U.S. Attacks Syria

[Bengalzona]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/13/601794830/u-s-launches-attacks-on-syria?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180413

Quote:U.S.-Led Coalition Launches Attacks On Syria

Quote:Updated at 10:46 p.m. ET

President Trump announced Friday night that the U.S. and its allies had launched attacks on Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack last week by President Bashar Assad's regime.

In televised remarks from the White House, Trump said the attacks were underway and that Great Britain and France were also taking part.

"We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents," the president said.

The president did not provide details of the military action, but the Pentagon said the U.S., British and French naval and air forces struck three sites linked to the country's chemical weapons program.

News agencies reported large explosions in the capital, Damascus, but there was no immediate word on any casualties or damage.

About an hour after the president spoke, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the airstrikes were over.

"Right now we have no additional attacks planned," Mattis said.

Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. used its regular communication channels with the Russians to tell them in advance that U.S. aircraft would be in the region. But the U.S. did not warn the Russians about the targets, he added.

The U.S. has about 2,000 troops in northeastern Syria, where they have partnered with Kurdish fighters against the Islamic State.

The president again said that he supported the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria," he said. "The United States will be a partner and a friend. But the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people."

Trump also addressed the governments of Iran and Russia: "I ask what kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children. The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators."

The suspected chemical attack occurred on April 7 in the Damascus suburb of Douma, which had been held by rebel forces for years in Syria's continuing civil war. Civilians and rebel forces abandoned Douma following the latest attack.

"This massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime," the president said of the April 7 incident.

Referring to Assad, Trump said, "These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."

In the days leading up to the U.S. attack, Russia had warned that it would defend its troops in Syria. This has raised fears of a possible direct clash of U.S. and Russian forces.

The U.S. strike comes almost exactly a year after a previous U.S. strike, which was also in response to the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons. In that strike, on April 7, 2017, the U.S. launched 59 cruise missiles on a Syrian military airbase.

However, over the past year, Assad's regime has improved its position in much of the country as it battles various rebel groups. His government controls most of the major cities, which are located in the western part of the country.

[Bengalzona]

"Operation Desert Stormy"

[Yojimbo]

Unintended consequences, if you’re a warmonger. Predicted by everyone else.

https://www.wbez.org/shows/npr/iraqis-protest-usled-airstrikes-against-syria/67cbd3df-9e65-4f41-b608-4653c49c5c90#

[GMDino]

(04-14-2018, 02:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: "Operation Desert Stormy"

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this.  A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it.

If Trump was a different person who understood the need for clear statements and diplomacy he would have released a statement that said something along the following after the bombings:

"As part of a coalition with our allies in Great Britain and France the US took place in a bombing of strategic locations meant to destroy Assad and Syrian ability to have anymore horrible chemical attacks on their own people.  The operation was a complete success within the scope of what we decided must be done and the message that it sent.

Thank you to the brave men and women of every country who lead this mission to defend the Syrian people from such heinous actions as these chemical attacks."

Instead he tweets "Mission Accomplished".  With no follow up other than to double down and say it is a "great military term" that "should be used more often".

He's no leader of people, that's for sure.

But the mission itself was a good idea that seems to have been executed properly too.  Hopefully there are no further repercussions and no need to go further.  Also, hopefully, the targets were indeed what we thought they were and it's not another situation where we bomb an empty airstip that is up and running a few days later.

War is hell.

[HarleyDog]

(04-16-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm trying to keep an open mind about this.  A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it.

If Trump was a different person who understood the need for clear statements and diplomacy he would have released a statement that said something along the following after the bombings:

"As part of a coalition with our allies in Great Britain and France the US took place in a bombing of strategic locations meant to destroy Assad and Syrian ability to have anymore horrible chemical attacks on their own people.  The operation was a complete success within the scope of what we decided must be done and the message that it sent.

Thank you to the brave men and women of every country who lead this mission to defend the Syrian people from such heinous actions as these chemical attacks."

Instead he tweets "Mission Accomplished".  With no follow up other than to double down and say it is a "great military term" that "should be used more often".

He's no leader of people, that's for sure.

But the mission itself was a good idea that seems to have been executed properly too.  Hopefully there are no further repercussions and no need to go further.  Also, hopefully, the targets were indeed what we thought they were and it's not another situation where we bomb an empty airstip that is up and running a few days later.

War is hell.

He could have done a lot better than the tweet that’s for sure. He is rough around the edges with effective communication. It’s almost as if every time he speaks, you know what he meant, but leaves the door wide open for character flogging.

[Bengalzona]

(04-16-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm trying to keep an open mind about this.  A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it.

If Trump was a different person who understood the need for clear statements and diplomacy he would have released a statement that said something along the following after the bombings:

"As part of a coalition with our allies in Great Britain and France the US took place in a bombing of strategic locations meant to destroy Assad and Syrian ability to have anymore horrible chemical attacks on their own people.  The operation was a complete success within the scope of what we decided must be done and the message that it sent.

Thank you to the brave men and women of every country who lead this mission to defend the Syrian people from such heinous actions as these chemical attacks."

