Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

[Sausy]

It's not just Republicans opposed, but a good deal of Democrats. Whether Obama wants to strike or not, he will look like a failure with a no vote... it can't benefit him because he will have appeared to vacillate and become indecisive after appearing determined earlier to go it only with France and Turkey without Congressional approval. If this is a ruse to pull back the president's powers in deference to Congress regarding military interventions the way it would be played would not leave him in a stronger position against Putin or the Iranians. I wonder if the President were so brilliantly Machiavellian on this matter, what would be his end game vis a vis supporting the emerging surveillance state of the NSA? Or dramatically ramping up drone strikes and having it reported he personally can decide who will be taken out? He's doing bad stuff so it would be impossible to get away with future presidents doing bad stuff like this.. well, points for creativity but I just don't see it. Obama could be the President who would use the powers of his office to promote the good America can do, to provide real forward thinking leadership. In the end, he's just way out of his league, or supremely delusional... not brilliant.

 

[JayHawk]

It would appear that Assad's air force has been testing defences at a UK airbase in Cyprus from which American aircraft could launch operations against targets in Syria. The two Syrian air craft involved would make formidable adversaries:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/syrian-warplanes-flee-after-testing-2259425

No offense but they would die instantly. As would most other airforces

 

[JayHawk]

None of the parties are that foolish. If they thought they could make the blame stick on Assad, the terrorists and Islamists would do it in a minute... which maybe is what's happening now -- I still don't see any motive for Assad to have done this, though OTOH the younger brother isn't all that brilliant, so maybe....


Time for a leak from the White House that Obama is considering supporting the Kurds in seceding from Syria, to reduce the extent of the thing....

The Wizzard has a good point, Obama could be looking for a congressional get out of jail free card so he does not have to act.

As far as the country forces being smart enough not to attack Jordan, Israel or what not?? They are not the forces I consider the most likely to carry out such an attack, however with no government control in the vast region of Syria, the likelihood of a rogue agent is all that more likely. Look at the gas attack and its possible origins. Anarchy is just that.

 

[palbert]

Here we go with mission creep and expanding the argument. Now Obama's Chief of Staff brings Iran and nuclear proliferation into the mix.

McDonough says attack on Assad regime would send message to Iran

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/...-assad-regime-would-send-message-to-iran?lite

 

[MystikWizard]

If this is a ruse to pull back the president's powers in deference to Congress regarding military interventions the way it would be played would not leave him in a stronger position against Putin or the Iranians.

There really is thing of paranoia amongst so many interventionist thinkers such as you. "We have to be prepared against Russia ... we can't turn our back on Iran ... we got to constantly be down their throats and intimidate everyone around the world."

First, what is it about Russia that concerns you ... specifically about what you think they may want to do that would specifically harm U.S. interests?

As far as Iran ... what is it about Iran that concerns you? The fact they want to get a nuclear weapon? Do you think if they build this weapon, they are building one with the intention of attacking the U.S. with it? If so, why do you think that? Or is the more likely scenario is that it is an Israeli problem they have? If that is the case, since Israel has nukes, why don't we let Israel deal with that issue since it is really between them and Israel?

Obama could be the President who would use the powers of his office to promote the good America can do, to provide real forward thinking leadership. In the end, he's just way out of his league, or supremely delusional... not brilliant.

Yes, because we all know that we need to be the world's beacon in everything we do. We have to intervene in everyone's affairs because if we don't, then we just feel a little insecure about ourselves and our position in the global community.

You know why so many countries have issues with the U.S.? It's because we just can't seem to stay out of everyone else's business. Maybe if countries started focusing more on domestic issues instead of being paranoid about everyone else, we could really concentrate on doing "more good" for our own country instead of this lunacy that we need to be the global authority in any and all international matters.

I only wish our leadership spent half as much time thinking about the citizens of our own country instead of worrying about every other country's business.

 

[rareboy]

^ Nailed it.

 

[tigerfan482]

Here is another article from another writer sharing the same views that this is nothing more than political posturing from Obama and he really has no interest in attacking Syria.

But something good that may come out of it (at least some of us will feel it is a good thing) is that it will scale back the power of the Executive Branch when it comes to oversees involvement with the U.S. and help set precedent for the Executive Branch to involve Congress more in these decisions as opposed to ignoring the will of the American people and doing whatever the President wants to do on his own.

As far as the comments in bold above, to coincide with my last comments, I really think things need to be scaled back from the Executive Branch on being tasked with "doing things" anyway, and this responsibility needs to go back to the leaders in Congress to handle. I don't think it was ever the intention of the fathers of the Constitution to have the Executive Branch be tasked with "leading on all Legislative issues" anyway. Rather, their intention was three separate and equal branches of government with each branch having their own roles and responsibilities and each branch having their own checks and balances over the other branches.

