Syria strikes underway

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Had Obama ordered the strikes anyways you guys would have been crapping in your diapers over the abuse of power. 

Doubtful...Regardless, if the spineless messiah grown a pair and hit them when they crossed the "red line" there might be a lot less dead women and children.

[nsplayr]

58 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

I love the revisionist history going on in this thread.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/

Obama follows the Constitution to get Congress' approval for military strikes. Congress never backs the strikes so the strikes don't happen. Obama gets labelled as weak for not acting out in violation of the Constitution. Had Obama ordered the strikes anyways you guys would have been crapping in your diapers over the abuse of power. 

This is true. Just reference President Trump's statements at the time, very big (bigly!) on not striking Syria, getting Congressional approval, getting into Syria being a dumb idea, etc., and I don't totally disagree.

I grant that Syria (and DPRK) are a shit sandwich-and-a-half, but that's part of the job as POTUS. Very few President don't inherit at least one tasty shit burger from the previous admin because unfortunately the enemy gets a vote, their priorities and motivations change, our priorities and motivations change, etc.

I'm actually not opposed to strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons and would have been in favor of Obama doing the same with or without Congressional approval (with a preference for Congress approving obviously), but it's a situation where pretty clearly our strikes are going to be marginally effective if at all in the long run, bring us no closer to any kind of progress in Syria in general, yet are necessary because inaction is also a bad option. If punatative airstrikes were so effective why were our limited strikes last year not a deterrent for the recent attack?

If Obama would have ordered limited strikes in 2013, based on the evidence from Trump's strikes in 2017, do you really think Assad or Putin would have acted significantly differently given their interests? I would argue Assad's self-interest in staying in power and not being prosecuted for war crimes far outweighs our interests in Syria and he knows that. Short of going all-in, what exactly is our plan to stop Assad from murdering his own people? I don't have the answer to that one.

This issue in particular doesn't have to be and really isn't partisan...Americans across party lines are divided about what they think is the best course of action going forward. I'm actually more inclined to be in the "do something" camp (including use of force w/o broad international agreement or authorization) all other things being equal, and many of my fellow left-leaning folks would disagree with that. A lot of Republicans, including the President based on past statements, seem to be inclined more toward a non-interventionist posture, which is derided as weakness by the typical Bush-era Bolton/Cheney hawk faction of the GOP.

I'm not sure I'm even saying anything helpful...other than maybe can we try to not have this break down along familiar partisan lines that would leave both sides looking extremely hypocritical?

Worth a read: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/middleeast/syria-us-chemical-weapons.html

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Doubtful...Regardless, if the spineless messiah grown a pair and hit them when they crossed the "red line" there might be a lot less dead women and children.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/11/paul_ryan_opposes_strike_on_syria_119914.html

This is also useful: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/us/politics/congress-quotes-on-syria-airstrikes.html

Edited April 16, 2018 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

I love the revisionist history going on in this thread.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/

Obama follows the Constitution to get Congress' approval for military strikes. Congress never backs the strikes so the strikes don't happen. Obama gets labelled as weak for not acting out in violation of the Constitution. Had Obama ordered the strikes anyways you guys would have been crapping in your diapers over the abuse of power. 

Are you suggesting that Obama never dropped bombs in Syria?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

For the record, I wasn't a fan of Obama's air strikes and I'm not a fan of Trump's air strikes.

[ClearedHot]

20 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/11/paul_ryan_opposes_strike_on_syria_119914.html

This is also useful: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/us/politics/congress-quotes-on-syria-airstrikes.html

So you are saying Obama was taking Ryan's advice? 

[nsplayr]

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

So you are saying Obama was taking Ryan's advice? 

I guess I'm saying not all players in this game have been consistent in their advice, Paul Ryan included. Both of us seem to be a little more consistent in calling for action in both cases (2013 and 2018). I also appreciate folks, like Helo above, who are consistent in opposition. The typical political hypocrisy bothers me more than either consistent position, with allowances for situations being different over time.

And that being said, I don't totally disagree with Ryan's advice in 2013...limited strikes that show basically "this is the best we can do" that ultimately don't provide a deterrent aren't necessarily worthwhile and can even be harmful in that they demonstrate the limits of our political will compared to actors like Assad that are clearly willing to go all the way in order to stay in power.

Edited April 16, 2018 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

The entire situation is of course a chocolate mess.

Do we intervene in every situation around the world, most would agree no.  Are we seen as world leaders and do our actions send a message, most would agree yes.

