Trump acts against Syria- 49 Tomahawk Missiles strike air force base.

[fskimospy]

Well, if punching the bully in the nose actually gets him to stop then it was worth it. If it causes him to start lighting kids on fire instead, maybe it wasn't the best idea... one of those hindsight things.

However, the administration needs to be ready to follow through with this. They've stepped up to the line and if Assad isn't going to back down, they've gotta keep pressing or look like limp noodles.

That's the thing though, there seems to be functionally zero chance that it will stop Assad from massacring his own people, at best it will force him to massacre them by different means. Is that a goal worth pursuing?

 

[Phynaz]

Sure, there's an old thread about Obama threatening to strike Syria I'm sure you can find if you search.

I think Trump is on track to be easily the worst president in history but that doesn't change the fact that ordering a limited strike is within his powers.

Ok, so you condemned Obama's action in Libya? And his record number of drone attacks on sovereign nations?

How about the bombing of Afghanistan?
Iraq?
Somalia?
Pakistan?
Yemen?

And of course his bombing of Syria, you condemned that right in these forums, correct?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But per the war powers, only congress can initiate war. What's to stop a president from simply initiating it from the back-end by say, air-striking a military target in another superpower's country?

Ah, read more on my own question. He can submit a resolution authorizing use of force within 60 days, nice workaround. I still think it skirts the purpose of giving only congress approval to initiate war, but I guess it is what it is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think that a show of force is what they THINK was the goal but again I'm still not sure Trump has thought this through as I'm unsure what his end goal is. When Obama threatened strikes the goal was clear: no more Assad. In this case it seems to be 'keep killing your citizens but in a slightly different way'. Is that really worth pursuing?

The message again is "no more Assad". How far we'll go remains to be seen, and that will be driven by Putin/Assad's next move on the chessboard.

But this is only Trump in part. I would bet the farm that this is all the handiwork of Mattis and his chief advisors. Remember that Obama's stated goal was just that- stated with no action. This time Assad crossed "the red line" and found the new guy objected. Again this is a message, not an attack per se. Now we wait for the response in this dialogue, because that's precisely what this is.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The Constitution doesn't say INITIATE war, it says DECLARE war. Think about it this way:

1) Presumably if Pearl Harbor 2 happened today you would be okay with the president ordering troops to fight back even without Congressional authorization.
2) What if the president learned that Pearl Harbor 2 was about to happen an hour from now? Do you need Congress then? What if it involves top secret information where we don't want to tip our hand?
3) What if the president has information that Pearl Harbor 2 will take place 3 days from now. Can he order a preemptive strike to defend the country or does Congress need to authorize that?

And so on and so forth. The system has to be biased in favor of freedom of action at least in short/limited/extremely dire circumstances.

There is a big difference between the president initiating military action on a foreign nation due to that foreign nation attacking our nation. We're talking about Assad gassing his own people, and the president initiating action against that nation. It's essentially attacking them because we don't like what their leader is doing.

Note in my most recent post though, I gained enlightenment to the fact that it's all legal (if not kosher).

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, so you condemned Obama's action in Libya? And his record number of drone attacks on sovereign nations?

How about the bombing of Afghanistan?
Iraq?
Somalia?
Pakistan?
Yemen?

And of course his bombing of Syria, you condemned that right in these forums, correct?

Did you read my post at all? I said Trump HAS the authority to strike Syria, not the other way around.

Gotta read better, brotha.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's the thing though, there seems to be functionally zero chance that it will stop Assad from massacring his own people, at best it will force him to massacre them by different means. Is that a goal worth pursuing?

For blustering? Yeah, shows the people who don't read more than headlines that 'America/Trump/the West is doing something'. aside from that? not much.

 

[IronWing]

It's really any time. From a practical sense Congress is ill-equipped to make fast decisions and so the president has a lot of latitude in how to respond to quickly unfolding events. The whole war powers act thing would be the primary check, but in practice that mostly just covers sustained military action. One-offs like this (assuming that's what it was) are always going to be in the president's wheelhouse.

That was the whole point of instilling the power to declare wars with the Congress. It was designed to keep hotheaded Presidents in check. The current system is geared toward, "A hotheaded President must be able to act on impulse without delay."

 

[Jaskalas]

I imagine it's a red line against chemical weapons.
As there really is no way to stop the slaughter in Syria.
Even a direct invasion by us would just turn it into a different kind of slaughter.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That was the whole point of instilling the power to declare wars with the Congress. It was designed to keep hotheaded Presidents in check. The current system is geared toward, "A hotheaded President must be able to act on impulse without delay."

