Vice President Joe Biden has just confirmed with "no doubt" that the Ba'ath government was responsible behind the August 21st Ghouta chemical attacks. Casualty reports have ranged from 322 to 1729, with accusations of guilt coming from all sides. Coming just a year after Obama's Red Line speech, the attacks reportedly occurring 3 AM struck several rebel held towns.
Initial reactions from the international community were harsh, With the US suspecting Ba'ath involvement. The Assad regime rejected responsibility, and then proceeded to blame the rebels for staging the attack to discredit the regime - proclaiming that the US and others were using it as an excuse to attack. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich stated that "agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all the responsibility on the government."
UN inspection of the attack site was delayed after the Syrian government reportedly shelled the area for days, removing evidence, and the investigators themselves were targeted with sniper fire. Reports indicate that a nerve agent was used, corroborating witness reports and videos of the attack.
Just yesterday, the UK and US deployed several guided missile destroyers and a helicopter carrier to the region to be ready for a strike against Syria, after UK prime minister David Cameron called the attacks "morally indefensible." Several nearby submarines, aircraft carriers and regional AFBs (Air Force Bases) are ready to give support should the order to attack come, which the Americans are ready for according to US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Said attacks are expected to strike prime military targets, especially any units responsible for said attacks.
While the Obama administration has solidly put the blame on the Syrian government, other groups are still claiming their innocence. With the event so recent, not all evidence has yet been collected or reviewed by investigators - and only time will tell if other nations agree with the US government's findings. Do you think the Syrian government or the rebels perpetrated this attack? Is the US government aiming to intervene militarily out of outrage for the situation, or for other reasons?
11 comments:
The violence inflicted upon Syrian civilians by Bashar al-Assad's regime is appalling and demands attention, but I would like to address the points regarding checks and balances brought up in Condon's "No Doubt" article for CBS.
Following President Obama and Vice President Biden's condemnation of al-Assad's actions, debate arose as to whether or not the United States should impose a military strike on Syria if no direct and potential threat to the United States exists. Yesterday, a letter began circling through Congress and has so far garnered the support of over two dozen lawmakers. The letter recognizes President Obama’s considered intervention, but reminds the president of Congress’ necessary authorization before such action can be undertaken. Thus, the issue of checks and balances is again brought to our attention.
As the legislative branch’s check to the executive branch, President Obama cannot deploy troops in a situation lacking an immediate threat without the consent of Congress. As the letter states, “[Congress] shares the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.” Only in self-defense can the chief executive deploy troops without conferring with Congress.
President Obama stated that he sees U.S. involvement in Syria as necessary to maintain the international “norm” regarding chemical weapons; allowing these crimes to continue would be sending a green light instead of a red light. I agree with his train of thought, but not necessarily the idea of deploying troops to Syria. But, it’s also necessary to consider whether or not Congress will be able to justify such action. If history is any indication, the United States does not always do as much good as is intended when meddling in international affairs. Any ensuing disaster would be quite a burden for the executive branch, especially if it lacked the support of Congress.
While the checks and balances debate is much more multifaceted and complex than it seems, I think that I would categorize this situation in the “pro checks and balances” column.
Annika raises a good point, and one that must be on the forefront of many the minds in Washington as the US prepares for (what I believe to be an imminent) strike against Assad. In terms acquiring Congress's acceptance for such executive action, if Mr. Obama's administration was able to prove that a vindictive strike against Assad would serve and protect crucial US interests, it would be acceptable to initiate such action without the approval of Congress. As taking such action holds the US to its assertion that chemical weapons cannot be used without international response, I believe such an attack represents a defense of the US's legitimacy, and possibly an executive action that can be taken without the approval of Congress. However, David Cameron (UK's PM) has intimated that his government will wait for UN inspectors to finish their work before initiating military action: a motion that pushes the time period for a possible attack a few weeks into the future. This could give the president and Congress time to come to a resolution before joining the British (and the French and possibly the Israelis) in a joint attack on Assad.