Instead he tweets "Mission Accomplished".  With no follow up other than to double down and say it is a "great military term" that "should be used more often".

He's no leader of people, that's for sure.

But the mission itself was a good idea that seems to have been executed properly too.  Hopefully there are no further repercussions and no need to go further.  Also, hopefully, the targets were indeed what we thought they were and it's not another situation where we bomb an empty airstip that is up and running a few days later.

War is hell.

Maybe it was effective, and maybe it was not. I like that the action was taken by a coalition rather than unilateral. I like that they targeted chemical research and production facilities. But did he send Putin a prior warning again? And is there sufficient evidence at this point that it was the Syrian government? (I'm talking about legally-recognized evidence rather than "We all know you did it!")

[Arturo Bandini]

That was the right thing to do. Poutine is playing way too much.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 12:55 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Maybe it was effective, and maybe it was not. I like that the action was taken by a coalition rather than unilateral. I like that they targeted chemical research and production facilities. But did he send Putin a prior warning again? And is there sufficient evidence at this point that it was the Syrian government? (I'm talking about legally-recognized evidence rather than "We all know you did it!")

As with a lot of these types of things we probably won't know if it was right or justified or successful until much later after the fact.

Edit: The other problem is that this President is so used to hogging the headlines that I can never trust that he does ANYTHING for the "right" reason when he could just as easily be trying to divert attention from another personal/political misstep/scandal/report.

[Belsnickel]

I disagree with it legally. Without an AUMF covering the action and since this is not a matter of national defense for us, this should have gone through Congress. Just like the last one. On a morality front, I have no issues, only on the legality.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree with it legally. Without an AUMF covering the action and since this is not a matter of national defense for us, this should have gone through Congress. Just like the last one. On a morality front, I have no issues, only on the legality.

Which is why in another thread someone us felt Trump's past statements on Obama's involvement bear some weight now.  

[Bengalzona]

(04-16-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree with it legally. Without an AUMF covering the action and since this is not a matter of national defense for us, this should have gone through Congress. Just like the last one. On a morality front, I have no issues, only on the legality.

The fact that the Brits and French were on-board indicates there maybe was some intel that we common folk aren't privy to pointing a finger to Syria. I guess PM Teresa May is hashing that out with her folks now. At least some governments still demand accountability instead of just fattening their personal wallets and creating further class bifurcation.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 03:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The fact that the Brits and French were on-board indicates there maybe was some intel that we common folk aren't privy to pointing a finger to Syria. I guess PM Teresa May is hashing that out with her folks now. At least some governments still demand accountability instead of just fattening their personal wallets and creating further class bifurcation.

Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Does what happened with Syria meet those criteria? Based on what we know, the answer is no. If the answer is yes, then that needs to be said. I get the desire to handle the situation in Syria. Assad is a piece of garbage. I just think it should have Congressional approval based upon our current laws.

[Luvnit2]

(04-16-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm trying to keep an open mind about this.  A response WAS needed and we had the support of our allies, so I can't fault that part of it.

If Trump was a different person who understood the need for clear statements and diplomacy he would have released a statement that said something along the following after the bombings:

"As part of a coalition with our allies in Great Britain and France the US took place in a bombing of strategic locations meant to destroy Assad and Syrian ability to have anymore horrible chemical attacks on their own people.  The operation was a complete success within the scope of what we decided must be done and the message that it sent.

Thank you to the brave men and women of every country who lead this mission to defend the Syrian people from such heinous actions as these chemical attacks."

Instead he tweets "Mission Accomplished".  With no follow up other than to double down and say it is a "great military term" that "should be used more often".

He's no leader of people, that's for sure.

But the mission itself was a good idea that seems to have been executed properly too.  Hopefully there are no further repercussions and no need to go further.  Also, hopefully, the targets were indeed what we thought they were and it's not another situation where we bomb an empty airstip that is up and running a few days later.

War is hell.

Really? President Trump went on National TV (most stations preempted programming) and explained everything you just said at 9 p.m. Friday night as the strikes began. Then he directed the Pentagon to have a press conference at 10 p.m.

You can't tweet a 10 minute speech, but WTH in an age of easy to find info some are just too lazy or does not fit their narrative to bash our president to deliver factual and complete info.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Really? President Trump went on National TV (most stations preempted programming) and explained everything you just said at 9 p.m. Friday night as the strikes began. Then he directed the Pentagon to have a press conference at 10 p.m.

You can't tweet a 10 minute speech, but WTH in an age of easy to find info some are just too lazy or does not fit their narrative to bash our president to deliver factual and complete info.

I am talking about his tweet after the bombing.

A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 14, 2018

And the doubling down on "mission accomplished"

The Syrian raid was so perfectly carried out, with such precision, that the only way the Fake News Media could demean was by my use of the term “Mission Accomplished.” I knew they would seize on this but felt it is such a great Military term, it should be brought back. Use often!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 15, 2018

However you are correct that you can't tweet a ten minute speech.  That is what television is for.  Or even a prerecorded video sent via twitter.

