Osler's Razor

1) Going to Congress too clever by half. And unprecedented. In general, Presidents go to Congress to ask for authorization to wage war against an aggressor nation. No aggression here. Moreover, it reads more like a "last resort" (as one conservative columnist labeled it). It looked like the President was "warrant shopping."

As for the vote, I think the Senate is a slam dunk but the House is extremely close (probably similar to the recent NSA vote, where the division broke along non-partisan lines and leadership had to whip votes to bring in a thin win for the administration). And, best-case scenario, Nancy Pelosi has to twist the arms of anti-war Dems into reluctant support of the President, and the administration wins in a squeaker, which yields something far short of a moral mandate.

2. Killing Syrian civilians via remote control with bombs marked "Made in the USA" for no strategic advantage is really bad policy on every level. The one exception would be a lucky shot that takes out Assad in which case all the awkwardness and bumbling would be immediately forgotten and the Obama administration would instantly go into the Hall of Fame of foreign policy geniuses.
 

WF-- I agree with you about the wisdom of an attack. Not about going to Congress, though...

Going to Congress for a resolution against a non-aggressor nation isn't "unprecedented"-- in fact, it was just 11 years ago that George W. Bush pushed through Public Law No 107-243, the Iraq Resolution, which was premised on "Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population," and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against its own people.

Like Obama, Bush was wrong to go to war, but right to go to Congress.
 

Busy day, will try to comment more later. For now, I'll answer as such (in my personal, not official, capacity):

1. Yes, it was smart of the President to go to Congress.

2. No, it is not a good idea to take military action.
 

Woo hoo! I'm always happy to agree with (and often defer to) Campbell.
 

Hi Mark,

I respectfully disagree that these two situations are in any way analogous.

A closer inspection of the resolutions from Public Law 107-243 will show that the tiny phrase you quote was a very minor element in a laundry list of complaints.

Also, the run-up to the resolution entailed months of discussion among experts, elected reps, allies, and the public.

Also, the vote in Congress was overwhelmingly in favor (I think we can safely predict that will not be the case in this case).

Also, because of the executive preparation re public opinion, the public opinion polling was overwhelming in favor of the resolution (again, obviously not the case for this action; in fact, the public revulsion with this possible action is definitely, inarguably "UNPRECEDENTED" in the modern era, which certainly adds to the "unprecedentedness" of this entire affair.
 

Of course, there are some good / GREAT things about going to Congress. One good / GREAT thing is that having to articulate a rationale for this impetuous action may well prove impossible.

My point was that it is not a political winner for President Obama or the last vestige of neo-conism.
 

I just hope we're as successful in Syria as we've been in Libya and Egypt in fostering regime change and stabilizing the country...
 

WF-- My point was that it isn't unprecedented, in modern history, to go to Congress for approval of military action against a non-aggressor. In that debate, the possession of WMDs and killing of civilians was a large element, from what I remember.

You know... I was just reading some things that indicate that the resolution may not make it through the House, which in a way would be a huge political win for Obama. He then could do the right thing (not go to war) while getting political cover. Cynical, yes-- I guess he might figure that the House says no to anything he wants, so he will play that to his advantage for once.
 

It appears, too, that our best move might be to send RRL and one of his mock trial teams to Syria, since they always kick ass.

Man, I am bad at swearing.
 

I think Obama is going to Congress to get some cover and someone with whom to share the blame if it comes a cropper, which it could in so many (not) delightful ways. Perhaps that dawned on the president recently, as a result of some intel, or reading the spec sheet on the latest Russian missiles in Syria, or something.

Since it is not a national emergency or a self-defense response, Obama does by law need the approval of Congress (War Powers Act), if he cares about that law, that is.

However, making it lawful in the US does not make it lawfully internationally. It would still be an active of aggressive war, and no one at the UN has appointed us hall monitor.
 

