Well, then this war in Syria should please you greatly, since it's defined by a sectarian rift between Sunni and Shi'ites.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE97N03E20130824 Iran's Rouhani says chemical weapons killed people in Syria
Couldn't care less what Iran says. I think there was probably a viable window for intervention back in 2011 when the war was relatively fresh and the rebels had not yet been compromised by the radical islamist elements, particularly AQ. But now... What the hell are we supposed to do? Exactly what will launching a few cruise missiles at Assad's forces accomplish? Militarily it will likely accomplish nothing significant. If I could I'd take every woman and child out of that area and let every man who wanted to stay and fight all kill each other until there was only one left standing. But we can't do that. I pray for those kids, I pray for the innocents caught in the battle, I pray for those Syrians who actually want freedom and an end to this carnage. Problem is, the "good guys" aren't exactly good guys anymore. The rebels are hopelessly compromised at this point. Understand that many of them are the exact same people who facilitated the jihadist war against us in Iraq for nearly a decade. How do you think they were able to organize and mount a viable resistance to Assad's regular forces so quickly and effectively? They'd been facilitating the fight against us in Iraq and they learned how to do it. Most of the foreigners we fought in Iraq came via Syria, and the current "rebels" are the ones who made it happen. These are not good guys. Unfortunately, there are genuine good guys in Syria - just as the were in Iraq - but it's impossible to separate them from the really bad ones. I am still not convinced that Assad perpetrated this attack, mainly because 1) they have nothing really to gain from it (and much to potentially lose), and 2) I know that the AQ types are not above martyring a bunch of innocent people for propaganda purposes. That's their M.O., in fact. And our options for intervention are not good. Sure we can lob some cruise missiles into the area, and it will change nothing. We can mount a sustained air campaign and set up a no-fly zone, which will also not have much of an impact since Assad is not really using his air forces in this fight. We can put boots on the ground and try and keep the peace - anyone up for throwing in 200k-300k troops into the middle of another Middle Eastern civil war? I didn't think so. Last option is to make targeted strikes against known CBW sites and stockpiles - either via air or by putting boots on the ground (think SOF or USMC going ashore to secure/destroy chemical weapons and then exiting the area)... The only one I'd support would be the last one, and even then only if we had actionable intelligence that they intended to deploy such weapons or were attempting to transfer them to Hizbollah. And even then... Still reluctant. We need to trad VERY lightly on this one. The clusterf^k potential of this conflict is even higher than it was in Iraq.
You probably won't like it, but... http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm He has the authority to do it. Of course he is supposed to be restricted by this: http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm but he ignored it in Libya, so whatevs. Laws only apply to the little people... But, yes, he does have the legal authority to act militarily in this case if he chooses to do so. I haven't read it in awhile but I believe he is to consult with Congress within 30 days , and gain approval by day 60. But it's late and it's been awhile since I've read it... It's there for you to read. Checks and balances are great. Especially when people actually abide by them.
Because of the chaos and terrorism in post Gaddhafi Libya, and the support of Russia and Iran, Assad believes that Obama just doesn't have the balls to attack Syria. He's right.
Actually, they were pretty rational. Not a decision that worked out, but there were some pretty good and logical reasons there. Most world leaders are far more rational and predictable than we give them credit for - and that includes the "crazies" like Saddam Hussein, etc. Power corrupts, but it also provides very strong incentive to survive, and that helps make people predictable.
That's the War Powers Resolution of 1973. I posted text of it in the earlier response. Here is a good explanation of it: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php There's nothing anywhere that specifically authorizes a POTUS to engage in hostilities without the consent of Congress. Congress, of course, reserves the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution places specific limits on what the POTUS can do in that regard. It's generally held that the effect of the law is that no President may commit the armed forces to hostilities for longer than 60 days without direct authorization from Congress, and that POTUS is to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours detailing any such action. A strict interpretation of the law may lead one to think that no POTUS may commit the armed forces to hostilities for any reason other than the following situations: (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. But in practice it has never been interpreted that way. It is simply held that there is a 60 day time limit for any action unless POTUS seeks authorization from Congress (Authorization for the Use of Military Force, AUMF, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq), we are directly attacked, or Congress declares war. O ignored this in Libya; Clinton ignored it in Kosovo, and Reagan ignored with regards to Nicaragua. No one's feet have ever been held to the fire on it, and the literal interpretation of it has never been applied, only the timeline and reporting requirements. Several House members actually took Clinton to court over the Kosovo episode, but the court ruled in Clinton's favor, saying that the House members did not have standing. I wouldn't hold my breath for action by the House if anything happens with Syria, if I were you.
