Given that the president only has authority to use them legally without congressional approval if there is an "actual or imminent" threat to America, and given that there has been precious little public discussion on what we are doing, what are objectives are, and what we are aiming to get out of all this, they are questions that should be answered immediately.
1. What is Assad's "actual or imminent threat" to America that justifies combat deployment of US forces on presidential order alone?
2. Absent such threat, what is his legal authority to send US forces into combat without prior Congressional approval? (Congressional approval, or not, may yet be forthcoming.)
3. What is the primary strategic objective that the United States will achieve through military forces that cannot be obtained otherwise?
4. What is the moral imperative that justifies killing and being killed?
5. Apart from opposing Assad, what exactly makes the Syrian revolutionaries worth the expenditure of American lives and treasure?
6. The president is on record as saying that Assad must not remain in power. Does that mean that regime change is a US objective and if so, will US military power be used to achieve it?
7. If not, will a partition of Syria into territories controlled by Assad and the revolutionaries be acceptable, and if so, why?
8. What influence do you expect to have over the political nature of a potential revolutionary government?
9. What are the conditions of success in Syria? What must happen before American combat forces are withdrawn? In other words, how will you know when you've won?
There is minimal public support for this attack, because the administration has presented no justification for it, and has not prepared the American people for it. At least Bush got approval from congress and the UN before invading Iraq. It is instructive that Obama feels no need to do any of that. It is likely that if the latest military adventure from the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize consists of anything more than a barrage of missiles, our "leader" will suffer the same political fate as his predecessor. That would be reward enough.
Of course, it is a military principle for Democrats to tell the enemy what they plan to do days in advance! Good job, General Obama!
Update: It appears that General Obama has in fact answered question number two, back in 2007.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
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 to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
So, where then is his authority to attack, using public resources, another sovereign country, without an imminent threat and without congressional approval?
The revolutionaries are part of the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda whose stated goal is to destroy both America and Israel (not in that order). Why would we help?
ReplyDeleteWhy indeed. I must think it is purely for domestic political purposes, although one would also think that Captain Amazing would have learned from the political debacle suffered by his predecessor on this very same issue.
Delete