“And if we stay out of the whole mess, people like the OP will declare Obama a failure.” Ravenman
Just as they will if we become involved. Obama has handled it very well.
Crane
I’m compelled to agree with you; it in no way changes the political reality for the US in that part of the world. So what, indeed.
yay!
Unfortunately the thing about empires is that in order to remain empires they have to shape events. There’s no middle way with that.
I mean getting America’s allies to agree that they’d be in favour of us making a military strike against the Syrian military for the purpose described if they launch a chemical attack. If I couldn’t do that, I wouldn’t make an ultimatum that I won’t be able to enforce.
Why? Only a fool thinks in terms of “We have to do something!”
The power of the USA is such that even if we are determined to take no action, that in itself is an action. Different actors, good, bad and ugly will act according to their assessment of our intentions, to one degree or another.
As well, we are on record as asserting an international standard of decency whereby certain forms of warfare are illegal. If we had one American soldier in Aleppo for every time I heard “He gassed his own people!” as a justification for outright invasion, we would rule Syria as a military protectorate, and be drafting Campfire Girls.
A capitalist caliphate, if you will. You probably won’t, and I don’t blame you.
If they turn pro-Western there’s a decent chance they’ll buy military equipment and armaments from Western suppliers. If they’re anti-Western we might “have to” invade or bomb them in a decade or two. Win/win.
I happen to agree with you and I said as much earlier in the thread. The President spoke prematurely when drawing the red line. On the other hand, it was a calculated risk which could have gone much worse if he was not so adept at dialing it back and seizing an opportunity to make a purse out of a sow’s ear. At the end of the day, the surrender and dismantling of CW’s is a much better outcome than anyone could realistically expect to have happen. Would you agree?
I already gave you a cite, which was the mission in Libya, which was expanded over its initial objects, and which Congress didn’t object.
You all have it completely backwards. I, myself, would be very happy to read limitations into the President’s C-in-C powers. But the only people who have the power to read in those limitations is Congress (and under our current system, I’m not even sure they have that power). If they choose not to read in that limitation, where does it come from? Because you decided there should be a limitation? Ok, well go take it up with the Congress. Because the limitation you desire doesn’t exist in any practical purpose.
And, I’ll also point out, Ravenman, that I have explained the alternate Presidential Gloss argument in detail here, and I’ve said that this is the argument Obama is probably using. You have ignored that issue multiple times. I wonder why? Oh, it’s because you probably have no idea what you are talking about.:rolleyes:
How was the mission in Libya expanded? I honestly don’t understand what you’re referencing.
But I was really more interested in cites about “expansions of military missions” being an inherent CnC power. I’ve worked in national security policy for two decades and I’ve never heard anyone make such a claim before. My assumption would be that Youngstown would cover authorized vs unauthorized Executive Branch activities in wartime, because, you know, that was pretty much what the case was about.
I, too, am confused about this alleged mission change in Libya. Firstly, unless the president actually announces such a change (and it wasn’t done in that instance), who is authorized to determine if a change has taken place? Congress, of course, can choose to defund certain activities, but a failure to act isn’t necessary an affirmation of anything in particular.
In the case of Libya, the action taken was never authorized by Congress in the first place. In that case, one might argue that anything the president is an “expansion of the mission” since the mission was… nothing.
Again, you completely ignore the Presidential gloss issue. :rolleyes:
But as for Libya, the UN only authorized protection of civilians (as I have previously stated). Later, after operations went underway, the US actively participated in the overthrow of Qaddafi (as I’ve previously stated). This was an expansion of the initial mission.
I know. Everyone here wants to create a rule whereby if you are authorized to engage a regime to protect civilians, you’re allowed to expand the mission to overthrow the regime. At the same time, they want to create a rule that if you are authorized to engage rebels, you are definitely not authorized to overthrow the regime. Expect, nobody has any explanation of where those rules come from.
So, when you worked in national security, if an order came down to you, you did a constitutional analysis, and then refused to obey the order if you didn’t agree? Come on.
Youngstown covers economic regulation of the domestic economy. I would very much like it to apply to general Commander-in-Chief powers, and if you can show me how it does, let’s go to court. But when Congress refuses repeatedly to act when the executive expands a mission, what am I supposed to say?