The argument about why the War Powers Act has never been strictly interpreted is pretty simple because such would actually infringe upon the ability of the Commander in Chief to commit US troops in the case of an emergency. You would have to wait for Congress to determine if the emergency met the criteria stated above. Not saying that Presidents haven't abused the act but the act does have some very practical problems.
Obama's feckless foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, may actually work to our advantage, at least in this scenario. The longer the Syrian civil war rages the longer Syria cannot participate in destabilizing that part of the world. I cannot grieve over Assad's loss of resources, including his armed forces. I cannot grieve over Al-Qaeda's losses in terms of men and materiel. I can only hope for perpetual equilibrium in their civil war -- and our continuing non-involvement.
It sounds an awful lot like a decision has already been made. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-doesnt-congress-intervene-syria-221132330.html Combined with the "We don't need proof, we are sure Assad did it, and we reject Assad's offer to inspect the site because the site's too contaminated anyway" rhetoric, it sounds like a decision has been made to launch some sort of attack against Syrian government forces. Per the War Powers resolution the administration is to brief Congress within 48 hours of hostilities, and it sounds like that has already started. I don't know what assets we have in the Med right now, I know we usually have a CVBG on station. Of course we have assets in Europe as well that could participate (assuming host countries allowed it, but it sounds like the Euros are on board for doing something in this case). And of course we have strategic assets (think B-2s and such). We have lots of options. We always do. The question is what we will do with them. If we are just going to launch a few cruise missiles, what's the point? It will change nothing at all on the ground. If we launch a sustained air campaign we can reduce Assad's assets on the ground over time, and we can disrupt his C4I assets, but still, is it enough to tip the balance? And do we *want* to tip that balance? If Assad falls does anyone really think that the rebels will all of a sudden create a unified, peaceful, nonaggressive state in its stead? It's highly likely that they will quickly break into factionalism in the event of an Assad regime collapse, with liberal moderates (likely outnumbered and outgunned) standing off against radical types like Al Nusra, who would get overwhelming support from jihadists abroad. The likely outcome is a fractured Syria with Al Qaeda allies in control of large swaths of real estate, fighting Syrian moderates and Iranian-supported guerillas and Hizbollah for the forseeable future. Al Qaeda will finally have its little mini-state in the ME from which to export its jihad. So... To what end are we about to intervene in Syria? What is the endgame? I wonder... how many liberals will line up to endorse Obama's Syria war. Surely they will oppose this one as they opposed Bush's wars, no? (OK, that last bit was trolling, but the rest is honest food for thought )
OK, just checked, looks like we have a fresh CVBG in the area. USS Harry S. Truman group. http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=76020 Most of the news reports have indicated a limited force consisting of Tomahawk-capable ships, but with a CVBG in the area we have a very wide range of options. If this turns out to just be a few pointless cruise missiles fired then... Waste of money and effort, and it's all just for PR. With a CVBG in the ares we could do serious damage to the Assad regime, but again... to what end?
I agree. It won't go well. This is a situation that would require boots on the ground - lots of them - to resolve satisfactorily. I don't think we're prepared to do that. Nor should we be,
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bWh9UDYCfyI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
15 Signs That Obama Has Already Made The Decision To Go To War With Syria Following John Kerry's press briefing, it appears the Obama administration seems absolutely determined to help radical Islamic jihadists that have beheaded Christians, that have massacred entire Christian villages, and that have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda topple the Assad regime and take over Syria. Yes, the Assad regime is horrible, but if these jihadist lunatics take control it will destabilize the entire region, make the prospect of a major regional war much more probable, and plunge the entire nation of Syria into a complete and utter nightmare. It has been estimated that somewhere around 100,000 people have already been killed in the civil war in Syria, and now it looks like the U.S. military and the rest of NATO plan to become directly involved in the conflict. The Obama administration is actually considering an attack on Syria even though the American people are overwhelmingly against it, Obama does not have Congressional approval to start a war, and he will never get approval for military action from the UN because it will be blocked by Russia. This is setting up to become a colossal foreign policy disaster for the United States. A potential war with Syria has been brought to the forefront because of a chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week that killed as many as 1,400 people. The Obama administration and several other western nations are blaming this attack on the Assad regime. But others are pointing out that it would make absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to do such a thing. They appear to be winning the civil war, and Assad knows that Obama has previously said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a "red line" for the United States. So why would the Assad regime launch a brutal chemical weapons attack against women and children just miles from where UN inspectors were staying? Why would Assad risk war with the United States and the rest of NATO? Assad would have to be extremely stupid or extremely suicidal to do such a thing. The ones that