Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say
Source: NY Times
WASHINGTON President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britains Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.
Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.
The White House is to present its case for military action against Syria to Congressional leaders on Thursday night. Administration officials assert that the intelligence will show that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, officials briefed on the presentation said, but the administration believes that it has enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?_r=0
$%#@!!*&%#
dkf
(37,305 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)approval after the president starts military action.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)But that applies when the U.S. has been attacked or there is "imminent hostilities" against the U.S. Syria is not attacking the U.S. and we have no national interests there.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)Legally, there's no real question that it's a violation of his powers, and is potentially an impeachable offense. Joe Biden himself took Bush to task over this very same thing when Bush wanted to strike Iran a number of years ago, and they got Bush to back off by pointing out both the illegality of the acts and the potential impact to his presidency.
Of course, Obama has already got away with it once, using the idiotic "it's not really war if we don't have soldiers on the ground" argument with Libya, and Congress ended up doing absolutely nothing about it. I suspect that the same will happen with Syria.
And, I fully expect everyone here to scream bloody murder when the next Republican president uses the precedent to arbitrarily start bombing countries THEY don't like without congressional approval. And we'll scream even louder when Congress doesn't do anything about it then either. And we'll all thank Obama for setting the precedent in the first place.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)did Clinton get congressional approval for the strikes he had on Iraq in 1993 for the attempted assassination of poppy bush?
they loosely called it a punishment strike..
Which is all that anyone is calling for in Syria.. a strike against a couple of key targets that will hurt the regime as punishment for the use of chemical weapons..
I mean, unless you've seen documents from the Obama white house I haven't that say we are going to invade and occupy like the chimp
Xithras
(16,191 posts)First, the WPA permits the president to take military action without approval in response to attack on the country or its armed forces. An attack on a former president, and the military escorts who were protecting him on that trip, would have qualified. It's important to remember that while the attack failed, the Iraqi government still carried out an attack against the United States.
Second, military action in Iraq had already been approved under congressional acts authorizing Operation Provide Comfort, which enforced the no fly zones and allowed the US military to take actions to protect civilians and degrade the Iraqi governments warmaking capabilities. That alone would have provided the legal cover for the strikes
The Repub's really wanted Clinton out of office. If they could have nailed him for this, instead of embarrassing the nation over a cigar, they would have done so.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)everyone else was just running themselves around in circles with silly notions!
what you said makes complete sense and I thank you for posting!
24601
(3,959 posts)not. Hasn't every administration held it an impermissible infringement on the President's Article II authorities? The Legislative branch has one view while the Executive branch holds the opposite. Each position has equivalent validity until the court(s) break the tie.
.believe that the USSC would refuse to decide the question as a political question and say that the Congress has ample tools, appropriations and impeachment, to work it's will.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but not to wage it as that would fall under the President's Commander in Chief authorities
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Section 1, Article 8 gives Congress the power:
- "To declare War"
- "for governing such Part of them (the Militia) as may be employed in the Service of the United States"
- "To make Rules for the...Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
- and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".
So, yes, the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate how the military is used. Interestingly, it also reserves for Congress the power:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;".
One could argue that it specifically vests the right to punish war crimes (violations of international law) in the Congress, and not with the President.
In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not the Presidents have believed the law to be unconstitutional or not. Under our system, a law is constitutional and enforceable until the courts rule otherwise. Legally, all laws are "constitutional" until repealed either by Congress or the courts. Even if presidents don't like them.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)exactly what the Carlyle Group wants them to do.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)according to Mossad's unoffical website anyway... http://www.debka.com/article/23230/Obama-says-no-decision-yet-on-strike-on-Syria-DEBKA-He-stalls-for-deal-with-Putin-on-softened-strike
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Which puts Putin in the spotlight..he can either look the other way and be seen by his allies as useless,
and most likely lose the rights to the Tartus shipping port that Russia mostly built in Syria, which is Russia's ONLY direct access to the Mediterranean,
plus lose millions of dollars of weapons Syria buys from Russia
or
draw his own red line for Obama to see.
Nose to nose staring contest could develop.
edited to add: oh yeah, and the present and future energy issue, the key for all of this in the first place.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Please, Mr. President reconsider..
