Yesterday, President Obama graced us with his presence to lay out his reasons for wanting to get us embroiled in someone else’s civil war.  I thought I’d take a look at the transcript and discuss his points with you all.  My thoughts are in italics.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON SYRIA

Rose Garden

1:52 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century.  Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Good high school level speechifying there.  Tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em, as Mrs. Olson used to say.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.  And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead.  All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered.  Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

Assuming that your information is credible, so what?  Not to sound heartless, because I honestly do care about the pain and suffering of the innocent, but why is it the responsibility of the United States to chastise every bad actor on the planet?

This attack is an assault on human dignity.  It also presents a serious danger to our national security.  It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.  It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq.  It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

How?  Is Assad going to launch ICBM’s tipped with sarin at St. Louis?  Let me clue you into something here, junior, and I’ll speak slowly and use small words because obviously five years in the hot seat hasn’t taught you anything:  The people who want to do us and our allies harm don’t give a tinker’s damn about a “global prohibition” of anything.  It’s already prohibited to use non-uniformed people to wage war.  It’s already prohibited to use prisoners for propaganda purposes and execute them.  It’s already prohibited to intentionally target civilians as a means to an end.  They do these things now, they have been doing these things since I was watching the Watergate hearings instead of Sesame Street, and they will be doing these things while you are enjoying your taxpayer-funded retirement.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Menace to whom?  His own people?  Menace to supporters of what is becoming an al Qaeda insurgency?  Maybe, but not a menace to us.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.  This would not be an open-ended intervention.  We would not put boots on the ground.  Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.  But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Right, because lofting a few cruise missiles at what are now probably deserted buildings, firing positions, and aircraft revetments will do something constructive.  You can’t deter by telegraphing your punch.  You set down your ‘red line’ a year ago, and now that your bluff has been called, you don’t have anything effective in your plans.

Our military has positioned assets in the region.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose.  Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.  And I’m prepared to give that order.

Right, because we can just let a good chunk of our already gutted Navy float just off the coast for a while.  I’m sure there’s nothing else they could be doing.  And of course the plans that are put together today will be okey dokey in a few weeks after Assad has played 3 Card Monte with his assets.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I’ve made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

OK, how does doing anything in Syria have an iota of connection to our national security?  Is Assad actively helping to kill our troops?  Has Assad given aid to people who have killed our civilians?  Maybe Assad has worked to destabilize our allies.  No wait, that’s the guys that Assad is fighting.  Never mind.

Also, we’re not a ‘constitutional democracy’.  We’re a republic.  Learn the difference, you constitutional scholar.

Oh, and thank you for going to Congress to make sure the people’s representatives approve of you committing an act of war without anyone doing anything, you know, that actually harms or threatens the United States.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard.  I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

This will be fun.  I’ll bring popcorn.  How about this:  If this is so all fired important, have the Congressional leadership recall Congress right now.  I have it on good authority, namely personal experience, that you can be in the Washington D.C. area in less than 24 hours from just about anywhere in the world.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security.  And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

Why don’t you release the information to the entire country?  President Kennedy released classified reconnaissance photographs of Soviet construction and equipment from Cuba during the missile crisis in order to make his case to the American people and he only had to convince my grandparents that allowing someone to point nuclear missiles at them would be a bad idea.  Whatever you’re showing the Congresscritters ought to be posted to the White House website.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.  I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.  As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

How awful that the International Despots’ Debate Club and Mutual Assistance Organization hasn’t bowed down to your enlightened pronouncements.  I guess waiting for a ‘neutral’ organization like the U.N. to investigate a situation that is none of our business is just too much to ask for.  This is exactly what the U.N. was set up to take care of, but I guess getting their OK before bombing people in the Mid East is only important if they do it on your timescale.   And I suggest that those on your staff that read the political tea leaves left by Parliament are doing a pretty good job of predicting the future.  Oh, how terrible that a country that you snubbed and insulted in your first few months of being in the Oval Office rebuff your efforts to get them to expend munitions on demand.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.  We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.  And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

Article 1, Section 8 of the The Constitution states that the Congress shall have the power  “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”, not the Executive.  Bombarding a foreign country counts as an act of war from where I sit.  I guess you didn’t cover that in those constitutional law classes you audited taught.  Now, we all know that the President may give orders to conduct combat in the case of national emergency or foreign attack, but that isn’t what is happening.  You’re talking about poking your precision guided phallic symbols into someone else’s conflict, and there’s no immediate reason to start committing acts of war without getting a thumbs up from the American people through their elected representatives.  If you’d actually shown up for a few sessions in your brief career as a Senator, you might understand that.  

