Breaking: Obama to ask Congress for approval to Strike Syria

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/c...us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

A look at major U.S. military strikes as ordered by the last five U.S. presidents and the degree of international support behind the actions.

RONALD REAGAN

—Beirut (1982-83): U.S. troops deployed to Lebanon as part of a three-nation peacekeeping force. Reagan ordered limited airstrikes, with France, to retaliate for 1983 bombing on military barracks that killed 299 U.S. and French troops.

—Grenada (1983): Invasion by an estimated 7,000 U.S. troops and 300 Organization of American States troops after a government coup; was condemned by Britain and the U.N. but supported by six Caribbean island nations that said it was justified under the OAS charter.

—Libya (1986): Airstrikes to punish leader Moammar Gadhafi’s regime for a Berlin disco explosion that wounded U.S. 79 Americans and killed two. The U.K. supported the strikes but the U.N. General Assembly condemned them.

GEORGE H.W. BUSH

—Panama (1989): Invasion by more than 26,000 troops after dictator Manuel Noriega declared war on the U.S. for sanctions on its drug-trafficking government. A U.S. Marine was killed after Noriega declared war but before the invasion began.

—Iraq (1991): Invasion of Iraq with troops from 33 other counties to enforce U.N. Security Council resolution that ordered Saddam Hussein to withdraw forces from Kuwait.

—Somalia (1992): Deployed troops for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid mission under U.N. Security Council resolution.

BILL CLINTON

—Iraq (1993): Launched cruise missiles into Baghdad, hitting Iraqi intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.

(probable response in Syria)

—Somalia (1993): Increased troop deployment for security and stability mission with 35 other nations under U.N. Security Council resolution.

—Haiti (1994) Deployed troops for peacekeeping and nation-building mission as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.

—Bosnia (1994-96): Launched airstrikes with NATO allies over 18 months, culminating with bombings, artillery attacks and cruise missile strikes against Bosnia Serbs, by request of U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali and to enforce no-fly zones as authorized by at least three U.N. Security Council resolutions. Deployed troops in year-long NATO peacekeeping mission.

—Iraq (1996): Launched cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq in retaliation against attacks on U.S. jets enforcing no-fly zones to protect Iraqi minorities as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.

—Sudan, Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation against U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 220 people, including 12 Americans.

—Iraq (1998): Launched cruise missiles and airstrikes on a number of Baghdad targets to punish Saddam Hussein for not complying with U.N. chemical weapons inspections as required under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

—Kosovo: (1999): Launched airstrikes and cruise missiles over more than three months at Yugoslavian military targets, power stations, bridges and other facilities as part of NATO mission.

GEORGE W. BUSH

—Afghanistan (2001): Invaded as part of NATO mission after attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. There are currently about 100,000 troops from 48 countries in Afghanistan with the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force, 60,000 of them American. By the end of this year, the NATO force will be halved, and all foreign combat troops are to leave by the end of next year.

—Iraq (2003): Invaded with “coalition of the willing” of 48 nations to overthrow Saddam Hussein. As many as 160,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at the peak of the war and all forces withdrew in December 2011 as required under a security agreement between Iraq and the U.S.

BARACK OBAMA

—Libya (2011): Launched cruise missiles and commanded initial international military operation to enforce U.N. Security Council resolution that called for a ceasefire in the Libyan civil war and established a no-fly zone.

—Osama bin Laden (2011): While not an attack on a foreign nation, the raid that killed the al-Qaida leader is considered one of the Obama administration’s top military and intelligence successes and was carried out without permission from Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding.

ALSO NOTED:

—Hundreds of deadly drone strikes have been carried out on al-Qaida targets during the Obama and the George W. Bush presidencies. The vast majority of them have been in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. It’s disputed whether the governments of all of those nations have given the U.S. permission for the strikes.

 

Smart move by Obama. The international community isn't with him on this (not even a coalition of the willing!) many his own party aren't with him on this (kucinich said he should be impeached if he did it) and the republicans were eager to hold this up.

Obama just made a brilliant political decision, something he's always been good at. He's washing his hands, just like Pilate, and throwing the decision to the mob that is the wacko house.

 

Again, there is really no rush to do something. Just the 'impending' nature of the threat is what can move issue. forward.

House to consider Syria military action September 9 week: Boehner
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-house-idUSBRE97U0C720130831

 

comrade putin, you have a superbowl ring in your possession. the least you can do for us is keep syria in check. In return, I will voluntarily go to glorious soviet union and make babies with your women to increase population!

good 'strategery' by obama. =)

 

Hhhmmmm . . . I wonder if Sept 11th will be brought up and used for either side.


Rocket River

 

This is a good move by POTUS. Not only because it is the right thing to do (it is), but because politically, it gives him cover.

Obama was too exposed on this. If anything went wrong, the blame would be completely, 100% laid at his feet and the Dems would feel it in 2014 and 2016 at the ballot box. Now, no matter how the vote goes, it will allow him to spread at least some of the blame for what will almost inevitably be a bad situation either way around, especially to his political enemies at home.