However in this age of "us vs them" there are a lot of lazy people who attack a message without a) reading what was said and b) realizing that some criticism isn't "a narrative to bash our president".   

[Bengalzona]

(04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Does what happened with Syria meet those criteria? Based on what we know, the answer is no. If the answer is yes, then that needs to be said. I get the desire to handle the situation in Syria. Assad is a piece of garbage. I just think it should have Congressional approval based upon our current laws.

Was there contact with the Congressional committees prior to?

If it is a situation where the Exec Branch just unilaterally decided to lob some missiles (outside of nuclear attack, of course), then that could be a big problem.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 04:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Was there contact with the Congressional committees prior to?

If it is a situation where the Exec Branch just unilaterally decided to lob some missiles (outside of nuclear attack, of course), then that could be a big problem.

Contact with committees isn't specific statutory authority. We're talking an AUMF. The, what is it, gang of 8, would have been notified, but that is just letting them know. That is still the Executive acting unilaterally. This is the way it has been for a while, now.

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I have zero doubt that Assad deserved what he got. I just feel like we have gotten to a point of ignoring our own law on this sort of thing. For instance, this is from 50 USC, Section 1541 which is from the War Powers Resolution: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Does what happened with Syria meet those criteria? Based on what we know, the answer is no. If the answer is yes, then that needs to be said. I get the desire to handle the situation in Syria. Assad is a piece of garbage. I just think it should have Congressional approval based upon our current laws.

Yes, that is what the WPR says, but every president since Ford has violated these requirements. There are so many ways to maneuver around them with "special" interpretations of statutory authorizations and disagreements as to when exactly the timeline kicks in. The president only has to "consult" or "report" before starting any action. In effect, the President, not Congress, has first rights in deciding when the conditions have been fulfilled. 

The #1 problem in every case is that Congress does little to nothing whenever it is violated.  Congress has the final say in whether a military action is constitutional/legal, and it can order the President to remove troops out of whatever theater with a concurrent resolution (they can also defund specific actions), but the president's party almost always fights/blocks any Congressional control of their president's foreign policy actions. (As you know, since the Cold War Consensus broke down it has been really hard to get both parties and both houses working together. They did for a year or so after 9/11, but the Iraq invasion destroyed bipartisanship again.) Also, there is good reason for not wanting to restrict a president's ability to react quickly. 

Here I think Trump is on some legal ground if he cites previous presidential actions, and extra-legally he can trust his Congress to prevent any repercussions beyond loud Dem complaints. They could even create authorization after the fact.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 06:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, that is what the WPR says, but every president since Ford has violated these requirements. There are so many ways to maneuver around them with "special" interpretations of statutory authorizations and disagreements as to when exactly the timeline kicks in. The president only has to "consult" or "report" before starting any action. In effect, the President, not Congress, has first rights in deciding when the conditions have been fulfilled. 

The #1 problem in every case is that Congress does little to nothing whenever it is violated.  Congress has the final say in whether a military action is constitutional/legal, and it can order the President to remove troops out of whatever theater with a concurrent resolution (they can also defund specific actions), but the president's party almost always fights/blocks any Congressional control of their president's foreign policy actions. (As you know, since the Cold War Consensus broke down it has been really hard to get both parties and both houses working together. They did for a year or so after 9/11, but the Iraq invasion destroyed bipartisanship again.) Also, there is good reason for not wanting to restrict a president's ability to react quickly. 

Here I think Trump is on some legal ground if he cites previous presidential actions, and extra-legally he can trust his Congress to prevent any repercussions beyond loud Dem complaints. They could even create authorization after the fact.

I don't disagree with any of this. That is the reality of the situation. I have always had an issue with it. I do think, though, that the "good reason for not wanting to restrict a president's ability to react quickly" is taken care of by point three in the WPR. I would like to see us rein in the way the Executive has used the WPR in recent decades.

[Dill]

(04-16-2018, 04:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Contact with committees isn't specific statutory authority. We're talking an AUMF. The, what is it, gang of 8, would have been notified, but that is just letting them know. That is still the Executive acting unilaterally. This is the way it has been for a while, now.

Reagan informed Congressional leaders he was invading Grenada hours after he had signed the invasion order.
In Conyers vs Reagan, John Conyers and 10 members of Congress filed a suit against Reagan for ordering the invasion of Granada without duly reporting first. They lost because Congress supposedly has "other remedies."  (The case was not ripe.)
https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/conyers-v-reagan

Bush 41 informed Congressional leaders he was going to invade Panama 7 hours before the invasion began. But Congress does not view "informing" as consulting or properly reporting. So there has been lots of inter-branch fighting about this for decades now.

In '93, Clinton reported the first U.S. air actions over Bosnia after the fact.

So many grey areas here, as the WPR does not even specify whom in Congress is to be consulted.

[Bengalzona]

(04-16-2018, 04:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Contact with committees isn't specific statutory authority. We're talking an AUMF. The, what is it, gang of 8, would have been notified, but that is just letting them know. That is still the Executive acting unilaterally. This is the way it has been for a while, now.

No. It's not statutory, but it is good judgment.