Will Military Response to Syria Really Be "Limited"?

Obama just said it would be a little nudge, just to serve as a reminder. A strike would be a warning to deter future gas attacks. (a strike like that would do little to nothing).

And then that's it? Go home now? You guys think?

You have noticed the grandiose military mobilization in the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and loads of boots on the ground in nearby lands. Plus UK air power consolidation on Cyprus.

And then they continue this litany of constant "Assad must go" every day, they are drawing up all these plans etc.

Talk of a gentle, limited strike could also be a bluff so Assad might let his guard down.

For all we know, in a day or two, or when it happens, we've got all out shock and awe.

I hope I am wrong, and let's hope that no further escalation of violence or expansion of the conflict can occur.

Here's the story for people who want to know about Obama's stated agenda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

 

The bigger question is will it be legal. That is far more important at this point...

 

Both Obama and Hillary agree............The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. Our nation. If Obama wants to participate in strategic bombing he need authorization from Congress. He should be impeached if he does this again (Libya).

 

I see no way it can be "legal" since we were not attacked and the security council will never authorize military action.

To the OP I honestly believe the plan will be for a very limited strike. Just to back up the red line statement. However you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. If Iran actual keeps it's pledge to attack Israel it could spiral quickly to chaos. Hopefully the administration can find another way to save face but it seems like to much talking has been done to take the smartest route of doing nothing.

 

Once again you are wrong. The president can authorize military action for up to 60 days. Then Congress my authorize it. According to the War Powers Act of 1973.

 

Whatever action this moron may illegally take, I would hope it would be precise, as we all have heard that killing innocent civilians only creates more terrorists...

Oh wait, we're siding with terrorists on this one, so killing civilians might well work in our favor... Strike away, just remember to own it...

 

He can do whatever he wants for 60 days. After that it's up to Congress to give a thumbs up. I highly doubt Congress is thrilled with the idea that Assad is gassing people. They will be less thrilled when he gasses Israel after USA attacks his air force with cruise missiles.

 

Indeed, this BS could spiral out of control, and Syria is no direct threat to the US, yet because of one idiot's arrogance it could very well turn into something nobody wants... China and Russia walked out of UN meetings yesterday, so there in no chance of a UN resolution, and Russia has already stated their support for Assad, we should be asking ourselves if this is really worth the potential consequences?

 

You are partly right. Obama has to come up with the discretionary funding for it too. He can always "borrow" the money from the opening of the Obama Care Exchanges. You seem to forget who is in control of the money. I doubt there will be even an extra penny to fund Obama's Bravado wars. So, let him run with it. He'll need to cut somebody to pay for it.

 

Just cut the Border Patrol, not like he's enforcing immigration laws anyway, right?

 

You are mistaken even Bush got congressional approval both times.

The democrats have for years chastised Bush for going to war in Iraq without UN approval. Rightfully so in my opinion. Yet Obama seeks to do without authorization from congress or the UN. He is the CIC but congress is the one given the power to authorize war. The only exception is if we are attacked or it is imminent that is nit the case. The rules are the same for all presidents.

 

No, we are NOT "siding with terrorists" on this one!

Just because some Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists oppose Assad, too, does NOT mean we are "siding with them".

The SAME terrorists opposed Saddam Hussein a leader who kept these Jihadists out of the country, but we had no problem destroying the Hussein government, and that was even supposed to "drive away terrorists from the USA"!

 

Ah, the law. The last refuge of scoundrels.

 

Really? So is his high holiness going to strike down the terrorist scum who are pissing in the cheerios of his otherwise noble pursuit? If not, then we are supporting terrorists...

 

The Executive Branch is completely out of control.

We should reduce the 60 days to ten days (at most - even that may be too much).

 

You mean THIS War Powers Act of 1973?

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.​

Read the underlined part very carefully and then pick (1, 2, or 3) which specific clause would allow American forces to be committed in Syria.

The bottom line is this: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

 

I take it you don't bother following UN drama very often and are now spooled up by our resident bipolar syrian. USA walks out, Russia walks out, everyone walks out. It's meaningless. Less than meaningless. If you read my other posts, Russia is #6 of our debt creditors. They would go into a great depression if we defaulted to her. And Putin is already struggling with the issues that are causing prognosticators to predict that Russia will have a debt crisis by 2030. USA defaulting on hundreds of billions would give them a debt crisis overnight. And put yourself in Putin's shoes. If you were Russia and had a military budget of $70 billion; would you go up against a country with a budget of $850 billion? If your navy didn't have any aircraft carriers and only had one aircraft carrying cruiser and it was over 20 years old, would you go up against 15 aircraft carrier groups with 5 more being built? If you had a small air force, would you go up against the world's biggest air force (USAF) *AND* the world's second biggest air force (USN)? If you had 28 fighter squadrons, would you want to go up against 110 fighter squadrons that had superior and more modern equipment? And against pilots with over 10x as many combat hours?

 

If, and that's a big if, Assad launched a chemical strike, that crosses Obama's red line, and an assault on his high holiness' ego could be construed as an attack on America, narcissism knows few bounds...

 

They do not have 60 days the only time that was used before Libya was:

A US ship had been seized was the reason it was legal. Libya or Syria has not attacked us.

 

Who do you think attacked our Libyan embassy, killing 4 Americans including Mr. Stevens? Who do you think the Muslim Brotherhood is in Egypt?

Casper the friendly ghost? No, our government is most unfortunately arming our enemies and stabbing our military in the back. It has to depress them to find that their gains are being eliminated by their own government.

 

Syria is an imminent threat. It's open to interpretation. Syria has used biological weapons and has the ability to use them against US bases in the Middle East. Our bases are USA land on foreign soil; just like an embassy. That is how the POTUS will interpret the threat and will justify attacking prior to asking Congress to declare war.

 

The problem is that if you make a CinC beholden to a Congress vote; you tie the hands of the CinC such that he cannot respond to threats in an immediate fashion. I understand what you are saying; but you need to understand that there are times when a Commander in Chief needs to make immediate or close to immediate decisions.

 

Head to head? No.

A proxy war to weaken and drain the treasury of a more powerful nation? Yeah, they've already done it several times before. They're actually pretty good at it, too.

 

Why the hell is Syria any of our business anyway? By intervening Obama is just creating more terrorists that hate us enough to attack us.

 

You would be wrong, I'm well acquainted with how the UN works. I support the US staying in it only for the veto power of having a say with our seat at the permanent UN Security Council. That's valuable, if for nothing else than not legitimizing barbarians to do things with the strength of the world behind them. The UN is actually quite worthless and has only accomplished one thing of value, the concerted effort to eradicate smallpox, that's it...

You are making a huge mistake in trying to judge Russia, and more particularly Putin on something so petty as money. What Putin brings to the table is will, and as the leader of a nation that demands to be lead, has far more weight than any dollar amount can ascertain...

Underestimating Putin could be a fatal error, nobody puts a military base in a country they aren't willing to defend...