Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[nsaspook]

It seems I'm not alone.

And they are there.

They practice the words of Arnaud Amalric

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

 

[fargoth]

That's my problems with 'threats', it works until someone like Assad calls your bluff. Ok, we want to make a example of Assad but he's just the wrong person to kick in the shin as he has nothing to lose by kicking us in the groin.

But he does, he still thinks (and maybe correctly) that he can win this war - kicking the US in the groin would certainly make him lose, and he knows that.

 

[Borg]

Here's a few http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013

I know it's a serious threat but still - the Philippine http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/27/10_conflicts_to_watch_in_2013?page=0,12 couldn't come up with a better acronym?

 

[OmCheeto]

They practice the words of Arnaud Amalric

Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

This reminds me of Golda's purported quote:

השלום יבוא כאשר הערבים יאהבו את ילדיהם יותר מאשר הם שונאים אותנו

----------------------
There's a rule about speaking English in this forum. But, given the availability of google translate, I think we might only get half an infraction...

 

[nsaspook]

There's a rule about speaking English in this forum. But, given the availability of google translate, I think we might only get half an infraction...

I should get one for the incomplete quote.

Yes, you can't figure out who's killing whom without a program.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/31/217574150/president-obama-to-speak-on-syria

It seems Obama has effectively shifted the responsibility of potential interference with Syria to Congress, rather than making it a decision of his own.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It seems Obama has effectively shifted the responsibility of potential interference with Syria to Congress, rather than making it a decision of his own.

As, according to the Constitution, he should.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

As, according to the Constitution, he should.

Precisely. I'm all for his decision, and am glad that he ignored the opinions of some of his senior advisors.

 

[OmCheeto]

Precisely. I'm all for his decision, and am glad that he ignored the opinions of some of his senior advisors.

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

 

[jim hardy]

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

CFR
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139457/andrew-j-tabler/syrias-collapse

To stop Syria’s meltdown and contain its mushrooming threats, the United States needs a new approach, one that starts with a partial military intervention aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table...

The United States should start by deterring the regime from using its most lethal tools, namely surface-to-surface missiles and chemical weapons. Such deterrence will require taking out the bombs filled with sarin gas that, according to The New York Times, were placed last year “near or on” Syrian air bases...

Second, to protect Syrians in opposition-controlled territory from attacks by the regime’s Scud missiles and fixed-wing aircraft, the United States should establish 50- to 80-mile-deep safe areas within Syria along its borders...


Third, Washington needs to work directly with opposition forces on the ground in Syria ...

sure 'nuff, that's been the mantra.

 

[Vanadium 50]

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

Front page of Friday's Washington Post.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Given that this week in the UK parliament voted against the prime ministers proposal for military intervention I was surprised to discover via the news that Obama could have pushed through his proposal without congress.

 

[Vanadium 50]

CNN reported today that the President is considering acting even if Congress votes no. That, in my view, would be very bad: Congress has the sole power to declare war. One can argue that the President's authority as Commander-In-Chief allows him to take military action without Congressional approval in certain cases - such as repelling an attack - but to have Congress vote not to strike and have the President do so anyway would cause a Constitutional crisis.

Additionally, should this come to pass, it is entirely possible that the commanding general of Centcom will refuse an order to attack under the grounds that the order is unlawful. That would make a political mess that will take years - maybe even decades = to sort out.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know that it would cause a constitutional crisis, there are legal justifications:

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600702/can-obama-strike-syria-without-congress-consent/

Regardless, I do think it would make Obama look really bad, both nationally and internationally. He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about his national image lately though.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about his national image lately though.

I don't know why your comment brought an old post to mind, but it did.

And I'd counter with the fact the congress doesn't seem to give a shaving cream about their image lately, either.

 

[Pythagorean]

As far as I've remembered in my little anecdotal world, congress has never really had to rely on their image. I guess a final-term president doesn't, either.

 

[russ_watters]

Since such actions have been done many times before and never caused a constitutional crisis before, I don't see why this would.