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited.  I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end.  But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

The cost of doing nothing is exactly nothing.  We gain absolutely nothing from attacking Assad, and we risk way too much in prestige.  What are we going to gain, the unending trust and admiration of the people who attacked us on 9/11?  God forbid that you do this with manned aircraft and an aircrew gets shot down and captured by either side.  

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community:  What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?  What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

The international system has precisely zero purpose, and hasn’t since long before either of us was born.  The U.N. was set up to prevent genocide and wars, and we’ve had over half a century just chock full of both.  The message we send is that the United States is not going to get mixed up in the civil wars of other sovereign nations when they don’t directly impinge on our allies and the interests of the United States.  You remember the United States, don’t you, sparky?  That’s the country you’re supposed to be president of.

Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare.  If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?  To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms?  To terrorist who would spread biological weapons?  To armies who carry out genocide?

The only international rules that matter are the ones that we choose to follow ourselves.  How’s your and your predecessors’ policies to keep North Korea and Iran from getting nuclear weapons working out?  Are you going to bomb Natans to stop the work, without going to the United Nations or the Congress?  We’re already fighting terrorists in every corner of the world if they’re working against our interests or against our allies.  Are you going to do even more because they might be trying to get and use bio or chem weapons?  (Hint – They already are.)  As for armies who carry out genocide, why don’t you ask Bill Clinton what we do about genocide, seeing as how he sat on his hands in front of an intern while Bosnians and Rwandans were being slaughtered by the thousands?  While we’re at it, care to discuss your administration’s response to the genocide in Darfur or the persecution of Coptic Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

We cannot raise our children in a world where we go to war because you shot off your mouth about shooting off some missiles.  

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world.  While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

Good luck.  Getting the dictators at the U.N. to do something about one of their own, especially when Putin and Assad have a really tight client/patron relationship, will be quite a feat.  

I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made.  Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends.  But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

The “International Community” is only interested in doing things that support their interests, and no-one but Islamic terrorists in Syria will gain by anything you do.  Look, I’m appalled by what happened too, but it’s unreasonable for us to pick which group of bastards we support in this conflict.  I see only two ways that our interests could be served:  Either we keep ourselves completely out of it, or we give just enough support to both sides so that the conflict ties up and exhausts both Al Qaeda and Iran.

And finally, let me say this to the American people:  I know well that we are weary of war.  We’ve ended one war in Iraq.  We’re ending another in Afghanistan.  And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.  In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve.  And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Then what exactly do you plan on accomplishing with your splendid little war, which I am now dubbing “Operation Ego Savior”?  Urban renewal in the slums of Damascus?  Helping Assad clear land for his newest palace?   It’s not that we’re weary of war.  The American people will pull together and fight a just war no matter how tired we are.  It’s just that we’re weary of wars with no real benefit to us.  Iraq was dubious, Libya was an outright travesty, and now you’re asking us to let you do it to us again.  

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

Want to support the people in Syria who don’t care if it’s the Islamists or Assad who wins, so long as they’re left alone?  Support Turkey and Jordan in setting up decent refugee camps and encourage the civilians to get the hell out of the line of fire.  Oh, and if you’re looking for a political resolution to this, I’ve got news for you:  This is going to end when the leadership of one side or the other is hanging out of a window by their entrails. 

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.  Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning.  And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations.  We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

Out of the ashes of world war, Roosevelt set up a place for dictators to come together to syphon off aid money and live the high life in Manhattan.  The rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depend on those individuals themselves, not their governments, and not on some nebulous “international community”.  And we’ve been pouring blood and treasure into policing a world empire without enjoying the fruits of empire for long enough, thank you very much.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security.  I am looking forward to the debate.  And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

“Partisan differences and the politics of the moment” sounds great, but members of both dominant parties are lining up against your plans.  And again, I must remind you that this has bupkis to do with our national security, unless you count your own prestige and ego as being essential to the security of our nation.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country.  I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments.  We do what we say.  And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.