I think the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders should be the ones tasked with the agenda-setting and the President needs to go back to being the Commander In Chief with expressed veto powers over their legislation as opposed to what we've seen these past few decades in the power grab of Presidents in the Executive Branch.

Anyway, here is another good commentary on this:
http://americablog.com/2013/09/president-obama-doesnt-want-attack-syria.html

So in terms of the articles, I don't believe that the President has ever wanted to go to war with other countries. The warmongering claims made by some necessarily require that the person is just looking for wars. The red line that was drawn is, like Obama said, a red line that has been (and should be) drawn by all civilized countries in the world. The use of weapons of mass destruction against populations of people, whether it be an internal conflict or an international one, should be abhorred and acted against by the international community. This isn't a situation where the President made some arbitrary line. It should even go without saying that countries that use these types of weapons should expect punishment from the international community, and I believe you would see a much more coordinated international response if it weren't for Russia vetoing any action on the Security Council. Just as one nation shouldn't be allowed to decide unilateral action against another, neither should one nation be able to stand in the way of the international community enforcing basic international norms.

On the topic of Executive power, the whole system of checks and balances sets up each branch to function, within their given role, independently of the others while still having a system of oversight from the other two. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He can direct the military to do what he wants. Congress can make laws regarding the military and their actions and can direct funding to either allow or disallow various activities, but it cannot pass laws that require the President to have to get approval from them before exercising his Constitutional powers. This is why administrations have held the position the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. If Congress doesn't want the military to be used in Syria, then they can pass a law that says such. However, they can't pass a law that says the President must get their permission before directing the military to act in Syria. The Executive Branch is charged with the day-to-day operations of the government and the enforcement of laws and so you will never see them with a reduced role in "doing things" since that is the purpose of that branch.

 

[Sausy]

Mystik, why the fuck do you say I'm interventionist... I'M NOT fucking SAYING THAT AT ALL. I'm saying if Obama is truly really acting to scam the neocons and other hawks the result will be to look like he is indecisive and incompetent. Weakness in that part of the world is something one can never show.This guy made it seem if he was elected he would get the whole world back on our side.... the world is even messier now and all it takes is the most malevolent of elements to take an increasingly chaotic situation and make it explode into something that can't be undone. Let fucking Iran go forward with their nukes... watch a whole bunch of neighboring states initiate nuclear programs. Russia is a poison that makes our questionable moral status look positively saintly. When you deal with a snake such as Putin, you better have steel and resolve because he's gonna play you hard if you don't.

No, we can't and SHOULDN'T be the world's policeman but we need to be very engaged with the world, because things don't become idealized and utopian just by the US minding its own business and going away. How do we counteract Russia and China, who don't even pretend to give a fig leaf about human rights? Military solutions should be the very last kind applied, and certainly in a situation such as Syria where there is no good outcome likely now, no long-term strategy for dealing with all possible contingencies.. absolutely NOT used. I'm not talking about attacking Iran either and would oppose that as well. Yet we do have to take Iran and Russia seriously, because they will NOT stop acting in their own interests because we turn a complete 360 from neocon interventionism to your precious but deeply misguided libertarian isolationism. If the President and his Administration is playing games(not as openly evident as John Mc Cain, but disturbing to ponder nonetheless), it's a horribly reckless one to play... yes, I would be happy if he would go along with Congress if it rejects the military strike. Yet the right move for the wrong reason would create doubt in both our friends and foes, and to those straddling that America really is serious enough to handle the tough issues... it's hard for me to picture it ending well, if indeed it were the plan all along.

 

[ChickenGuy]

The latest theory being floated is that Obama doesn't want to do this and never did, and is only doing so because of his 'red line', and so he is going to Congress because he secretly wants them to vote him down, thereby giving him an honourable exit strategy where he can then say "Well, I tried, but I respect the view of Congress on this. Mission is hereby cancelled."

Is that true?

Hope it isn't. I still support this action 100% and I sincerely hope it is passed and supported.

 

[kallipolis]

The latest theory being floated is that Obama doesn't want to do this and never did, and is only doing so because of his 'red line', and so he is going to Congress because he secretly wants them to vote him down, thereby giving him an honourable exit strategy where he can then say "Well, I tried, but I respect the view of Congress on this. Mission is hereby cancelled."

Is that true?

Hope it isn't. I still support this action 100% and I sincerely hope it is passed and supported.