But now I'm leaning toward him doing nothing anyway. He's really painted himself into a tight corner.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't support military intervention by the west. At the very least there needs to be more time to let UN inspectors to do their work and return with solid data. What I would support though is immediate delivery of medical supplies, particularly Nerve Agent Antidote Kits, to as many people as possible in areas of conflict.

Turns out there's a white house petition for this now:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-instead-attacking-syria-government/lbzm6x5c

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since such actions have been done many times before and never caused a constitutional crisis before, I don't see why this would.

There have been cases where Congress has said nothing and the President has acted. But have there been prior cases where Congress - who holds the sole power to declare war - has said "No, do not declare war" and the President has attacked anyway?

 

[lisab]

The Arab League has urged the UN to take action against Syria:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html

Their pleas will probably fall on deaf ears in the Security Council (Russia, China).

If non-US PFers haven't picked up on it, there is a growing sentiment in the US to just keep out of the business of other countries. More specifically, Americans ask, "Why us? Why are WE the world's police?"

The Arab League's members have more than enough resources to take care of this themselves. So what if they did? Could the US, France, and maybe the UK give them cover in the UN?

Personally, I back Obama on his views on this, that it's an atrocity that must not be shrugged off. I'm weary as hell of war but I can't believe the world is willing to let this go unpunished. I can only hope that we won't look back on this in 30 years and just hang our heads in regret. So if the Arab League wants to step in and do what should be done, my hat is off to them in making this tough moral and political decision.

 

[Pythagorean]

The MP's voting against Cameron basically said that there wasn't enough evidence that the regime was responsible for the attack.

 

[lisab]

The MP's voting against Cameron basically said that there wasn't enough evidence that the regime was responsible for the attack.

Sadly, I think they were using the war in Iraq to guide their decision. What do they say about Generals -- "They are always fighting the last war." Seems the same can be said for politicians. What a sad legacy of the Iraq debacle, because...

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

--Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-a_n_386837.html

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree with the point that force can be necessary, but I have no idea about what's really happening or the evidence. I know that news stations in the U.S. were spinning the Muslim Brotherhood as freedom fighter's at one point, but they're just as violent and power-hungry as Assad. So I guess I just feel like I can't take overseas info for granted.

And it's true, the deal with Bush's WMDs probably influences my vicarious hesitation, too.

 

[jim hardy]

Lisa I don't know quite how to interpret that article you linked.

The headline infers it is the official position of the league

Arab League urges UN-backed action in Syria
Foreign ministers seek "necessary deterrent measures" against Syrian regime ...

but when I read the body it backs down quite a bit.

First line:

Arab League foreign ministers have urged ...

... oh, just the ministers not the league itself?

Saudi Arabia and the Syrian opposition pleaded with League members..

... oh, just two of them ?

However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention.

Two for, five against ?

That's about same as public opinion here in US.

 

[lisab]

Lisa I don't know quite how to interpret that article you linked.

The headline infers it is the official position of the league



but when I read the body it backs down quite a bit.

First line: ... oh, just the ministers not the league itself?

... oh, just two of them ?



Two for, five against ?

There are 22 countries in the Arab League: Alegria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan,Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. I don't know what the final tally was, who was for/against intervention. But I think it's a fair guess that there was at least a simple majority voting "for" in order for the League to come out as "for".

That's about same as public opinion here in US.

Public opinion is not always right.

Weird, I last felt this way was in the lead up to the Iraq War. Everyone, everywhere was banging the drums of war. Public opinion was all about shock and awe and waving the flag. I felt like a lone voice saying, "No this can't be wise, and where's the proof?" Now everyone is seeing thousands of civilians GASSED to death and they say, "Look it's not our problem, move along, there's nothing to see here, let's just pretend it didn't happen." I say, we need to do something about this, how can everyone be so indifferent? Am I the lone voice again?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Lisa, I think there are a couple of reasons for this. One is the purpose of a US attack. If it's to remove the ability of the government to use chemical weapons again, this will take a lot more than a handful of airstrikes. If it's to dissuade the Syrian government from using them again because they have been "punished", the punishment will have to be severe, else they will conclude "that wasn't so bad". Again, a few airstrikes are unlikely to accomplish this objective.