My mom was thirteen when WWII ended. The war left an indelible mark, not just on the generations that lived through it but on all generations that had a relative that lived through it. However of all reminiscence about the war, my mom only talked to me twice about the terror of air raids; the first time was when her mother died and the second time was two days before she died. I take that to have been more than a scar, I take it to have been a wound that never really healed, a fear that never really went away. In a short while in Syria there will be a lot of boys and girls that are about to experience the fear of an air raid. I’m sure the Assad regime and the equally odious rebels will factor zero in bracing themselves for the American air raid.
Congress-schmongress… splitting hairs and intellectualizing strategy and politics, whichever way you turn it, it’s bad and it’s all on us. Not anybody else in this world. And it should not be that way. Americans should not be the people who terrorized a whole lot of kids with their “limited” bombs.
 

Hi Mark,

"In that debate, the possession of WMDs and killing of civilians was a large element, from what I remember."

Our recollection of the lead-up to the war in Iraq differs in that regard. WMD sure--but NOT so much on the civilian side; that is, we were surely NOT talking about taking out Saddam in 2002-03 as retribution for his chemical attack on the Kurds during the 1980s.

In addition to the other differences I listed, it is also true that a state of intermittent war had existed between the US and Iraq for more than a decade, spanning three presidents.

Just NOT analogous at all in my opinion. And I think the folks who are legitimately against this foolish military action make a mistake making too much of the alleged parallel.
 

What about the other thing, WF? Do you see a way in which going to Congress works to the President's advantage, by keeping him from doing something he shouldn't do, while providing political cover for that choice?
 

Stop me before I bomb again!
 

Steve, pretty much that! I wish the President had just not argued for bombing in the first place, but perhaps this creates an "out."
 

Hi Mark,

Yes. I think going to Congress may be a great thing here because the opinion they want to write may just "not write," based on facts and logic.

And as much as the President and his people see defeat as a major defeat--even potentially presidency shattering--I agree that defeat in this case probably amounts to victory.
 

Two hypothetical questions:
1. If the House votes "No" and the U.S. doesn't respond, what happens if Syria continues and escalates its use of chemical weapons on Syrian rebels?
2. What if Syria uses sarin gas on Israel ... or even Lebanon?
Bob
 

If Syria continues to use chemical weapons against the rebels, it seems to me that this vote will remain binding (to the extent that it is binding) for the foreseeable future.

If Syria uses chemical weapons outside of Syria (which is extremely unlikely), the Assad regime is finished. A powerful coalition will form instantly and effect regime change fairly rapidly.
 

If Syria uses chemical weapons against Israel then what will happen is that Israel will turn Syria into a parking lot.

And thanks for the kind words Mark. Now back to headquarters for debriefing and cocktails!
 

Reading these comments has been enlightening today. Bob, I think RRL and AWF have concluded the what if Syria uses the gas outside of the country correctly. KABOOM!

I think Obama going to Congress gives him good political cover either way the wind blows when they finally vote.

Do I think we should performed this limited strike (whatever that means)... I am still on the fence. From the analysis I am listening to there is the Assad regime and the state army; the original rebels ~ whose beef against the regime was based on economics (apparently in the southern part of Syria). And then there are the 'other' rebels with al Quaeda ties (in the north). Who do we strike? Do we know which group really used the saran gas? Thinking it was Assad or AQ.

What disturbs me the most is the humanitarian suffering that is ongoing in the country and the 2 million people who have fled to stay out of harms way.

 

Breaking News...

The President is canceling trips to come back to the WH and lobby for votes and reportedly planning a national address from the Oval Office.

I so wish the cynics were right and all this was just an elaborate ruse to walk back his "red line" and not go to war. But I just don't see that at this point. While there is always hope that he will have a change of heart walking around the Rose Garden this weekend, he looks to me like he is doubling down.
 

Syria is different than both Iraq and Afghanistan in several respects, but this one is the most important.

Immediately prior to those wars, their leaders were not responsible for killing 40,000 civilians in a short period of time. Nor were either alleged to have used nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the months leading up to those wars. Those wars were not fought to directly prevent civilian deaths.

What the United States needs is a new foreign "doctrine" that is not reactionary to any one conflict, but instead lays out in advance, the circumstances under which the United States will use deadly military force.