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)for the strikes on Iraq in 1993?
not being smart, just want to know
dkf
(37,305 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)in june of 1993?? (remember Clinton was elected in 92)
and no, im not talking about the no fly zone.
it was a 'punishment strike' for the attempted assassination of our ex president poppy bush.., which is exactly what we are talking about in Syria thus far ..
dkf
(37,305 posts)Clinton also had the confessions of the two alleged leaders of the 16 suspects arrested by Kuwait when the plot was uncovered. Both are Iraqi nationals. Ra'ad Asadi and Wali Abdelhadi Ghazali told FBI investigators detailed to Kuwait that they met in Basra, Iraq, on April 12 with "individuals they believed to be associated with the Iraqi Intelligence Service," according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.
They were given a vehicle loaded with hidden explosives. Ghazali told the FBI he was recruited specifically to kill Bush. Asadi also told the FBI he was to guide the car bomb, driven by his partner, to Kuwait University, where Bush was to be honored by the Emir of Kuwait for his leadership in the gulf war.
"This crime was committed against the United States, and we elected to respond and to exercise our right of self defense" under Article 51 of the U.N. charter, Defense Secretary Les Aspin said. "Tonight's unilateral action in no way diminishes U.S. support for coalition action or for the authority of the United Nations."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
This is different.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)but making parallels between this and Iraq and Afghanistan (as some folks are) are completely in bounds eh ?
I saw a defected Syrian commander on arab tv yesterday admitting he was given an order to use chemical weapons.
Guess that's not good enough ?
dkf
(37,305 posts)If you don't understand that difference... Oh well.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)lmao!
youre right, I don't!
1 ex republican president > hundreds of dead children..
yeah, sleep on that one tonight.
dkf
(37,305 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)because setting a precedent that using chemical weapons is an okay thing and not our business wont come back to haunt us at all
btw, just to clarify, one assassination attempt on any American citizen equals retaliation ? or do they have to famous, rich, or an ex member of government specifically to make it okay?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"hundreds of dead children"? Or did you make that up?
24601
(3,959 posts)relevant. What matters is that it was a US citizen - doesn't matter if it's a former President or a death row inmate.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)But I voted for my President twice because he's the smartest man in the room, and I trust his judgement. And he's done nothing to make me change that position. I may not like it, but I trust him and will continue to support him.
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)...or words to that effect.
--Brittany Spears, talking about President George W. Bush, 2003 during the leadup to the Iraq War
You're in fine company.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)Well, I misrememebered(forgive the Bushism) the quote. Gave Britney way too much grammatical credit.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)have got to be kidding... blind trust in anyone is ridiculously naive, not to mention dangerous and often foolish
A lot of evil has been perpetrated by smart men. In fact, many sociopaths are smart!
Skittles
(153,150 posts)there's a group here specifically for you!!!
LibAsHell
(180 posts)This should make you question your trust and his judgement. You don't need to be the President or a foreign policy genius here: bombing a country already ravaged by war over incomplete evidence and speculation is not logical and, presumably, we have pretty much the same information Obama does. I assume if he had some definitive proof, he'd have shared it with us.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)he's waiting for the inspectors to do their thing, he's going to go to Congress, and a final decision hasn't been made.
Thanks!
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and they won't have time to inspect the 3 sites where the chemical poisoning allegedly took place.
While I believe Doctors without Borders, the UN inspectors will be unable to examine what (if any) chemical was used, the quality or grade of that chemical, or collect any evidence pointing to the perpetrators.
I read an article a short time ago in which President Obama was quoted as saying he hadn't made a decision, yet a couple paragraphs later Pentagon officials said unequivocally that there will be a strike.
This has been handled terribly. I consider this an absolute betrayal of everything I believe in. Unlike Bush and Co., who invented evidence, he appears not bothering to even wait for evidence. That is an absolute outrage.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)It is one of the 5 countries that the Neo-cons has listed in the Plans for a New American Century
(PNAC)
Iran,Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen. I think were the original list.
And, as a DU post from 2007 shows:
Few people on this site realize Brezezinski's The Grand Chessboard, ...
Edited on Mon Sep-24-07 12:03 PM by CRH
1997, was used as cliff notes for the PNAC aspirations. There was not one original thought in the PNAC documents, their plans were in total a rip-off of Brezezinski's 'geostrategic imperatives'. From thoughts of domination through economic and military hegemony, to managing Eurasia (like it was our lone superpower right), the arrogance that is solely attributed to Bush and the neo cons first found forum in "The Grand Chessboard".