I believe if Obama had thumped them when they crossed supposed Red Line and previously used WMD, the calculus for Aasad would have been different this time.  I could be wrong.

All of that being said, it is exceptionally difficult to see women and children being hit with chemical weapons.

[Vertigo]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Are you suggesting that Obama never dropped bombs in Syria?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

For the record, I wasn't a fan of Obama's air strikes and I'm not a fan of Trump's air strikes.

I'm suggesting that Obama sought approval for strikes against Assad from Congress when Syria used WMDs against its people. I would like to think I'm limiting the scope of discussion by comparing apples to apples.

 

[Stoker]

Any speculation on the calculus of Assad actually using the weapons? Seems like he's contained the rebel groups quite well, and has the upper hand in the conflict. Why do something that risks inviting more direct US involvement? We've already made clear that we're more or less OK with him killing people, as long as it's with conventional weapons. So why use chemical weapons to achieve what appears to be a marginal military advantage?

[tk1313]

25 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Any speculation on the calculus of Assad actually using the weapons? Seems like he's contained the rebel groups quite well, and has the upper hand in the conflict. Why do something that risks inviting more direct US involvement? We've already made clear that we're more or less OK with him killing people, as long as it's with conventional weapons. So why use chemical weapons to achieve what appears to be a marginal military advantage?

[matmacwc]

4 hours ago, Vertigo said:

I'm suggesting that Obama sought approval for strikes against Assad from Congress when Syria used WMDs against its people. I would like to think I'm limiting the scope of discussion by comparing apples to apples.

 

Maybe Trump will have more latitude after his re-election 

[drewpey]

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/

[Mark1]

On 4/16/2018 at 7:35 AM, ClearedHot said:

Doubtful...Regardless, if the spineless messiah grown a pair and hit them when they crossed the "red line" there might be a lot less dead women and children.

I think it's more likely there would have been an order of magnitude more dead women and children.  Any significant action against Assad, and by that I mean something hard hitting enough to destabilize his rule, would have left a power vacuum that only one entity was in a position to fill at that time.  And that entity would have made his chemical attacks look like Disney World.

Certainly a good reason not to make "red line" ultimatum statements if you can't back them up, but nevertheless, Assad is still around largely because he quickly became the lesser of two evils towards the latter half of 2013.  No politician in this country would admit it, but we went from threatening to remove him to orchestrating our moves in the region around (tacitly) ensuring his stability nearly overnight.  This all being before the Russians got involved.

As a side note, I'm no champion of Obama and on the strategic issues I agree his overarching philosophy was weak, but come on: Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Jessica Buchanan, Ahmed Khatalla, etc.  They're all easy to pass on if you're truly spineless.

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I think it's more likely there would have been an order of magnitude more dead women and children.  Any significant action against Assad, and by that I mean something hard hitting enough to destabilize his rule, would have left a power vacuum that only one entity was in a position to fill at that time.  And that entity would have made his chemical attacks look like Disney World.

Certainly a good reason not to make "red line" ultimatum statements if you can't back them up, but nevertheless, Assad is still around largely because he quickly became the lesser of two evils towards the latter half of 2013.  No politician in this country would admit it, but we went from threatening to remove him to orchestrating our moves in the region around (tacitly) ensuring his stability nearly overnight.  This all being before the Russians got involved.

As a side note, I'm no champion of Obama and on the strategic issues I agree his overarching philosophy was weak, but come on: Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Jessica Buchanan, Ahmed Khatalla, etc.  They're all easy to pass on if you're truly spineless.

Agree to disagree.  There is a big difference between trike to destabilize his rule and strikes to reduce his ability to deliver chemical weapons.  Even the strikes by Trump were limited to chemical weapons productions and storage.  The entrenchment by the Russians since Obama walked away made it very difficult to strike the actual delivery mechanisms without harming Russian citizens.  I presume the three sites that were hit last week were there when Obama was POTUS. 

It is often difficult to predict outcomes in the great game, but I personally believe the application of military power to enforce the declared red line would have limited the future employment of chemical weapons, the message sent more than empowered Aasad.  Perhaps they would have increased barrel bomb attacks as a result, but we will never know, nor will a lot of dead women and children.