Bad history surrounding it too, from wikipedia:

The Korean War was the first modern example of the U.S. being taken to war without a formal declaration,[8] and this has been repeated in every armed conflict since. Beginning with the Vietnam War, however, Congress has given other various forms of authorization to do so. Some debate continues as to the appropriateness of these, as well as the tendency of the Executive Branch to engage in the origination of such a push, its marketing, and even propagandizing or related activities to generate such support.

Thus in light of the speculation concerning the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the possible abuse of the authorization that followed, in 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities with a full disclosure of facts in the process. Its constitutionality has never been settled, and some Presidents have criticized it as an unconstitutional encroachment upon the President. In 2007, University of Virginia professor Larry J. Sabato proposed a Constitutional amendment in his book A More Perfect Constitution that would settle the issue by spelling out the exact powers of each branch in the Constitution itself. One counter-argument is that the Constitution is a "living document" which has survived for over 200 years because not everything is "spelled out." In the area of the War Powers Clause, the flexibility provided by the requirement for a Congressional statute permitting war (a declaration of war) and Constitutional interpretation could be sufficient. The President could defend the country, but not—by himself—use the military offensively. This would not require a Constitutional amendment or a statute like the War Powers Resolution; it has been with us since 1787.

Some legal scholars maintain that offensive, non-police military actions, while a Quorum can still be convened (see Continuity of Government), taken without a formal Congressional declaration of war is unconstitutional since no amendment with two-thirds majority of states has changed the original intent to make the War Powers Resolution legally binding. However, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter and to date no counter-resolutions have come to a vote. In the absence of a determination by the US Supreme Court, the Separation of Powers produces a stalemate on this issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ah, read more on my own question. He can submit a resolution authorizing use of force within 60 days, nice workaround. I still think it skirts the purpose of giving only congress approval to initiate war, but I guess it is what it is.

A lot of this comes down to wording in the War Powers Resolution. It can be argued that Trump did not act in a way which put forces into Syria and therefore his actions are not subject to the WPR. Whether one agrees or not, this is a live wire that few want to touch, and some allowance has always been made. If Trump mobilizes forces based on the ground to attack targets then it would be difficult to argue from the same perspective and dismiss such actions.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The final takeaway from this Trump attack:
Runway completely undamaged
Most bunkers undamaged
Zero dead or injured personnel
Out of 59 tomahawks fired, only 23 actually made it to their targets.




Good enough for government work amirite

Citation?

 

[Phynaz]

Did you read my post at all? I said Trump HAS the authority to strike Syria, not the other way around.

Gotta read better, brotha.

I read fine, thanks.

So when you post " Trump still exposed himself as an idiot and a hypocrite yet again, but legally he's fine.", Did you call Obama an idiot for the same actions?

I'm betting not.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

A lot of this comes down to wording in the War Powers Resolution. It can be argued that Trump did not act in a way which put forces into Syria and therefore his actions are not subject to the WPR. Whether one agrees or not, this is a live wire that few want to touch, and some allowance has always been made. If Trump mobilizes forces based on the ground to attack targets then it would be difficult to argue from the same perspective and dismiss such actions.

War has evolved over time though to include 'boots on the ground' less and less, and 'missile strike from 100km away' more and more. Would the Constitution drafters have classified this as outside the realm of what the president should be allowed to do, if they could envisioned something larger than a ball musket?

 

[Phynaz]

Seen in my Facebook feed:

Here's the list of who so far has spoken out against the airstrikes: Vladimir Putin, China, Iran, Bashar Assad, and American liberals. Glad we know which side you're on.

I found this funny.

 

[IronWing]

The system has to be biased in favor of freedom of action at least in short/limited/extremely dire circumstances.

No, it does not. The system has been corrupted to accommodate this point of view. If the Congress and the President believe there is a need to reallocate the war making power then they need to amend the Constitution to do that instead of ignoring the current language.

Edit, [DHT]Osiris, I have no idea why your name got assigned to fskimospys' quote. Fixed.

 

[fskimospy]

I read fine, thanks.

So when you post " Trump still exposed himself as an idiot and a hypocrite yet again, but legally he's fine.", Did you call Obama an idiot for the same actions?

I'm betting not.

Trump is an idiot and a hypocrite because he said that Obama needed congressional authorization to do the exact thing he just did without congressional authorization, not because of the act itself.

You did not read fine, haha.

 

[zinfamous]

Good questions and I'll do my best.

Let's back up a bit. Trump announced that Assad was safe from removal from the US. Trump had no interest in his removal, but focused more on ISIS. Almost immediately after Assad gasses civilians, which generates universal outrage. So Trump has a binary choice, act or not. Oddly enough he and Hillary agree on action and the type to take against Syria and that is go after airfields.

Remember, no one, not even Trump wants a ground war in the region, but a message must be sent. That message is "If you do not cease your gassing civilians these missiles can fly right through you window, Mr. Assad". Russia for its part understands this language and you can bet Assad as well and the latter will not be well liked by Russia for this unneeded action on the part of Syria. They too will put pressure on Assad. That's how it's supposed to work.