From page 40 a quote that says it all ...
~~In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasing institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to a more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep the tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. ~~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3003510
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)It was second on the list, with Iraq first. 9/11 gave them their excuse, they just changed the order of the 1st two on the list.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)I have been too lazy to dig up my pdf copy of PNAC.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)claims.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Beer Swiller
(44 posts)Read the New York Times link the OP provided, why don't you? Yes, his people said a final decision had NOT been made, and so did he on Sunday, but the fact that Obama is even considering a unilateral military intervention is very disturbing.
Even Bush didn't do THAT. Remember the "coalition of the willing" and all that nonsense?
Sometimes, you have to look beyond the party label.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)So we're going to war, as The Coalition of One , because some Syrian colonel resorted to firing off some chemical rounds in the heat of battle?
we're going to war, as The Coalition of One , because Syria's leader is being blamed for a chemical attack,
despite lack of definite proof
who fired chemicals and what kind they were.
( and doesn't THAT sound familiar?)
Not sure if proof of chemical use has been provided????
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Every idiot tin-horn dictator will now use chemical weapons since no one will stop them.
I pity the victims of future chemical weapons war crimes.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Agent Orange in Vietnam and the chemical Napalm which we used to burn people alive in Vietnam.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)n/t
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)And the sarin gas we provided Iraq with to use in their war with Iran.
But, of course, we're not some tin-pot dictator. So we can use chemicals when and where we want.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)I guess now the new normal warfare is chemical weapons. No need to worry.
if chemical weapons don't reach the level of concern, would Biological weapons make you think any different ?
Since the USA used a nuclear bomb , then I guess we shouldn't worry if NK or Iran uses one?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It was only on the news for a few days, but we did find some of the nerve gas shells we supplied Saddam with during the Iran/Iraq war. They were near an old battlefield of that war, buried in a collapsed bunker under a highway that was being rebuilt in southern Iraq. This was in 2005 or 2006, if I remember correctly.
Some Republican Congressman tried briefly to make a big deal out of how we had found Saddam's WMD, but he was shut-up really quickly. The problem was that the gas shells had U. S. manufacturer's markings on them.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)We had the receipt.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Rummy just wasn't sure where the left-overs had been deposited.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"Pentagon officials insist strikes are likely within days and that the U.S. was past the point of no return on the issue -- suggesting Washington was prepared to act unilaterally."
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/29/20241897-british-parliament-votes-against-possible-military-action-in-syria?lite
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
moonlady0623
(193 posts)how can they justify their existence and enormous budget if they don't have a war?
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)"White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested before the British vote that the United States might be willing to act on its own.
"When the president reaches a determination about the appropriate response ... and a legal justification is required to substantiate or to back up that decision, we'll produce one on our own," Earnest said."
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/syria-crisis-idINDEE97S0CM20130829
moonlady0623
(193 posts)make me want to get on the IMPEACHMENT bandwagon. It's bloody 2013, can we EVOLVE?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,811 posts)How do we get from a leak from the Whitehouse - to impeach him?
moonlady0623
(193 posts)I'm tired of war period, it never really solved a damn thing, we have "contractors" salivating at the "opportunity" to milk more of our hard earned money - those of us who still have jobs that is - to bomb some country to pieces then "rebuild" it, I voted for hope and change and got screwed on so many levels.
After a deep breath (sigh) I will concede that impeachment would probably solve nothing since the POTUS position has become Head Puppet for the "men behind the curtain" who are hell bent on that One world order thing.
In my heart I KNOW human beings can live together in peace. We are pawns in some giant game that sounds like a bad science fiction novel. I find myself wishing Superman would come take out Lex Luthor and his band of asswipes.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Guess the play is written...looks like we are in Act 3 or 4 of imperial aggression.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)"....we'll produce one on our own," Earnest said."
They act like they don't even fucking care whether they are credible or not.
One more nail in the coffin for me. I didn't vote for that kind of imperialistic rhetoric or action.
Simply beyond arrogant. Obama has no fucking clue what kind of shit-storm he's brewing up.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)It would seem natural, would it not, that if the subject WERE to be raised, it would be the Repubs who raised it, yes?
Yet, what are the Repubs saying, now, about attacking Syria?