Who occupies your office has everything to do with what is happening right now.  You are the one who said that Assad must go, even though it is none of our business who holds the whip in Syria, and you are the jackass who said that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.  Now you’ve talked yourself into a corner, our allies are walking away from you, and the American people are telling you that we should stay out of it.   I can only hope that you will listen, as Prime Minister Cameron did when the House of Commons voted down his proposal to go along with you in wagging this particular dog.

We all know there are no easy options.  But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions.  And neither were the members of the House and the Senate.  I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons.  And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

Who gives a tinker’s damn what you believe?   I care about what you can prove.  Can you prove to me that the Assad regime committed this heinous act, and that doing something about it is directly in our national interest?  You haven’t had a problem with pissing on our security and our values for the past five years, so why start now?   And actually, our republic is stronger when the Executive and the Congress are in distrustful opposition of each other unless there is a crystal clear reason to act.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage.  Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Committing an unneeded act of war against a sovereign nation, when that nation hasn’t done anything to harm us, and without getting a war declaration from the Congress comes to my definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.  Congress declares war, you prosecute the war.  It’s that simple.  You’ll be lucky if you do this without Congress giving you the green light, and especially if they tell you “No”, and all you get in response is outrage.

Thanks very much.

No, thank you.  I hope you enjoyed your round of golf after the press conference.  Must be awfully difficult to negotiate with skeptics in Congress from the 13th hole.

 

Final thoughts –

I think you can tell from my comments and other posts that I believe that there isn’t much that Syria could do that would justify American action against Assad.  To be honest, he would have to attack either Turkey or Israel to get me to consider it.  Neither side in this conflict is our friend, and the Islamists opposing Assad won’t thank us for anything we do to him and his regime.

The President seems to be claiming that he already has the power to conduct war against Syria, with or without the approval of Congress.  In that, I believe that he is wrong.  We have recognized since at least 1941 that sometimes war happens before our representatives can get together and make it official, but only in cases where someone is actively attacking us or our allies.  In this case, that isn’t happening.  Assad did something terrible, but it’s not our place to unilaterally avenge the deaths of people who aren’t one of us.  If anyone outside of Syria should be doing this, it ought to be the Arab League, or any of the Muslim countries that have been bankrolling the Syrian rebels.

This is not our fight, and I refuse to sit quietly by and allow the President to violate constitutional limits on his powers in order to protect his prestige and ego.  I am writing to my senators and congressman to ask them to oppose this, and I urge all of you to do the same.

“One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans (1888).”  — Otto von Bismarck

99 years ago this month, the First World War started.  The balance of terror on the European continent had been maintained since the Prussians beat the French like a rented mule in 1870, but Britain, Russia, France, Austro-Hungary, and Germany had spent the 40 years of ‘peace’ re-arming and maneuvering.  There were little brush fire wars in the Balkans and a few other places, but the big countries were keeping their eyes on each other as they reloaded.

The spark for the Great War was, of course, the assassination of the heir to the Austo-Hungarian throne by a Serb nationalist.  Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia and France, and Great Britain joined in to complete the royal flush.  By the time all was said and done, millions were dead and wounded, centuries old governments and countries were wiped from the map, and the world had begun its long swim in the blood of millions killed in future wars and the attrocities of Nazism and Communism.

Now, we seem to be heading down an eerily similar path.

Someone, either the Assad regime or the Islamic forces who are trying to overthrow him, lobbed chemical weapons shells at civilians the other night.  Hundreds are dead, and the world is lining up on one side of the battlefield or the other on whether or not to ‘punish’ Assad for this despicable incident.  Because making idle threats is what you do when you want to be seen as acting but don’t want to risk actually doing something, President Obama painted a big, bright red line around the use of WMD’s in the Syrian Civil War.  Now that his line has been crossed, he’s having to rattle the saber and publicly threaten to…. do something.

