Qaeda plot to attack the US Fifth Fleet navy HQ in Bahrain.
randyjet,
They are doing a sequel and need a co-star … apply now … hurry …
randyjet,
How is the warmongering, propaganda, and other absurdies going for you?
Are you a paid troll, or just indoctrinated?
Dr. Sachs pointed out this morning that we have had boots on the ground, have been paying rebel leader salaries, have been furnishing weapons, and have been furnishing intellighence to the hodge-podge rebel forces for about two years.
Are we really sure this is John Kerry speaking?
Could perhaps it be some pseudo imaginary John Kerry, …I don’t know, perhaps named “Juanny Danger”. He brags of his big stick and he knows how to use it.
Man…. His picture looks like a poster of the dead….
I heard this schmuck this morning.,.. He uttered the most incredible and unbelievable verbal diarrhea that I have heard….
Our history is full of instances where Presidents from our founding have used military forces in acts of war without any declaration of war. It is absurd to say that an act of war therefore means a general war or must lead to it. To say this ignores ALL of our history and our founding too. So it is biased reporting to say that Obama is seeking a war when the fact is that is simply a lie.
All the Air Force bases I was stationed at had civilians working and living on them. So I guess that those who are opposed to military actions think that if even one civilian on such bases is killed, it is a war crime and unjustified. That is simply absurd as well. The best response to the war crime of using banned chemical weapons is to take out Syrian air bases and forces. That would be an effective response and legal as well.
I seem to recall an ultimatum given to Sadam Hussein, were in he had 48 hours to leave Iraq. I also seem to recall he was willing to do it (Albeit he wanted a big chunk of money to be released for him). We never really wanted Hussein’s capitulation then and we don’t want Assad’s now. We want war. And it feels like we’re being tricked into freeing up Syria so the Saudi’s and Russia can build a pipe line.
Kerry also said this is not war. Here is what I wrote my Congress persons today:
“Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
The New York Times says the Obama administration has refused to present all its evidence to Congress. Alan Grayson confirms that is the case.
This is a Constitutional crisis. It is Congress’ role to declare war yet Congress is denied the necessary evidence on which to base a declaration of war. You must stand for the rule of law and demand the evidence.
Administration officials need to present their evidence under oath, all of it. Your questions should be vigorous.
Here are some questions which must be asked:
1. Kerry says this is not war. How would he react to a cruise missile being launched at the US? Would he say that was a “message” or an act of war?
2. Why is Obama unwilling to wage peace? He needs to go through the peaceful options and say why he rejects each approach.
3. Obama has given several scenarios in his war plans against Syria. Under oath, what is he really going to do?
Do not consent to war. There are real, good and legal options available. Take them.
———————————————————————————
I would also like reporters to ask tough questions. Ask why it is O.K. for the US to kill civilians, including children by using drones and cluster bombs? Ask why it would not be O.K. for another nation to attempt regime change and send a message using their cruise missiles to the US that they have crossed a red line with the use of these weapons? The international community is trying to ban cluster bombs. Drones haven’t even been addressed because those are US weapons. However, use of drones for killing violates US law and has been used against our own citizens, including a 16 year old boy. Why may the US do this and have no consequences?
I know it will take courage to ask these questions, but they need to be asked.
Yawn. This stuff is really getting old and boring. It’s too predictable.
How do you define an “incredibly small military campaign”? Is that 1 cruise missile, 10 cruise missiles, or 100 cruise missiles? Is that 100 dead or 1,000 dead or 100,000 dead? Which is it Mr. Kerry?
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
I recently posted on facebook that I remembered President O’Bama saying that “change occurs from the bottom up….” How is it then that the American people seem to have no real voice in this?