benefit from this chemical weapons attack are the jihadist rebels. The odds of foreign intervention in the conflict just went way, way up. We will probably never learn the real truth about who was actually behind that attack. And even if it had not happened, the U.S. and the rest of NATO would have probably come up with another justification to go to war anyway. They appear absolutely obsessed with getting rid of Assad, but they have not really thought through the consequences. The following are 15 signs that Obama has already made the decision to go to war with Syria... #1 Syria has agreed to allow UN officials to inspect the site of the recent chemical weapons attack that killed up to 1,400 people, but a "senior U.S. official" says that such an inspection would be "too late to be credible". #2 According to ABC News, the White House is saying that there is "very little doubt" that the Assad regime was behind the deadly chemical weapons attack last week. #3 Four U.S. warships with ballistic missiles are moving into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. If the command is given, they will be able to rain Tomahawk cruise missiles down on targets inside Syria within minutes... U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria. U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military actions, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government. #4 CBS News is reporting that "the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a Cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces". #5 On Saturday, Barack Obama met with his national security team to discuss what actions should be taken in Syria. #6 U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says that Barack Obama has asked him to "prepare options for all contingencies" as far as a conflict with Syria is concerned. #7 After a phone conversation with British Prime Minister David Cameron about the situation in Syria, the White House announced that both leaders expressed "grave concern" about the chemical weapons attack that took place last week. #8 Military commanders from the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, Italy and Canada are meeting in Amman, Jordan on Sunday to coordinate plans for upcoming attacks on Syria. #9 According to France’s second largest newspaper, rebel forces that have been trained by the CIA have been pouring toward Damascus "since mid-August"... According to our information, the regime's opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos moving towards Damascus since mid-August. This attack could explain the possible use of the Syrian president to chemical weapons. According to information obtained by Le Figaro , the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17. A second would have joined the 19. According to military sources, the Americans, who do not want to put troops on the Syrian soil or arming rebels in part controlled by radical Islamists form quietly for several months in a training camp set up at the border Jordanian- Syrian fighters ASL, the Free Syrian Army, handpicked. #10 The U.S. military moved a significant number of F-16 fighter jets to Jordan earlier this year for military exercises, and kept them there afterward "at the request of the Jordanian government". #11 According to a government document that Wikileaks released back in March 2012, NATO personnel have been on the ground inside Syria preparing for regime change since 2011. #12 The Times of Israel is reporting that an internal military assessment has concluded that "Washington is seriously considering a limited yet effective attack that will make it clear to the regime in Damascus that the international community will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction against Syrian civilians or any other elements". #13 U.S. Senator John McCain recently said that if the U.S. military does not hit Syria, it will be like "writing a blank check to other brutal dictators around the world if they want to use chemical weapons". #14 According to the New York Times, "the NATO air war in Kosovo" is being studied "as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations". #15 The White House has released a statement that says that the Obama administration has no plans to put "boots on the ground", but it did not rule out any other types of military action. This is not a conflict that the U.S. military should be involved in. And we should especially not be on the side of the rabidly anti-Christian, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western forces that are attempting to take control of Syria. The terrorists that the Obama administration is backing are absolutely psychotic. Just check out the following example from a recent article posted on the Blaze... New video posted on YouTube purports to show the graphic murder – execution style – of three Syrian truck drivers who did nothing more than belong to a minority faith the local Al Qaeda affiliate does not like. In the video, a small band of Islamist radicals with the Al Qaeda-linked ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) group is seen waving the tractor trailers off the side of an Iraqi road and then proceeds to interrogate the unsuspecting drivers about their prayer habits, trying to discover if they are Sunnis or members of the Alawite minority in Syria. When they “fail” the Sunni jihadis’ pop roadside quiz, the truck drivers are seated in a line in the median of the road and shot in the back of their heads firing squad style by the self-appointed law enforcers, jury, judge and executioner. Why in the world would the United States want to arm such people? Why in the world would the United States want to go to war to help such people take power? It is utter insanity. And as I mentioned earlier, most Americans are totally against getting involved. According to a stunning new poll, 60 percent of all Americans are against U.S. military intervention in Syria, and only 9 percent are in favor of it. So in light of all that you have just read, why is the Obama administration so determined to help the rebels in Syria? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...-obama-has-already-made-decision-go-war-syria