Under classic conditions, only the legislative branch of the US government has the power to declare war, as well as to raise, support, and regulate the military. But as the commander in chief, President Obama does have power to utilize military force - without Congressional approval or a declaration of war since a declaration of war is not equivalent to the usage of military power. The language in the Constitution states Congress has the ability to declare war, not make war - James Madison stated that the difference was to give the President the ability to "repel sudden attacks."
In today's context, when fighting can occur using high tech vehicles and weapons that strike far faster than in the 18th or 19th century, this means that the President can theoretically initiate sudden attacks. In order to restore balance to the system following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and its Resolution, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution - requiring the President to seek Congressional approval within 48 hours of the usage of military force, in order to remain committed for more than 60 days. Since its passage in 1973, all presidents have declared their belief that the resolution is unconstitutional, and in practice it has been ignored several times, such as in the Iran-Contra Affair.
So in summary, the President has the capability both in theory and in practice to launch a strike without Congressional approval. The checks and balances system with respect to the role of the Executive and Legislative branches in military affairs was made logically in its time period, when wars took years and forces took weeks to mobilize, organize and strike. But in today's context, it is starting the show its age as the acceleration of warfare has slowly given the President more power than it should in making war - the War Powers Resolution is not nearly strong enough as of now to restore that balance.
In a PBS interview Obama gave yesterday, he made it clear that he believes the al-Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians. However, even though he stated that the al-Assad's use of chemical weapons would warrant U.S action, he understandably remains hesistant about sending troops into Syria. He stated that "direct military... engagement would not help the situation on the ground." I agree with Jack that a U.S military strike is immenent, and based on Obama's comments, it seems that any action taken would be a decisive strike over limited duration. This leaves us with the question of how much can actually be accomplished from such a strike? Would it be enough to change the actions of the al-Assad regime?
In response to Joey's post, I'd like to first point out that after today's events, a military strike on Syria may not be as imminent as one might have thought at the beginning of the week.
Today, Britain's Parliament defeated David Cameron's already watered-down proposal for military action in Syria, opting to wait, as Jack stated in his post, for UN inspectors to complete their investigations of chemical weapons use in Syria. However, it is not within the inspectors' UN mandate to assign blame for the use of chemical weapons, so the responsibility of determining blame still falls on the shoulders of countries contemplating military action against Syria. While there is already substantial evidence indicating that chemical weapons were indeed used, the UK hasn't been as forceful as the White House in blaming the Assad regime for the attacks, and thus I think that even after UN inspectors finish their investigations, the UK will continue to opt out of military action.
On the other hand, the Obama administration does indeed seem absolutely certain that Assad has been responsible for the attacks, citing intercepted communications between high-ranking Syrian officials as solid evidence for Assad's responsibility. Additionally, the White House has recently briefed senior Congressional members on US interests in and options for military action, and forces have already been deployed to the surrounding areas, as Kevin has pointed out. If indeed Assad is responsible for the attacks, then the US does have a legitimate case for upholding international humanitarian law with a military strike, as Annika stated in her post. Of course, should Congress approve military action in the coming days, it would add much more credibility to the White House if it does decide to strike.
But in the broader international context, the US has lost a key ally in striving to punish Assad for chemical weapons use, with the UK's sudden defeat of military options today. Even though the White House has stated that any decision made would be "in the best interests of the United States" and independent from other countries' decisions, the US's already bruised legitimacy and credibility is at stake should it decide to take unilateral action without the backing of an international coalition.
For many Americans and, evidently, for many British MPs, the current deliberations regarding Syria very much resemble the debate before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ten years ago, the White House seemed incredibly certain through intelligence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, similar to how the White House today is certain in its blaming of Assad for the attacks. Even though there are differences between Iraq in 2003 and Syria today as pointed out by the UK's deputy prime minister*, the mere shadow of a failed 10-year war in Iraq is enough to give any American pause.