 

 

[Vertigo]

Israel says the airstrikes had limited to no effect.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5232786,00.html

Also this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/us-syria-briefing-trump/index.html

Looks like Trump is going to back us out completely and hand Syria to Russia because, well frankly, he loves giving gifts to Russia as well as blocking any attempt to punish them for their actions. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/us/politics/trump-rejects-sanctions-russia-syria.html

[dream big]

49 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Israel says the airstrikes had limited to no effect.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5232786,00.html

Also this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics/us-syria-briefing-trump/index.html

Looks like Trump is going to back us out completely and hand Syria to Russia because, well frankly, he loves giving gifts to Russia as well as blocking any attempt to punish them for their actions. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/us/politics/trump-rejects-sanctions-russia-syria.html

Your sources are CNN and NY times, hardly non partisan sources especially when it comes to Trump.  It’s like quoting Sean Hannity when criticizing Obama. 

[Vertigo]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Your sources are CNN and NY times, hardly non partisan sources especially when it comes to Trump.  It’s like quoting Sean Hannity when criticizing Obama. 

When your only possible response is to attack the sources, you know you don't have a real valid argument.

Those are news articles, not opinion pieces.

 

But here ya go, crybaby, happy now? I guess since these are fox stories then they HAVE to be correct. The same stories from CNN are fake news. 
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/16/white-house-backs-away-from-haleys-pledge-new-sanctions-against-russia.html
https://fox61.com/2018/04/18/senators-leave-classified-briefing-on-trumps-syria-policy-very-unnerved/

[HeloDude]

On April 16, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Vertigo said:

I'm suggesting that Obama sought approval for strikes against Assad from Congress when Syria used WMDs against its people. I would like to think I'm limiting the scope of discussion by comparing apples to apples.

So you're making the point about Obama sometimes attacking Syria without Congressional and sometimes not attacking Syria because he did not Congressional approval?  How about instead you just admit that Obama did the same thing Bush did, and now Trump is doing the same thing Obama did...

[Prozac]

17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So you're making the point about Obama sometimes attacking Syria without Congressional and sometimes not attacking Syria because he did not Congressional approval?  How about instead you just admit that Obama did the same thing Bush did, and now Trump is doing the same thing Obama did...

While it is true that a precedent has been set over the past couple of decades regarding the President’s near limitless power to get us into conflicts, does that precedent make it ok?  It seems that many people are opposed to this idea only when the “other” party holds the executive. Some of us have been opposed to this idea for the last three administrations. 

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

While it is true that a precedent has been set over the past couple of decades regarding the President’s near limitless power to get us into conflicts, does that precedent make it ok?  It seems that many people are opposed to this idea only when the “other” party holds the executive. Some of us have been opposed to this idea for the last three administrations. 

If you reference my earlier posts, I clearly say how I didn't support the war attacks under Obama and I don't support them under Trump.  I will praise Trump when his decisions extend me more personal liberty and call him out when does not, same as I did for Obama.  You and others clearly don't do the same as one can easily see on the Presidential thread where it appears Trump has not done anything positive. 

[Vertigo]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So you're making the point about Obama sometimes attacking Syria without Congressional and sometimes not attacking Syria because he did not Congressional approval?  How about instead you just admit that Obama did the same thing Bush did, and now Trump is doing the same thing Obama did...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to Trump's attack on Shayrat airfield in 2017 the U.S. had never attacked the Syrian government or its forces directly, but rather our attacks had been on ISIS in Syria. Correct?

So while Obama had been attacking ISIS in Syria, he never bombed the Syrian government. And the one time he had a plan to attack the Syrian government he went to Congress to get approval for that. There's a distinction between the two there. One is attacking the government and its military, the other is attacking a rogue terrorist group located in that country. 

So while I agree that we should never have even got involved in this mess in the first place... I can still discuss what happened, what is happening, and point out the wildly inaccurate revisionist history that occurred above.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Vertigo said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to Trump's attack on Shayrat airfield in 2017 the U.S. had never attacked the Syrian government or its forces directly, but rather our attacks had been on ISIS in Syria. Correct?

So while Obama had been attacking ISIS in Syria, he never bombed the Syrian government. And the one time he had a plan to attack the Syrian government he went to Congress to get approval for that. There's a distinction between the two there. One is attacking the government and its military, the other is attacking a rogue terrorist group located in that country. 

So while I agree that we should never have even got involved in this mess in the first place... I can still discuss what happened, what is happening, and point out the wildly inaccurate revisionist history that occurred above.

Attacking Syria is attacking Syria--whether you're going after pro-Assad targets or not.

And if you're trying suggest that Obama never attacked legitimate government targets without Congressional approval then I'm wondering what happened in Libya? 

[Vertigo]

13 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Attacking Syria is attacking Syria--whether you're going after pro-Assad targets or not.