In the event that he makes more than a token show of force so that he can beat his Nobel Peace Prize against his chest and proclaim that he has avenged those who were killed, here’s how I see things rolling out:

1. The U.S., with or without our allies, does something that critically damages Assad.  Maybe a short but sharp aerial bombardment of military installations such as air defense, air force, or tank parks happens.  Whatever it is, it’s something that Assad can’t easily afford to lose while he tries to keep from being forced into retirement in Tehran.
2. Regionally, Iran uses this as an excuse to do…. something.  My guess is to start sinking ships in the Straits of Hormuz or just start sending Iranian army units into Syria to augment the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and the Republican Guard units that are already fighting there.  It’s possible they could even start a campaign of attacks against the soft underbelly of the American and European civilian countries – their civilians.
3. Globally, Russia reacts.  Maybe they just make diplomatic and economic noises, but quite possibly, Russia could reinforce its naval base and other forces in Syria, especially if any ‘advisors’ or ‘trainers’ are hurt in the initial American attacks.  That would up the chances of more conflict with either the American supported anti-Assad forces or incidents where Russian forces tangle with American forces in either the sky or on the sea.  Russia could also shut off the natural gas taps for any European country that assisted the Americans, either with forces, flyover, or basing.  Nothing encourages a nation to get into a war fever than watching pensioners die of cold because another country cut off their heat just before winter.
4. Tensions mount, Syria turns into even more of a flaming wreck, and the war there gets even bloodier.  It possibly spreads to neighboring, multi-ethnic and multi-faith countries (Turkey, Iraq).
5. As the dominoes start to wobble and fall, the major powers start propping up their client states with more and more direct aid, probably including direct military intervention.  Would we stand by as an Iranian-backed revolution in Turkey destabilized a NATO ally?  Would Russia stand by as we repeatedly smacked Iran and Syria upside the head?
6. Russia and the United States eventually come to blows, either in and around Syria, or in other areas.  China also might get dragged into this, which could spread the conflict to the Pacific, where they have been sparring with Japan, the Philippines, and Korea over resources.
7. Of course, like everything else in the madhouse of the Levant, the joker in the deck is Israel.  Would Hezbollah, Hamas, and every other wild-eyed pissant in the region let a war break out without trying to push the Israelis into a grave?  Would Israel retaliate against them, even if it meant being drawn into a growing regional conflict?

Now, this is only one way this could go, and like all predictions, it’s possibly not worth the electrons it took to make it.  But the probability of an Iranian or Russian response to a major attack against Assad by the United States and her allies is pretty high.  Would it become a proxy war between Putin and Obama, or maybe even a shooting war between the great powers?  One would hope not, and also hope that rational thinkers would avert such a thing.  But rationality is not known to be common in these things.

There are only a couple of ways I can see this not blossoming into something ugly:

1. If indeed it was the Syrian government that carried out the attack, then Assad could avert this by giving up his subordinates who carried it out.  I doubt he would allow them to be arrested and tried at the Hague, but nothing calms the waters like a quick show trial and a public execution.
2. Obama reaches out to Russia and makes them a partner in getting to the bottom of this and punishing the bad actors.  Russia supports Assad, but if Putin put his approval on a plan to investigate and prosecute, especially if the Russians are given an equal footing in the endeavor, then that would deescalate things between the great powers.  That could also allow the U.N. to be useful, for once.
3. Obama makes a meaningless show of force, Putin and Obama bluster at each other until the next shiny object comes up for review, and the Syrians, Iranians, and Islamists keep ripping each other’s guts out for the foreseeable future.
4. Obama is forestalled from acting precipitously, and the crisis is resolved by those who actually have a dog in the fight.

I see 1 and 3 as being the most likely.  Assad is a survivor, and Obama is all about public shows with nothing to back them up.

Of course, number 4 would require that someone in Congress actually read the Constitution and realize that it’s not for the President to start a war.  Currently, my Congressman and one of my Senators are lonely voices in the wilderness on this, but they need to be joined by their colleagues.   President Obama abused his war powers when it came to Libya, and now it appears that he is going to do it again.  Nothing that has happened in Syria poses a threat to the United States, and if force is necessary, then Congress, not the President nor the U.N., needs to be the one to authorize it.

History is rhyming, and I am convinced that if the next Great War is to begin in the near future, it will be precipitated by some damned foolish thing in Syria.  Here’s hoping that we get luckier this time than we did in 1914.