Force authorizations are not needed for conflicts less than 60 days and if it drags on beyond that then congress gets involved. In general, historically once a president begins a military conflict, congress almost always has followed through and its much easier for other countries to join in and support you in a conflict than to start the conflict with you.
it sounds like I'm saying Obama should have gone in unilaterally, but honestly I think what he did was right (in the sense that there was no clear right or good answer though there certainly was a window for easy and expedited US intervention which closed rapidly). I'm more or less just saying the war powers resolution is designed to allow presidents to quickly and with flexibility deal with emerging issues without needed to go through the deliberative process that congress involves. In fact, at the time by even going to congress, it was felt that Obama was pretty much showing his true intentions which was never intervening militarily at all since there was no chance congress would move or do anything in any sort of timely fashion.
its like knowing a burglar is in the house immediately and is trying to shoot your wife whom dislike for whatever reason, and so to address the issue you call your deaf, memory impaired, and blind grandma in florida for advice. Yes technically that is doing something, but it betrays your true intentions entirely which is to let your wife be shot.
Didn't we topple Baghdad in like a week?Obama did do the right thing no matter how painful that may be because of all the innocent lives that have been and will be continued to be lost. I'm not aware of any value plan where the leader of a country is taken out in 60 days and the country goes back to normal, as in, doesn't need further intervention.
So no, I don't think Obama had a window at all.
Didn't we topple Baghdad in like a week?
Lol! Are you fucking kidding me right now? Are you not aware of the aftermath of what happened? Would you argue things have been better now then before we overthrew saddom?
Holy shit! Its not like we are talking about ancient history here.
Demilitarizing assad would make him play ball with either the rebels in his country or the international community. I don't favor toppling assad. I'm just saying US force wouldn't need much time to get most of whatever the aim was done (be it drastic de-militarization of his forces or regime toppling or the start of real peace negotiations or whatever).
It can just be argued that they wanted to field test their weapon. Or wanted to inflict particular suffering on that village for some reason or another. I mean, I can't say in any sense the bloodthirsty assad regime acts mostly out of reason and tact.Looks highly likely to be a false flag attack. I don't see any reason for Assad to deploy these since he is winning and status quo suits him fine.
We heard same thing about Saddam, and it turned out to be BS.It can just be argued that they wanted to field test their weapon. Or wanted to inflict particular suffering on that village for some reason or another. I mean, I can't say in any sense the bloodthirsty assad regime acts mostly out of reason and tact.
My guess is that Trump will bomb an airport or two that have Syrian AF on the ground. That should make the neocons/"neolibs" happy and send the desired message. God help us if Russia decides to intervene as this response could get really ugly, really fast.
It can just be argued that they wanted to field test their weapon. Or wanted to inflict particular suffering on that village for some reason or another. I mean, I can't say in any sense the bloodthirsty assad regime acts mostly out of reason and tact.
We heard same thing about Saddam, and it turned out to be BS.
Sadam did not gas the kurds?
Hopefully we can reach a prior understanding with Russia to avoid any potential escalation.I get the feeling if we do end up bombing a couple of air bases in Syria, Putin already had signed off on it and most likely told us which ones were acceptable to bomb. With Trump elected, I highly doubt Russia will do anything as drastic as intervening on that level to escalate tensions that much. It will be pure posturing from both ends, empty messages sent.
Hopefully we can reach a prior understanding with Russia to avoid any potential escalation.
Bombing airstrips and grounded Syrian fighters/bombers would NOT be an empty message.
I'm certainly no expert here, but by time we figure out what happened and actually deployed assets to respond, the plane responsible would likely be long gone imo. I don't think such an option is even close to being feasible in real time.You asked earlier for my opinion on how to handle this mess. First is a binary choice and that's to have a policy of intervention or not. It would seem Trump has opted for the former by WH statements. The only military intervention that makes sense is to announce that military units who are determined to be involved in gas attacks are considered a legitimate target on the battlefield.
Now this is damned hard to do because we have to know gas attacks aren't an act by others, including rebels harmed, aimed at getting US involved in a military conflict with Assad. We can't afford to fall into a trap. If however any plane or unit is caught deploying gas they would be defined as a legitimate target and an aggressive response meted out.
Best I have for now.
You asked earlier for my opinion on how to handle this mess. First is a binary choice and that's to have a policy of intervention or not. It would seem Trump has opted for the former by WH statements. The only military intervention that makes sense is to announce that military units who are determined to be involved in gas attacks are considered a legitimate target on the battlefield.
Now this is damned hard to do because we have to know gas attacks aren't an act by others, including rebels harmed, aimed at getting US involved in a military conflict with Assad. We can't afford to fall into a trap. If however any plane or unit is caught deploying gas they would be defined as a legitimate target and an aggressive response meted out.
Best I have for now.
So you're OK with effectively no response (besides empty rhetoric) regarding their use of chemical weapons?Yeah, that ship has sailed IMO. We shouldn't be bombing Syrian government positions with Russia being their ally and having its own military there. American interests in Syria are slight. Our intervention should be confined to bombing ISIS there. I don't even support the ground troops that Trump has in Syria right now for the purpose of degrading ISIS.
We can provide humanitarian relief. We can get involved in brokering cease fires and finding a political solution. Otherwise, it's time for us to just GTFO.
So you're OK with effectively no response (besides empty rhetoric) regarding their use of chemical weapons?
A small but stable foreign, multinational military force in Syria to enforce and monitor peaceful negotiations between rebels and the Assad regime and the international community.
The Syrian army isn't particularly developed. Remember just 2 years ago they were on the very edge from fighting militants with AKs and grenade launchers.
As much as I hate saying it..I would suggest a limited 'hurtful' strike on the Syrian AF as previously noted...and then wash our hands of it. Bottom line the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and like it or not ( I personally don't), we're a world leader and have to take a leadership role in immediately addressing such evil. And as I sit here saying this, I realize that I really hate saying this. And where the f**k is the UN?What do you suggest?
As much as I hate saying it..a limited 'hurtful' strike on the Syrian AF as previously noted...and then wash our hands of it. Bottom line the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and like it or not ( I personally don't), we're a world leader and have to take a leadership role in immediately addressing such evil. And as I sit here saying this, I realize that I really hate saying this. And where the f**k is the UN?