So a big topic of conversation right now is the possible US military action in Syria. The world's governments are paying attention, the markets are paying attention, and the various media centers are definitely paying attention. So to many it was a surprise when Obama came out earlier this weekend with his decision to ask Congress to vote on the military action.
This is outside the norm ever since the War Powers Act, the vast majority of the time when military actions like the one we're contemplating in Syria take place the President simply acts. But in reality it was politically genius and really his best out.
Obama draws a red line in the sand for Assad after rumors begin to spread that chemical weapons have been used in isolated incidents during the Syrian Civil War. He draws the line in the sand expecting that a dictator whose military is barely able to hold off the rebels and who only controls about half his country is not going to risk the wrath of the civilized world, especially the US. And he gets to look like a humanitarian, a President who uses human morals as a cornerstone of his foreign policy.
Well Assad decides to ignore the line in the sand...........oh crap, now what? Now Obama might have to act, okay, no biggie, we have the most powerful military on earth. We can handle this, allies saddle up and back us up, chemical weapons, over 1,000 dead, easily justifiable.......not so fast. UK votes no, Russia and China are throwing a fit, France has got our back (whoop-dey do), but all in all the consolidated international outrage is stopping at verbal outrage and not taking the form of concrete action.
Now he has a problem, he can't back down or he looks weak, he doesn't want to act along because if something goes wrong he's (and the democratic party as an extension) going to get badly bloodied. So, instead you have Congress vote.....if they say no Obama gets to say
"hey I wanted to help those poor citizens, I wanted to fight for human rights, but the Republicans said no no. Therefore my hands were tied."
And if they say Yes, well then if anything goes wrong the Republicans can't say jack next election because hey, he asked them and they said yes.
Okay this post got way too long, but no matter your politics you have to admit, this guy is good.
Agreed that it was a pretty slick move on his part. Also, it's pretty fucked up to imagine that this 'war on terror' has been going on for 12 years and Congress never actually declared war.
The "War on Terror" is just another misnomer like every other War on Noun; the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. It's a term to apply to a series of expensive ventures undertook by the government. By painting it as a "War" it somehow makes it OK to spend all the money and resources these collective actions take... and gives the false impression that the end result might be a "victory." Lot of BS.
Can you spin it either way? Say they vote no and a ton more Syrian civilians are slaughtered. Suddenly folks are mad at Obama because he copped out - he had the power to pull the trigger without asking Congress to begin with. But, would any US action prevent more deaths or cause more deaths? Who knows.
A lot more people are going to die over there regardless of what the US does. Its a shit situation with far too radical of an imbalance of power going on.
I think Obama has made the decision to go in, and Congressional support is largely to keep the liberals on board given they didn't like how Bush basically overstepped his boundaries. If he gets Congressional support and they let him declare war, he'll launch a decapitation strike. If he doesn't, he'll send in a small team to execute a decapitation strike.
I don't forsee a large scale war though, there's really no point and everyone knows this.
The primary objective is to take down Assad. The Russians are hoping to back up the next strong man but it would seem that no one will be able to hold things together quite as well given Assad has killed off most of his competition, so Syria will become a de facto democracy.....highly dysfunctional at first, but no one group really can control things. Hell, Assad barely can at this point, and he has the backing of the Russians and Chinese.
The part I personally find delicious about this whole thing is that Obama gets to throw mud in Putin's eye. Obviously this isn't the primary motivator at all, just a bonus. I liked that Putin protected Snowden but I think he enjoyed it too much and Putin is pretty hyppocritical, and now it's Obama's (and don't forget...America's) turn to basically say "we're going to do this and all you can do is bitch about it".
Political genius aside, it's about damn time Congress both did their job and took votes that actually matter. So I have no problem going to them for authorization.
Please, show me proof and hard evidence that either Assad or the rebels have actually utilized chemical warfare other than these rumours.
OT: Your username/avy are morphenomenal.
How many civilians died in our civil war? How many civilians died when we nuked Japan or fire bombed Dresden? How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Syria is having an intern conflict being made worse by outside agents. The USA needs to stay the fuck out of things. Or if we do something we should allow the UN to present the report and have international cooperation.
I give Obama props for doing what is right and putting this to a vote.