Responding to the questions Joey has posed, I believe that the US can potentially accomplish a lot, both negative and positive, from a strike on Syria. The US undoubtedly has enough military might, even in a decisive, limited-duration strike, to inflict tremendous destruction upon the Assad regime; thus, to me, this is not a question of military effectiveness but of legitimacy. Launching a military strike involving boots on the ground today would not only severely damage US credibility but could potentially become a dragged-out conflict as we witnessed with Iraq. On the other hand, waiting for the completion of UN investigations and working to assemble a coalition with other countries (e.g. France and Turkey) in the meantime before any military action is taken would boost US credibility abroad. While they may not stop Assad from continuing to use chemical weapons, US air strikes (which I would prefer over the use of ground forces), carried out only with the backing of solid evidence and an international coalition, send a strong and credible message to Assad that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated by the international community.
*Interesting article comparing 2003 Iraq to Syria today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23869127
John Yoo believes that President Obama has Constitutional support to launch a military attack as well as historical precedent. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/30/constitution-allows-obama-to-strike-syria-without-congressional-approval/ (Yes, it's Fox news, but the author is John Yoo.)
I believe Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to American intervention in Syria. As previously mentioned by Patrick and others, the Iraq War is still fresh in the minds of the people.
However, if I may bring in a somewhat relevant event studied in CWS sophomore year, the Rwanda genocide provides a stark example of the massive loss of life when the international community fails to act because of lingering reminders of previous failed missions namely the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco in Somalia. The White House refuses to admit that what's happening in Syria is genocide. Syria is no Rwanda, but does it really matter when lives are violently taken away.
This morning, President Obama delivered a speech at the White House confirming his decision to take military action against Syria. He has made it clear that he wants Congress on his side, believing that "our country will be better off" if both the legislative branch and the executive branch are both on the same page. It's comforting to see, like Annika said, that our checks and balances system is effective in preventing any branch from making any sudden decisions without consulting more opinions.
Congress is due to debate on this topic on September 9th. It's going to be a tough debate; on one hand, the government should respect the public's wishes, and consider the repercussions of the decision to use military intervention and put troops on the ground. But on the other hand, it's important to put a stop to these actions before it gets too out of hand. They also must consider the economic consequences of taking military action; the Iraq war cost us almost $4 trillion. Given that we're still recovering from the 2007 recession, should we really jump straight into another war? Even worse, the Iraq War took so many brave souls, and I don't think the public can bear to suffer through that loss again. But at the same time, children and families are suffering under al-Assad's regime and almost every country has turned their back on this horrible situation except for a few including the U.S. The decision is tough, and if Congress authorizes President Obama's proposal to take military action, it's going to be a messy process to change the public's opinion. Furthermore, if the U.S. decides to go to war, it would be extremely beneficial to get other countries on board as well. But the possibility of that happening is looking dim, as even Britain has said no to military intervention in Syria.
While I definitely understand the previously voiced concerns in the above comments, I feel that it is important to understand that the proposed military actions are far from the United States going to war. Any strikes are expected to be carried out using cruise missiles from American naval assets in the Mediterranean and should only last approximately 48 hours. There is an almost negligible chance of any loss of American life and a strike does not pose any major financial strains on the Dept of Defense. While I agree that military intervention is not a viable solution for the overall crisis in Syria (a sentiment echoed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense), to allow the Syrian regime to employ chemical weapons is to make a mockery of international law. Swift response to this defiance of international agreements and standards regarding the conduct of war would send a powerful message to the Syrian regime and those who may consider the use of chemical weapons in the future.
In response to the question posed originally in the post, the executive branch has stated that the United States is acting in the interests of enforcing international law and degrading the Syrian ability of launching further chemical attacks. Any actions taken to further destabilize the Syrian regime or to support rebel forces would be beyond the scope of the U.S. mission and should fall under the close scrutiny of the international community.
As for President Obama's choice to gain congressional approval for military action...
In light of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the people of the U.S. have demanded greater oversight in the way the United States uses her troops and military assets. While the executive still has the authority as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to use military actions in a manner that is less than war (as stated in previous comments), there is definitely a political motivation to allow the legislature to weigh in on to the issue. If Congress signs off on such a resolution, President Obama may have pulled off a brilliant political maneuver in gaining greater authority to exercise military force and in acquiring a great deal of legitimacy to do so. However, if Congress goes the way of the British Parliament, Obama will be left in a sticky political grey area where military action may still be legal, but obviously opposed by Congress (and, in the eyes of many.. opposed by the American people.).
Post a Comment