Obama's surprising ally on Syria: Republicans
http://theweek.com/article/index/248783/obamas-surprising-ally-on-syria-republicans
US Republican Hawks Line Up in Support of Syria Strikes
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130827/DEFREG02/308270011/US-Republican-Hawks-Line-Up-Support-Syria-Strikes
Far cry from Repubs reaction to Libya.
Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #47)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Amash/Conyers Amendment for instance. They have a field day whenever they know he has enough support to do it though- they get the benefit of getting what they want AND someone to blame for it.
It's a crazy sort of arrangement, but it's working well for the people doing it.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)By getting him to start a second war in violation of the WPA, they're setting him up for a huge fall. Obama's defense of the Libyan intervention was that it "wasn't really war" because there were no boots on the ground and no soldiers in danger. Assad is much better armed that Gaddafi was, and the moment the Syrian military kills a U.S. soldier, the entire argument that it's "not really war" goes up in smoke. If the president places our military into active combat without congressional approval and in violation of the guidelines of the War Powers Act, I'd expect to see an impeachment proposal raised within minutes. While I think the "not really war" argument is idiotic, it may be legally defensible enough to work. Once a single soldier dies in combat, the entire argument ceases to be legally viable, and Obama will be left holding the bag for starting an open war without congressional approval, outside of the legal boundaries he's afforded by the WPA.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but the Republican's aren't stupid. They have to know that this situation is win/win/win/win for them. If Obama does nothing, they get to attack him for looking weak. If he starts a fight and gets soldiers killed, he's handed them grounds for impeachment. If Syria strikes Israel and sparks off a wider war, they get to attack him for destabilizing the region and putting our allies at risk. If we unseat Assad and the rebels take over, they get to attack him for supporting Al Qaeda.
Of course the republicans are going to encourage him to stick his neck out...doing so only helps THEM.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)How an MV-22 Osprey rescued a downed US pilot in Libya
http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0322/How-an-MV-22-Osprey-rescued-a-downed-US-pilot-in-Libya
Downed airmen tell their tale
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/17/exclusive-downed-pilots-tell-their-tale/
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)No way. Just no way.
David__77
(23,371 posts)I certainly hope that this is disinformation.
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)Also, because of the British Parliament's vote yesterday, the British will not be joining in any strike against Syria.
"After British Vote, Unusual Isolation For US on Syria"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/after-british-vote-unusual-isolation-for-us-on-syria.html/
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)If it is about justice and international law, it must be done with International support.
Auggie
(31,163 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)and for at least 15 years going back to release in 1997 of a neocon manifesto, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm written for the newly installed conservative Likud Party of Benjamin Netanyahu. It is a remarkably candid and concise document that accurately predicts U.S. and Israeli policy and actions in the region, particularly events in Syria and the western response during the last couple weeks.
The document extracted below explicitly states that Syria's WMD will serve as a pretext for western intervention while at the same time rejecting U.S. and western pressures to accept land for peace. That is exactly what has come to pass in 2013.
As A Clean Break makes clear, serial regime change in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and then Iran has long been the goal of a core group of Washington power players in both parties going back to that era. Here's the plan to transform the Mideast (and the U.S.) so as to expand Israel's hegemony, along with Turkey and Jordan, with Saudi Arabia, the silent partner of the Rightwing parties in Israel, the US, and the UK. This plan of serial regime change was later euphemistically termed, "The Arab Spring", when conditions were deemed ripe for overthrow of a string of governments of state surrounding Israel.
The "Clean Break" document was submitted to then PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It is remarkably prescient, and has come to pass through the wars and covert operations waged by the past two U.S. Administrations, with a few bumps in the road, almost exactly as planned 15 year ago.
Ironically, as alluded to below (and developed at greater length in later sections not excerpted below,) make clear, the ultimate point of neocon regime change is to invert the relationship of Israel with the US, and to make the former autonomous of the constraints imposed by the latter. The U.S. is the ultimate target of Right-wing regime change planned in Israel by the Neocons for Netanyahu's Likud Party: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israels socialist institutionswhich include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous governments "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass including a palpable sense of national exhaustionand forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israels efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahus government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nations streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:
Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafats exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
Forge a new basis for relations with the United Statesstressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace" which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.
A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:
TEXT:
We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israels quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish peoples hunger for human rights burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
striking Syrias drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
paralleling Syrias behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syrias regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.