Yep. Third-ed
The whole Assad used chemical weapons argument makes no sense to me. Why would a guy who is fighting a civil war use chemical weapons when the world super power has said we will come in and squish you like a bug if you do. To me it makes much more sense for radicalized factions of the rebels to use them against civilians. If a few hundred or a thousand people die whats it to them? It draws the USA into the war to do what they cant accomplish. The logic just doesn't add up to Assad being the one that did it. Then again dictators aren't usually the smartest people in any room.
Syrian troops have been beating back the rebels and taking key cities. I don't understand why they would use them also. Apparently where the chemical weapons were deployed was a zone where Syrian troops were operating in and troops got sick from the attack (as the UN apparently noted).
IMO, WMD's are a last resort weapon, especially when you aren't a superpower.
The isolationists are missing the mark: this is also partly a proxy power struggle with China/Russia for regional control. Yes the cold war is over but they are up to their old tricks. The Kremlin uses whatever advantage it has to twist surrounding nations to its will....MENA is no exception. I did not like the highly disingenuous marketing campaign, the full scale invasion, and long term occupation that Bush ran BUT I do fully support maintaining our regional influence. If we don't, it just becomes a downward spiral that requires even more effort to correct later on.
I'm somewhat annoyed with the conservatives that supported the last decade of war but are now pulling the "America shouldn't be involved overseas, What about Congress, blah blah blah". Stop being so partisan. Everyone step back a second and realize that Obama's only doing what he's supposed to: ask Congress for authorization of the war. Even though he's wording it that it's "their responsibility to support this", he is ultimately bound by their vote. I have no doubt that enough of the GOP can be bought on board to secure an approval when they take into consideration that oil prices and defense stocks will be affected by this.
1) Obama doesn't need authorization for a limited missile strike.
2) Looks like we learned something from the last 10 years of mistakes.
3) China and Russia are getting powerful and we are in debt and going broke. Let them have their power struggle.
I am not even saying I wouldn't support some type of punitive action, but the UN should complete and present their findings and their should be a consensus. The UK has pulled out. There isn't a lot of support here. We have NSA analysts overhearing what could be a rogue general as we have Assad denying it himself. We also apparently caught rebels with nerve toxin.
Still don't know why Syria would cross the line when they are essentially winning the war and beating the rebels.
Remember Grover Norquist's pledge? The one that committed Republicans to vote against any tax increases? I wanna see that kinda shit with this Syria nonsense: Any Republican who supports the attack needs to have his career ended and kicked out in a primary.
I don't care what the Democrat's are saying; they're a lost cause. As somebody who was always against the Iraq War I know not to look for them for common sense when it comes to foreign policy since the VAST majority of them supported the attack on Iraq. What I want to see is Republicans make good on their mistakes with pushing Bush's war and stand against this attack on Syria. The civil war in Syria is not a battle of freedom fighters against tyrants; it's a battle between Shia and Sunni extremists. Let them handle it themselves. Past Repub administrations have made mistakes, no one's questioning it, but it's now time to realize these mistakes as a nation and focus our efforts at home, the senile and delusional McCains of Congress be damned (much respect to his service, but he just doesn't seem to get it).
Isn't there always some war going on somewhere in the world? Why do we suddenly give a shit? Don't we have our own problems and a ton of debt?
And who cares how people die. I don't care whether I'm gassed or shot. I'd rather just not die. What's this red line world police bullshit?
Obama is claiming that Syria is breaking international law by using chemical weapons. That may be true but who the hell gives a shit.
It is time to focus on America. Children are going hungry everyday. There is violence on the streets. There are hardly any jobs for young people. Our infrastructure is crumbling.
Mr. Obama and Congress, stop playing politics and help the people that REALLY matter.
Rerum excepturi dignissimos est praesentium aut molestiae ratione velit. Eaque et vero soluta.
Reiciendis quo laudantium accusamus necessitatibus ipsa voluptas voluptatum laudantium. A blanditiis qui provident ad voluptatum eum voluptas. Culpa veniam nihil iure ea esse consequatur. Iure occaecati aut soluta. Distinctio quis provident totam qui.
Saepe esse id qui in magni a rerum mollitia. Sunt voluptatum animi sit placeat voluptatem. Voluptas saepe praesentium sed tempora alias.
Sunt quia sit aut id qui est et. Porro voluptas dolores distinctio doloribus velit quos. Minima quasi quibusdam consequatur qui ducimus expedita.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Libero quam veniam qui ut molestias nihil. Reiciendis dicta perferendis molestias est nobis. Inventore nobis sed repudiandae deserunt maxime asperiores.