I didn't see anything that would seem to authorize war against an official state like Syria.
What did you see in the AUMF that suggests this to you?
Fern
The three primary objectives of AUMF2015 are to legitimately authorize search and rescue missions, conduct special operations against ISIS leadership, and conduct intelligence operations to assist partner forces. That middle part is what scares me the most because
anything can become a special operation to take out the head-honcho of a terrorist organization. When your special operations target is a leader who's garrisoned in a city and protected behind 20,000 troops, what does that special operations call for to take him out?
Am I worried Obama will do it? No. I think Obama has been pretty careful throughout this presidency to not let the American war machine get carried away. It's mission creep is what I'm saying. First we dropped bombs from the air. Okay, no problem, but now we're doing the assaulting with special operations teams. Sooner or later, the question is going to be asked, are special operations teams aren't going to be enough? All it takes is some hawkish leadership to continue pushing the issue The last thing I feel we need to do is go in there. This is a political/religious war at its core, and until Sunni and Shia muslims start working together and getting along, some other terrorist organization will rise up and replace ISIS.
Your first sentence is false.
Your second sentence is true.
No, my first statement is true too. Hezbollah, the Shia Islamic militant group of Lebanon, is already openly aiding the Syrian regime. And if "foreign" ground troops enter Syria where Syrians feel are a threat to their sovereignty, it's likely going to draw Iran into the conflict too.
Syria - Shia ruled (Alawite), Sunni population dominant
Lebanon - Very mixed, but Hezbollah is Shia Islam
Iran - Extremely Shia dominant
Iraq - Shia dominant
Turkey - Sunni dominant
Saudi Arabia - Sunni dominant
Jordan - Sunni dominant
It's no surprise that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and to a smaller extent Jordan - all who are Sunni Islam, want Assad, who is Shia, ousted. Ousting Assad means bringing in Sunni control! And it's not terribly surprising either when Iran, who is the most Shia dominant state of the Middle East, is very actively aiding and defending the Iraqi government, who is also currently dominated by Shia muslims. Is this start to make a little bit more sense to you?
ISIS is very much a Sunni movement in its entirety, and has sprung out of an areas where both Sunnis and Shia muslims have greatly marginalized each other. That makes this, at least in a black and white sense, a Sunni-Shia power struggle very similar to the Catholic-Protestant wars of Europe a few hundred years ago. In other words, not our fight! If we go in and wipe out ISIS, which we very much are capable of, then we've done nothing to change the intolerant behaviors of the Middle Eastern people. What we really need to be doing is partnering with these Middle Eastern countries to help out with the reparations process.
If all we do is blow them to pieces, then all the Sunni majority will see is Americans aiding the very same Shia governments who have suppressed them. No wonder the Middle East hates us!
Facebook
Twitter