At the top of that list should be the prevention of genocide. Also, the doctrine should be employed in a significantly more altruistic way then what the past 60 years of self-centered foreign policy has given us.

Finally, I recognize that nations do not have friends, they have interests, and at best they act in their own self interest in a way that is just and equitable. All of which is to say that I believe that a) such a policy is in the nations interest, earning us increased respect and credibility, and b) could be actualized in a way that is consistent with foreign policy norms. It is not unrealistic.


 

I could be wrong about what the Taliban was doing in Afganistan prior to 9/11. There were unquestionably atrocities taking place, but I don't recall it being on a genocidal scale.

To be clear, I don't think we should intervene everywhere all the time. We should not police the world, or stop small scale war crimes, if for no other reason than that we can't. I am saying we can and should prevent the systemic and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

If Syria was using one half of one ounce of restraint, than I would say we should not intervene. In part based on the lack of credibility on the other side. Where 30 or 40 thousand soldiers had died on each side, I do not think we should intervene. The red-line for me is the systemic destruction of whole villages for no military purpose.

 

Killing civilians even for "strategic advantage" would never be good policy. Unfortunately that this is being considered defines us as a nation. This is why we are not in The International Criminal Court. This would be the logical place to take action against a criminal nation.

With the United Nations off the table because of the Russian interest in their arms sales with Syria, the Haque would be an alternative place to present evidence of a crime and bring Assad to justice.
I am opposed to following Israel's directive to us which is to take the proposed military action.

This is an opportunity again to be creative and seek alternative actions that will isolate rogue nations. We need a pre prescribed process that is triggered, at times like these, rather than winging it and going it alone.

The world should not tolerate the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This may be the time to create a firm and just solution that will stop this idiotic cycle of violence.

As long as the US, like Russia feels a need to display their weapons in use, we probably will not lead the world towards a peaceful resolution.
Hopefully,someone will.
 

As I have said from the beginning of this thread, the vote in the House is extremely close. It may pass or it may not.

Two reasons it may not:

1. It will take a lot of Democratic votes, which would mean that a lot of politicians would have to swallow their principles and offer up an egregiously contradictory vote in the name of party politics. Not so earth-shattering an event. Happens all the time.

2. It will require a bunch of politicians to stand up and vote against the overwhelming tide of public opinion--and perhaps sacrifice their cushy offices and personal fiefdoms for somebody else's personal interest. Much less common.
 

The Other Problem with all this is that there were three main viable options:

1. Humility. Something terrible happened, but we are not omnipotent. We have no right to unilaterally interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation no matter how evil the despot.

2. Non-Military Coercion. We are going to lead an international action that will include all available tools to deter the despot, including sanctions, hard diplomacy, and other non-violent tools to make life miserable for dictators until said dictator admits the error of his ways and promises cease and desist all crimes against humanity.

3. Threat of Military Coercion. Lead an international coalition with the goal of regime change, which could include decisive support for opponents, cyber warfare, covert action, and, perhaps, even collective military action as a last resort.

And one could possibly see something with various combinations of 2 & 3.

However, one thing that makes no sense is a limited unilateral military action against a sovereign nation with no strategic goal or strategic impact realistically expected, at least as likely to kill innocents as the prime perpetrators, with the stated purpose being merely to fire a shot across the bow and/or maintain US credibility.

But that is where we are. That is the plan the President so desperately asks Congress to approve over the grave misgivings of the American public.

How did we get here?
 

The more I look for the logic (and I really am sincerely searching for the coherent thread that makes this make sense), the more I scratch my head. In forty-five years of watching politics, I have never seen anything like this. Nor have I read about anything that remotely resembles this current set of circumstances.
 

The Washington State Daughter of a Farmer agrees in entirety with the comments of A Waco Farmer. Where do we get off being morally outraged by chemical weapons? Did somebody else drop napalm on the Vietnamese?
 

The Washington State Daughter of a Farmer agrees in entirety with the comments of A Waco Farmer. Where do we get off being morally outraged by chemical weapons? Did somebody else drop napalm on the Vietnamese?