Oh, my god. This is the whole basis of Presidential Gloss. If Congress fails to act (under that theory), that means that the President has that power.
I’m not sure why I bother with you. In the past you’ve postulated such brilliant arguments as slavery is compatible with libertarianism, that the Alaskan oil fund doesn’t constitute socialism, and that currency manipulation constitutes free trade. You obviously don’t understand terms as they are used generally, so I think we’re done.
The initial action was taken under UN auspices. The mission was expanded from the initial UN auspices.
You have an “interesting” memory and seem to be the only one who holds certain views. Looks like you’ll be debating with yourself in the future. :rolleyes:
Yes, we know that you have made that claim. Several times. But what you have failed to do is back it up with any evidence. How, exactly, did the mission change and who is authorized to determine that?
You or I may think the mission changed, but so what?
Fine by me, if I don’t have to put up with your bizarre definitions.
I got no idea what you are asking for evidence of. Do you want the initial UN authorization? Do you want the initial Obama justification of intervention (which I’ve supplied)? Do you want evidence that Qaddafi was overthrown (I’m happy to supply it, since you seem to have missed it)? Do you want evidence that the US participated in the overthrow? Eh, why am I asking. It’s you. I’m sure you’ll be telling us that up is down in a few minutes.
No, I want evidence that Obama changed the mission to overthrowing Gaddafi. The fact that Gaddafi was overthrown is not evidence of that, and frankly the UNSC Resolution was vague enough, probably intentionally so, that claiming any action taken by NATO (short of literally dropping a bomb on Gaddafi himself) can be objectively claimed to have been aimed at regime change (as opposed to protecting civilians) is nonsense.
More importantly, though, this military action was never authorized by Congress in the first place, so it’s unclear why you are using is as some example of the president broadening the mission beyond what Congress authorized.
I’m ignoring the dog whistle of simply repeating “presidential gloss” as though it’s a trump card to winning the debate. I prefer to respond to your individual claims of how you see the doctrine applied to specific situations.
Libya seems to be the OPPOSITE of what you claim: the military operations started out in big way specifically to create a no-fly zone, and then US direct combat operations ceased as Europeans took over. Here is the President’s letter explaining the Libya mission, which basically says bombing is intended to help create no-fly zones to protect the civilian population, and once the NFZ are established, the US will no longer conduct combat operations. I can’t find any reference anywhere to US military operations being specifically directed to end Qaddafi’s regime. Regime change was US policy, but I don’t see evidence that the US specifically changed its military mission from the establishment of NFZ to bombing Qaddafi’s armed forces to create regime change.
In other words, show that the United States used military force specifically to overthrow Qaddafi, as opposed to the purpose of establishing a NFZ.
I don’t think that’s what “everyone here” is saying at all.
Uh, of course. That’s what General Counsels are for: determine what lawful actions can be taken within constitutional and statutory parameters. Then policy was decided based on what is viewed as legal. Different branches of government may have different opinions on the breadth of statutes, of course, but absolutely, yes: there is always a serious effort to determine the legality of policy, rather than the policy being determined and people having to decide whether it is legal or not.
Youngtown includes the famous phrases:
Which is what I’m saying: the President may operate in a gray area if Congress has not spoken on an issue, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a “zone of twilight.” Since the AUMF specifically says the president may go after Al Qaida terrorists who were responsible for 9/11, the President has great authority to do so, so long as he sticks to what Congress stated. The President deciding to use military force to induce regime change of Syria and using the AUMF as justification puts his power at its “lowest ebb,” since he would be acting in a manner incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress in the AUMF.
Lebanon is under “radical Islam”? :dubious:
How do you reconcile the argument you make that Obama siezed an opportunity to make a purse out of a sow’s ear with reports and Obama’s explanation that he had approached Putin on getting the CW destroyed as far back as June 2013? That means before August when civilians were gassed with Sarin, it was Obama taking the initiative to get the CW destroyed and Putin did not move.
No Red Line. No threat of punitive strikes because Putin had no incentive to act and if no red line were drawn. Fact is, finally agree with Obama. It seems much more credible to state that Putin could not bear to see Assad punished by US missile strikes even symbolically for using the CW to kill innocent civilians.
Obama got what he had been asking for in June.