It’ll certainly be quite surprising if Al Quaeda which never used chemical weapons against the US in over ten years in Iraq or Afghanistan started using them in Syria.
When Obama blabbed the “red line” threat, that was practically an invitation for shenanigans. No such opportunity existed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The problems with that are numerous and largely obvious. Firstly it’s WAY past time for negotiation. Secondly, negotiation with whom? This is exactly what I’m trying to get across, there is no single solution that will please all of the warring factions. So what can negotiation possibly achieve? It would just prolong the conflict.
I also do not particularly like the idea of cutting off the aid to the civilians. But in my mind there is simply no other way. It kind of comes down to the lesser of the evils. Experience in Afghanistan clearly illustrates that we can not fix their government through intervention. They have to want the same results first, and they have to want those results infinitely more then anybody else, otherwise it’s a waste of time, money and lives. What I “suggested” before is largely aimed at minimizing outsider casualties and keeping the conflict confined to an area. If US (and/or France) decides to actually try and resolve the conflict for these factions then they would have to put their own citizens at risk. In my opinion, and I’m sure many will consider this wrong, our citizens should come first. Everybody else should be a very distant second. Of course I am well aware of the arguments that all lives are important and should be valued equally, but while it sounds nice and proper it just doesn’t make sense to me. There is no way that some person halfway around the world could mean the same to me as my own friends and family, so those arguments are immediately discarded, and anybody who’s going to tell me otherwise is either a saint or a liar.
Congress could, before the strikes happen, pass a law forbidding it. Of course, the President (any President!) would veto that law, and I don’t think there are enough votes to over-ride.
The House could impeach him, but, again, the votes in the Senate aren’t there to remove him. (Also, it would guarantee, for the next hundred years, that every President gets impeached. The process would devolve into comic-opera banality.)
So, in practice, no.
Well, our amateur president is about to get his big lesson-provoking a war with a nation that never attacked us will NOT be without cost. Syria will then be justified in attacking US targets all over the ME-and let us not forget that the Hezbollah were able to launch a missile that almost sank and Israeli frigate, a few years ago. So what if we lose a few ships, a few hundred lives out of this? Suppose we have a few embassies and consulates attacked?
I say to the POTUS, “go right ahead, have your way”…only remember that Syria can strike back, and this will SURELY end badly.
I see Vlad Putin has joined the UK Parliament in telling the privilaged US political class they’re ful of shit.
Which is about the same as saying we should dust the region with powdered unicorn horn and let the hobbits mop up the rest or build a bridge to Mars and force them to go live Off-Earth. Completely unrealistic scenario.
Under the Dome Season Two: Syria
President’s about to speak from the Rose Garden.
A surprise address on the Saturday of a holiday weekend? My guess is he’s not choosing “D) None of the above.”
Someone should tell him that sarin also kills straight people.
Obama just handed off the decision to Congress. Also, the UK is the closest ally now, when it was France yesterday. 
Obama will ask for Congressional approval. Pretty unusual, and pretty cool!
Yep. So far he’s mentioned that 1) he is comfortable, based on the evidence presented to him, with authorizing strikes on Syrian regime targets, while ruling out “boots on the ground” and 2) he is planning on asking Congress for authorization to strike.
We cannot be the only nation “threatened” by Syria. Would be nice if say Israel or England or Canada said fuck it Syria here we come and we publicly pledge our support of their action…just once yeah?
A real head scratcher for me as I contemplate how ass backwards many of the middle east countries are provided they are amongst the oldest civilizations on earth. One would logically conclude a society matures as it ages and becomes the voice of reason for their immature counterparts. Guess not…
I can’t speak for the UK or Canada, but the last thing the U.S. needs is open support from Israel. Not if it wants to keep Turkey and the Gulf States on its side.
Plus, it’s easier to support a war when your civilians are outside missile range.
Probably because he doesn’t have the funds necessary to strike without further funding from Congress. This way he looks like he was going to ask Congress all along. If he had the funds he would have attacked days ago without even mentioning it to Congress.
Hopefully no-one is that dumb on any side, and Israel and Turkey (and the Gulf states) can keep their current relationships going with a nod and a wink, and a few under-the-table handshakes.
That’s a pretty savvy political move. It suggests to me that he’s not wildly enthusiastic about launching an attack, but is willing to do it. Seeking congressional approval will provide him some political cover either way. If he doesn’t get it, he can say he tried, and rail against an uncooperative congress. If he does get it, then he spreads responsibility for the outcome if things don’t go well.
Congress will look at the polls, see 9% support for striking Syria and vote accordingly. “Railing against an uncooperative congress” on an issue that has only 9% support from the public is a bit counterproductive.
It is a bit sad that the Brits had to show us the way. We used to lead, not follow.
And it just gets more national buy-in for a pretty important decision. The more people involved in a decision-making process, the more people feel responsible for its success.