The second is the likely outcome. On one side, we have a brutal dictatorship. On the other, we have people who want a new brutal dictatorship that they are in charge of. This may make things worse and not better.

The third is that there have been claims of both sides using chemical weapons. If that turns out to be the case, what should the US do? Bomb both sides?

Finally, the timing is very odd. Why now? Why not months ago when they started? And why before the UN report? If this is to prevent future use, wouldn't it have made more sense to have acted at the start? And if it's to punish past behavior, shouldn't we wait until we get that report?

 

[jim hardy]

You said it Lisa - "Where's the proof"

Just speaking for myself i can't get behind this until I'm more sure I'm not being lied to.

There's plenty of tabloid sites out there blaming this on everybody from the Saudis to the Brits to the CIA.

When I go looking for something credible all I can find is crumbs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962.html
From that WSJ article:

Officials inside the Central Intelligence Agency knew that Saudi Arabia was serious about toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud to lead the effort.

They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn't: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout.

Prince Bandar—for two decades one of the most influential deal makers in Washington as Saudi ambassador but who had largely disappeared from public view—is now reprising his role as a geopolitical operator. This time it is to advance the Saudi kingdom's top foreign-policy goal, defeating Syrian President Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

......
...
...

Not everyone in the Obama administration is comfortable with the new U.S. partnership with the Saudis on Syria. Some officials said they fear it carries the same risk of spinning out of control as an earlier project in which Prince Bandar was involved—the 1980s CIA program of secretly financing the Contras in Nicaragua against a leftist government. The covert program led to criminal convictions for U.S. operatives and international rebukes.

"This has the potential to go badly," one former official said, citing the risk weapons will end up in the hands of violent anti-Western Islamists.

For all I know this could be Saddam's leftover nerve gas and it got set off by accident..

with all those spies involved - I don't know what to believe.

Only thing certain is all those folks it killed.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

As far as I've remembered in my little anecdotal world, congress has never really had to rely on their image. I guess a final-term president doesn't, either.

Congress doesn't really have to, but individuals Congresspeople do. However, constituents adore their specific Congressperson (90% incumbency re-election rate), but Congress as a whole is hated.

 

[russ_watters]

There have been cases where Congress has said nothing and the President has acted. But have there been prior cases where Congress - who holds the sole power to declare war - has said "No, do not declare war" and the President has attacked anyway?

I don't think it has ever happened. What makes you think it would happen here? And you're not equating a vote to reject approval of use of force with a vote stating not to use force, are you? I'm not sure if that has happened either, but they wouldn't be the same thing.

And regardless, you shouldn't be using the terminology "declare war". It is obsolete/irrelevant. It hasn't been used in 70 years and certainly is not on the table here.

 

[russ_watters]

The Arab League has urged the UN to take action against Syria:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html

Their pleas will probably fall on deaf ears in the Security Council (Russia, China).

If non-US PFers haven't picked up on it, there is a growing sentiment in the US to just keep out of the business of other countries. More specifically, Americans ask, "Why us? Why are WE the world's police?"

The Arab League's members have more than enough resources to take care of this themselves. So what if they did? Could the US, France, and maybe the UK give them cover in the UN?

Personally, I back Obama on his views on this, that it's an atrocity that must not be shrugged off. I'm weary as hell of war but I can't believe the world is willing to let this go unpunished. I can only hope that we won't look back on this in 30 years and just hang our heads in regret. So if the Arab League wants to step in and do what should be done, my hat is off to them in making this tough moral and political decision.

30 years? We'll know for sure either way in a few MONTHS. Clinton did when he erred by not doing anything about Rwanda. Does anyone actually believe that the Syrian civil war will get LESS violent if we do nothing? The smart money would say that in a few months, tens of thousands more will be dead from dozens of chemical weapons attacks. That's my bet if we do nothing. It may even still happen if we just lob a few cruise missiles: a shot across the bow only works if they think you're serious about sinking the ship and Obama has already assured Assad he won't.

And the question of "why us" has been answered before and is being answered again here: if we don't, no one else will. No one else has the moral fortitude to act when acting is necessary.