Text:
Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syrias require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other sides good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy
TEXT:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syrias regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging through influence in the U.S. business community investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordans economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syrias attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkeys and Jordans actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophets family, the direct descendants of which and < . . .>
Good work leveymg!
Apparently President Obama doesn't care if many Democrats in Congress oppose this unilateral intervention against Assad; and they include people like Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) who is as far from being a DINO as you can get.
I wonder if President Obama has read "A Clean Break"?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)statement of the necon plan for the Mideast that has ever been released - maybe, even more significant and influential than the September 2000 document written by Kagan and Schmidt for PNAC, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which contained the notorious "New Pearl Harbour" reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as journalist Mark Danner,[39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they neededthat is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)delegator. The Obama Administration has done little to change the core foreign policy agenda he inherited and much to further the same goals.
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Here's their website.
I'd recommend reading their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" posted in their Publications & Reports pages.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)They want US to spend even more money on "defense"??
And "control" the world?? What the hell??
Thanks for the link though
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)particularly interesting was their 1st paragraph on page 63 of "Rebuilding America's Defenses". A way to get the public behind such an endeavor. Then came 911 in 2001. And look at the signatories of their documents.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)And THIS is the sort of presidenting we'll get from Ms. Clinton too!
WARREN - WARREN - WARREN FOR 2016!
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)Pending the report from the U.N. inspectors, can't he at least TRY to avoid a unilateral attack on Assad?
President Obama is sounding more and more like George W. Bush before he invaded Iraq.
Response to red dog 1 (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)There are at least four or five. I am not being facetious about that either.
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)There are many sides in this Syrian civil war. I don't claim to know them all, much less to understand them all.
Whatever. It's the Syrians' problem. It should not be ours. IMHO, of course.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Sheesh.
jsr
(7,712 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No, I can not believe he would do that. It would be madness, simply inconceivable.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)Did Clinton get congressional approval for his strikes on Iraq in 1993 for the attempted assassination of poppy bush?
it was loosely called a 'punishment strike'..
which is the only thing they are wanting in Syria ... unless you've seen more than I have that indicates Obama wants to invade and occupy Syria..
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If he orders airstrikes on Syrian targets, what President Obama wants to do and what he finds he has to do may be very different things.
As for President Clinton's Iraq strikes, it was a very different situation. Saddam had not been backed against the wall by a civil war. Assad has little to lose and, perhaps, much to gain by creating a far wider war.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)if whats said/done doesn't fit your thoughts or motives eh ?
pretty convenient for u I guess!
No, he hadn't been backed into a corner by a civil war.. just a gulf war against us and the sanctions that followed that cut him off from the majority of the world.... naaaah he wasn't under pressure at all!
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I'm not at all certain Assad will show the same degree of restraint. Miscalculating how a given leader will respond to that kind of thing is exactly how great big, awful wars begin.
David__77
(23,371 posts)A lot has happened in those decades.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)he launched millions of dollars of missiles and killed, if I remember correctly, six innocent civilians. Allegedly it was in response to the attempted assassination of a mass murderer; in reality, it was just a brief demonstration of "who's your daddy?" that American presidents feel the need to perform every few months just to remind the world what they're dealing with.
kimbutgar
(21,130 posts)We have money to start a war but not fix our infrastructure? Oh hell no Obama!
You do this and you will be obomba and ensure republicans to take back the senate in 14 and the whitehouse in 16.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)
polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)This is how Peace works. It takes some 12 dimensional chess of course.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I would be surprised if Obama decided to go it alone. It doesn't make sense. Im usually in agreement with the President but in this case I would be against it.
fletchthedubs
(41 posts)Beer Swiller
(44 posts)We don't even know if chemical weapons were used, much less who used them. Nerve gas is relatively easy to manufacture. For all we know, it could have been Al-Qaeda with Saudi money. Osama bin Laden WAS Saudi, you know.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)that contradicts all the BHO apologists who say the POTUS can't do anything by himself, eh!
He can do what he wants and he is showing his true colors... no pun intended!
Totally disgusting
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)Obama has to do something.
Celefin
(532 posts)You don't take your county into war to save face just because you said something that wasn't particularly well thought through. You just don't! And the 'everybody else does it' bullshit is just that. He should be above that.
He wouldn't seem weak. Quite the contrary - he'd appear able to reflect and to adapt policies to a changing reality. Like a leader should.
What a terrible shame if he truly goes ahead with this monumental stupidity; just to save face.