And if you're trying suggest that Obama never attacked legitimate government targets without Congressional approval then I'm wondering what happened in Libya? 

So in the late 2000's, after Saddam's government had been dismantled and the dude was hung, our fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq was the same as attacking the Iraqi government forces (whom were fighting with us). Is that what you are saying? There's no differentiating between attacking a government's forces and equipment and attacking a terrorist organization operating within that country? They are one in the same? 

Libya is Syria? Can we keep on the subject of attacking the Syrian government? I pointed out the falsehoods about why Obama didn't attack Assad and your response is "what about Libya?" Maybe the guy learned his lesson from Libya and wanted to do it the right way, the Constitutional way. And the response here is that meant he was weak and failed to act. No, that means he followed the law and the Republican party blocked any legal attack. 

[HeloDude]

15 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

So in the late 2000's, after Saddam's government had been dismantled and the dude was hung, our fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq was the same as attacking the Iraqi government forces (whom were fighting with us). Is that what you are saying? There's no differentiating between attacking a government's forces and equipment and attacking a terrorist organization operating within that country? They are one in the same? 

Libya is Syria? Can we keep on the subject of attacking the Syrian government? I pointed out the falsehoods about why Obama didn't attack Assad and your response is "what about Libya?" Maybe the guy learned his lesson from Libya and wanted to do it the right way, the Constitutional way. And the response here is that meant he was weak and failed to act. No, that means he followed the law and the Republican party blocked any legal attack. 

1) Obama did attack Syria.  If a country attacked anywhere in the US (not necessarily a "government target") then we would say the country attacked the US.  

2) Obama did not attack Assad forces because he didn't get Congressional authority--if his concern was not attacking country X until given Congressional authority then Obama wouldn't have attacked Libya, Yemen, Iraq (he declared the Iraq war was over and then he later attacked them anyway), and any other place he has dropped bombs (even in his last year of his presidency).  So your nonsense about how Obama had some sort of restraint that Trump doesn't have is a joke.

Keep digging your hole man...

[nsplayr]

21 hours ago, HeloDude said:

How about instead you just admit that Obama did the same thing Bush did, and now Trump is doing the same thing Obama did...

This is true in general...all three admin have taken an EXTREMELY broad view of the powers of the President under Article II, the 2001 AUMF, and the Cartman Doctrine (I do what I want!). Congress has shown little to no appetite to intervene or check the President, which is what the Constitution calls for.

20 hours ago, Prozac said:

While it is true that a precedent has been set over the past couple of decades regarding the President’s near limitless power to get us into conflicts, does that precedent make it ok?  It seems that many people are opposed to this idea only when the “other” party holds the executive. Some of us have been opposed to this idea for the last three administrations. 

This is also true, and I appreciate people who have been a little more consistent saying they either oppose all military actions not authorized by Congress or side more with the executive's ability to conduct the strikes regardless of who that executive is. I may disagree with the effectiveness of certain actions vs others, but I'm usually on the side saying that the President can take action pretty broadly while holding a parallel though in my mind that Congress doing its Constitutional duty and act like they're a co-equal branch of government.

14 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Attacking Syria is attacking Syria--whether you're going after pro-Assad targets or not.

And if you're trying suggest that Obama never attacked legitimate government targets without Congressional approval then I'm wondering what happened in Libya? 

This I disagree with re: Syria. It's widely understood that the 2001 AUMF and especially Article II aren't bound by geography, but more by group and/or purpose and/or duration.

Striking AQ in Afghanistan (purpose of 2001 AUMF) was extended to include AQ and AQ-affiliated groups all around the globe. That 2001 AUMF authority was then somewhat tenuous extended then to ISIS and wherever ISIS operated. I don't necessarily agree that those legal gymnastics pass the smell test, but at least IMHO Bush, Obama and now Trump have wide authority to order strikes on AQ and ISIS without strict geographic limits based on what WH lawyers have cooked up over the last 15+ years.

Attacking the Syrian government led by Assad is a whole different animal, and not fundamentally different than attacking any other sovereign country. As you correctly point out, Obama was on much shakier legal ground to order the operations against the Gaddafi regime in Libya and I think Trump is in the same boat ordering strikes against Assad in Syria.

Not that I'm specifically opposed; both of those guys are total assholes and I think we should have and should be doing more to stop them from massacring their own people, but it would be much better for Congress to vote on a new AUMF for the worldwide right against AQ & ISIS and give specific authorizations for state-on-state fights like Libya and Syria.