The long term plan is probably containment. If Assad quiets down then not much may happen, but if not or if Trump is really ticked off then there is the possibility of undermining Assad by various means up to and including military action depending on how future events go.

My bet as to the change is that it was all hypothetical to Trump when Obama was in office, but this happened on his watch after signaling to Assad that he wasn't a target. I also suspect that Trump may have truly have been moved by the gas attacks, especially on children. It is a god awful thing after all and while Trump may be reprehensible I don't automatically think he's devoid of emotion when confronted with the results of a gassing. Assad played the snake and Trump sent a message that he will crush the serpent's head if need be.

agreed. I *hope* the message works and things "normalize" in the best way possible. But it's so speculative at this point. I just wonder why the black man wasn't allowed by Congress to react in this way, much less do so unilaterally without the known backlash.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No, it does not. The system has been corrupted to accommodate this point of view. If the Congress and the President believe there is a need to reallocate the war making power then they need to amend the Constitution to do that instead of ignoring the current language.

Wrong quote, that was fskimospy.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it does not. The system has been corrupted to accommodate this point of view. If the Congress and the President believe there is a need to reallocate the war making power then they need to amend the Constitution to do that instead of ignoring the current language.

When the Constitution was originally written the text was deliberately changed from 'make war' to 'declare war' specifically to grant presidents greater freedom of action. Additionally, if Congress had the sole power to determine when the military would act that would usurp the presidents power as commander in chief of the armed forces and would violate the separation of powers doctrine. That would be unconstitutional.

 

[Phynaz]

Trump is an idiot and a hypocrite because he said that Obama needed congressional authorization to do the exact thing he just did without congressional authorization, not because of the act itself.

You did not read fine, haha.

So Trump is an idiot for changing his position. Did Obama never do so? Did you think Obama was an idiot at the time?

 

[zinfamous]

This isn't the first time Assad had launched chemical attacks on children. And even immediately after the attack, the administration's position still didn't change. I don't trust the motivation behind this new policy change.

Nor do I, but I think it is a matter of utilizing the best response to Assad to also gain some short-term local political points. This will keep the media out of Trump's butt for the next several days regarding Russian investigations. I think it is just one of those situations that works out as a win-win for him. Every president manages to stumble into such situations.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

War has evolved over time though to include 'boots on the ground' less and less, and 'missile strike from 100km away' more and more. Would the Constitution drafters have classified this as outside the realm of what the president should be allowed to do, if they could envisioned something larger than a ball musket?

The Founders put few restraints on CIC authority. That was done half a century or so ago, and most likely if challenged in the SCOTUS the WPR would be struck down. No one really wants that, or few at least and so it has never been pushed to the point where the CIC must have the approval in all things military.

 

[Amused]

Gee lets see here....
Trump in co-operation with Putin have masterminded then instigated the gassing and death of innocent children just so Trump could now take military action with the full blessing of Putin to make it appear that Trump can stand up against the Soviets, and all the while this scheme was cooked up by Putin and the Soviet KGB, handed to Trump on a silver platter, only to fool the American people.
Believe me.... things ARE NOT as they appear.

Trump is in bed with the Soviet high echelon. They handed Trump the presidency, their murderous system of deceit and corruption made Trump a billionaire, funds the Trump empire, and Americans had begun to figure all of this out.
Lets just say It was getting a little bit too hot in the Trump kitchen for this unholy alliance between the communist leader Putin and his most successful KGB agent of all time, American president Donald Trump.

So once again and working together they have dreamed up this little Alice in the looking glass reality TV show scheme only to fool the foolish star stricken American public as well as the American media.
Who, by the way, fall for this Trump stunt every time....

The worrisom part of all this is this now places the idea of gassing ones own citizenry for personal profit and political gain into the mind of none other than our glorious Putin enabled leader, Donald Trump.
Voter suppression? That's old school.
Gass them democrats instead.
Then, blame Islamic terrorism.

Actually, in context with Putin's history and everything going on this is quite plausible.

Granted, it's a conspiracy theory. No one knows for sure. But given the report on ABC that Assad's forces were forewarned, makes it even more plausible.

We'll have to wait and see. But the signs here are pointing to precisely this dog and pony show that Putin is famous for.

Time will tell.

 

[fskimospy]

So Trump is an idiot for changing his position. Did Obama never do so? Did you think Obama was an idiot at the time?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Trump was an idiot because he was talking about a topic he didn't understand, as usual. He became a hypocrite when he changed that position as soon as it became convenient. How is this complicated? This is just another example of why literally nothing Trump says can be trusted.

Obama was perfectly within his powers to strike Syria and unlike Trump apparently at least was smart enough to have a plan for why he would do that.