If Congress votes not to intervene and we don't intervene, then POTUS and Congressional Dems will point to the people dying in Syria and say "We could have saved those people, but those damned obstructionist Republicans in Congress blocked us". It will be total BS but the media will play it as truth and people will buy it.

If Congress votes to authorize force and things go badly, POTUS will point to what would have to have been a bipartisan vote in support of the use of force and say "Look, we are all in this together, it's not all my fault...", and absolve himself and his party of some of the blame.

The only really, really bad path for POTUS would be if Congress denies authorization and he goes ahead with it anyway. There's really not good outcome from that course for anybody, really. But I think that's unlikely.

I believe that POTUS wants a an opportunity at climbdown from the cliff he's forced himself onto with his "red line" comments. He is probably hoping that Congress denies him his request so that he can use it for political purposes in 2014/2016 and so that he has an excuse not to proceed.

He's really forcing the Republicans into a corner here. They can deny him authorization (which they should) and risk political fallout in upcoming elections - even if such fallout would be based upon a disingenuous argument - of they can share the risk in a ridiculously high risk / low return situation. Meanwhile, POTUS's own Congressional party members will be relatively safe to vote their conscience (many oppose intervention for a variety of reasons), leaving it up to the Republicans in the House and a few in the Senate to take the fall for a bad outcome. It's a smart move on his part, probably his best move at this point.

 

He's trying to climb down from the rookie mistake he made of drawing a red line that later forced him into an un-sensible option. It's good that he's backing down off that and trying to use Congress as an out, but he looks amateurish being in the situation in the first place.

 

I'm not sure if it's a good move yet. I need to see what some 11 year-olds on facebook are saying before I can make a final judgment.

 

Obama is in his fifth season, the Joint chiefs are veteran players too, the NSA is in it 12th year on steroids.

So what are the neocon boys recommending as the right and proper American action? The veteran play.

 

Putin is smelling blood as Obama retreats...

Analysis: Putin sees chance to turn tables on Obama at G20

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-russia-g20-analysis-idUSBRE98007P20130901

(Reuters) - Less than three months after Vladimir Putin was cast as a pariah over Syria at the last big meeting of world leaders, the Russian president has glimpsed a chance to turn the tables on Barack Obama.

The U.S. president's dilemma over a military response to an alleged poison gas attack in Syria means Obama is the one who is under more pressure going into a G20 summit in St Petersburg on Thursday and Friday.

Obama stepped back from the brink on Saturday, delaying any imminent strike to seek approval from the U.S. Congress.

Yet at a G8 summit in Northern Ireland in June, Putin was isolated over his backing for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and scowled his way through talks with Obama, who later likened him to a "bored kid in the back of the classroom".

Putin has ignored the jibe and stood his ground over Assad, dismissing Obama's allegations that Syrian government forces carried out a chemical weapons attack on August 21.

Buoyed by growing pressure on the U.S., French and British leaders over Syria, the former KGB spy has also now hit back in comments referring ironically to Obama as a Nobel Peace laureate and portraying U.S. global policy as a failure.

 

I think he has a chance to win in congress, but I think he has to change his line of reasoning.

I think everyone believes that Assad's regime used chemical weapons at this point. He needs to stop focusing on that.

The thing he's focused on the second most is how we can't let the use of Chem weapons go unpunished etc.

What I think Obama needs to focus on is how will some limited strikes really teach Assad a lesson. What's to prevent Assad from hunkering down and after two days of missile strikes just continuing business as usual. Make the case of what the missile strikes will accomplish.

The other thing is make clear contingency plans about what happens if Assad is pissed off and launches more chem attacks, or attacks Israel, or gets another group to attack Israel. Will that lead into the open ended engagement that Obama says won't happen? What will the response be?

If Obama can focus on those aspects, then there's a good chance he'll win congress approval.

 

totally agree except its a brilliant move. and it will go further than this issue. now when the southern regional party threatens to not raise the debt ceiling or shut down the government Obama can always point to this and say he is willing to compromise

 

They can probably express themselves better than you are able to, so that seems like a good idea.

 

I think Obama looked into putin's eyes and saw his soul

 

OOOOOHHHHHH Buuuurrrrnnnn!

You are so darn witty. LOL!

I love how you have nothing to say on topic, and only tried to post this as an insult and more of your half-assed attempts at internet bullying, and this is the best you come up with?

 

Note the whiny tone...after this:

So that was on topic?

Don't whine about constantly getting owned. If you think it is a good idea to get into it with people who are clearly your intellectual superior, don't be surprised if you get burned.

 

You can imagine whatever tone makes you feel better, but I guarantee there was no whining on this end.

As far as on topic... Nope mine wasn't on topic at all, but it was infinitely more interesting than your attempted burn. Mainly because I didn't put any effort into it, and and it was playful and jovial instead of the post you make in which you seem to have to try so hard. You're just off tone.

I haven't been owned, and haven't whined about anything. I won't be surprised at all if I get burned. So far you haven't really been able to do it, despite your weak off target attempts.

Now please post an unfunny internet pic, or gif in attempt to save face since it appears you don't really have anything more interesting to say.

 

More whining from the teacher who can't spell and who constantly gets owned.