Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Did Obama Jump the Gun on Syrian Airstrikes?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


While this site is supportive of the President's decision to assemble a coalition of Arab states and commence air strikes against ISIL/ISIS in response to the Islamic State's ever growing threat the editorial board of The New York Times doesn't see it that way. However, air strikes should continue nonetheless within the time frame allowed under the 1973 War Powers Act. During which time the President should CLEARLY outline the objectives for the public and make the case to Congress and secure Congressional sanction for his actions. A Declaration of War should not be ruled out.
The New York Times - President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.

He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by the people’s representatives in Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?

There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region. In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan, the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.

Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.

The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.

Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum

7 comments:

  1. IMO, there was a great deal of pressure to do something, given the barbaric actions of the ISIS-ISIL
    groups. To do nothing seemed like a poor choice and under the circumstances and few good choices
    were available. Congress is naturally cautious, given the last few sanctioned military actions, plus
    the current political atmosphere is barely conducive to full cooperation (even in his own party). Now
    that the ISIL has responded with the threat of more beheading of hostages if the bombing continues,
    suggests it may be having an effect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course your.observations are good ones BB Idaho. America is war weary and hesitant to re-engage in the region. I was hesitant as well, initially. However, ISIL/ISIS is a serious and real threat to the region and unchecked very likely the west.

    While still skeptical I am encouraged that 5 Arab nation's have signed on. Hopefully our European friends and allies will soon follow suit, as well Turkey and other Muslim nations.

    The fight against the barbaric ISIL/ISIS, as well as other terror organizations must be waged with the entire civilized world behind the effort to dismantle and destroy terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les, I'm not entirely certain that I would put Saudia Arabia (with its treatment of women and its funding of those damned madrasahs) in the category of civilized nations. I mean, we're talking about a government here that many folks consider to be as bad as Hussein's when it comes to brutalizing its citizens.

      Delete
  3. PS: Fox Snooze is getting NAUSEATING with their WATB and the incessant Obama bashing and negativity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If some of those bombs in Syria accidentally slip and obliterate Hesbollah and Hamas embassies/offices/terror-hives, I would give Obama a pat on the back. "Nice shootin' Tex"

    RN: I wonder if Turkey will get involved. It is run by a would-be dictator who hates the Kurds (as well as wanting to kill off the Jews, and undo a century of progress in Turkey).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike bush, Obama isn't flying any missions himself. BTW, did you hear about Eric Bolling's (of "The Five") "joke" concerning the first female pilot in the UAE who flew in a mission over Syria? What he said was "Would that be considered boobs on the ground or no?"

      Delete
  5. It's hard to say. It would be in their best interest (long term) if they did. ISIL/ISIS is a threat to the stability of even Turkey.

    Hopefully they grow to realize this if they don't already.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.