This is plausible reasoning....and has been discussed here....but unless some one here can provide us with fly on the wall evidence that is the case such a theory remains just that....

 

[darden]

Is that true?

Hope it isn't. I still support this action 100% and I sincerely hope it is passed and supported.

I've heard the story... it sounded to me like trying to reframe a fuckup as playing three dimensional chess.

if Obama truly wanted Congress to vote no, I doubt he'd be spending so much of his political capital trying to get them to vote yes (going so far as to give an oval office speech in prime time tomorrow night to drum up public support)

 

[Sausy]

Let's see what kind of traction occurs regarding the latest push to avert strikes by having the Syrian government give up control of their chemical weapons to an international body. In what supposedly was an off the cuff comment by Secretary of State John Kerry on how Syrian President Bashar al Assad could avoid a US strike Kerry spoke about giving up control of his chemical weapons arsenal. While it was backtracked and downplayed by officials it caught on with the Russians who were pushing the Syrians to do exactly that, and the Syrian foreign minister spoke positively of the Syrian interest in following up on that and averting the strike. Is this all serious or a shell game? Assad actually giving up his chemical weapons, as opposed to stringing the international community along and trying to hold on to much if not most of it, seems more likely a bet. Yet the Russians don't have any interest in seeing a Wild West Syria with large portions controlled by Islamic radicals/terrorists who would love a lack of central authority and free rein to get as much of the chemical cache as possible should strikes occur and severely impede or lead to the topping of the Assad regime. As bad as the Russians are, they're coldly rational... what extremists are not.

 

[kallipolis]

^
This is a rational appreciation which fits in with my understanding that the military option was merely sabre rattling to engage Assad's attention while a much more pragmatic approach was being brokered by Obama with the Russians....which I hope will be the way ahead.

 

[darden]

great move by the Russians... if Syria destroys its chemical weapons and the US loses all reason to engage Syria militarily, the Russians and Iranians can continue supporting their man Assad.

all options at this stage are bad, but that's slightly less bad than getting entangled in the Syrian civil war ourselves.

 

[Jack Springer]

CrAzY DaY of news about Syria.

Will Obama cancel his speech Tuesday night? Who will he have standing behind him?

What a mess.

 

[CowboyBob]

It's pathetic some right wingers are giddy about this tragedy in Syria. Unfortunately they're using the Syria disaster to try and further their political agendas. It won't work.

Their hate needs to be focused on Assad, not the President of the United States.

 

[JayHawk]

This is amazing. Just some time and effort, along with using our process and the matter is working towards a potential conclusion. I am so glad the party in power isnt red. We would have launched missiles and landed troops last week.

 

[CowboyBob]

This is amazing. Just some time and effort, along with using our process and the matter is working towards a potential conclusion. I am so glad the party in power isnt red. We would have launched missiles and landed troops last week.

I was thinking the same thing. If McCain or *god forbid* Romney was in office now there would have been boots on the ground already and more American lives would have been wiped out.

 

[JayHawk]

Plus now we can use a tenth the national treasure to send food to those folks in need, which are the majority of the Syrian people. They have been devastated by drought and subsequent food shortages. We need to take a page from the terrorists and provide the people what they need, medical care, food and as much security as we can help establish via the UN, removal and destruction of WMDs, and helping to establish a rebel consolidated government that can focus the efforts of the many insurgent groups. In the end, they will remember we fed them.

 

[darden]

there's some risk in the plan before too many champagne corks get popped, though it's a better option than dropping bombs in the middle of a civil war between two groups that hate us.

the Russians jumped on it as a way to halt the march towards a U.S. attack and to put them back at the center of the international drama.

“As soon as I saw Kerry said that, I said: ‘He’s in trouble,’” Gelb said.

”The Russians saw the opening right away and Syrians saw the opening right away, now [U.S. officials] have got to play this card out,” Gelb said. “I think most people see the Russian and Syrian response as a canard to delay any action and maybe weaken it entirely, but nonetheless you cant now just ignore your own proposal and their acceptance of it.”

“In international politics, it’s all about who takes the initiative,” said Toby Gati, who headed up the State Department’s intelligence bureau under President Bill Clinton.

“The Russians saw this opening – and part of the appeal of the opening for them is to tie down Gulliver — that’s us. That’s why I’m concerned that this can turn into a proposal from hell,” she said. “It would take weeks to define what it means to get rid of chemical weapons, then teams will have to go in and find them and secure them and plan on how to destroy them, then we can start to argue about whether we have found all of them.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/syria-obama-accidental-diplomacy-96519.html#ixzz2eSeoEBVU