Thought that the Bush administration was going to go quietly into the night? Think again. With his unilateral military strike this weekend four miles inside Syrian territory against an Iraqi insurgent leader, landing boots on the ground and thumbing his nose at the notion of Syrian sovereignty, Bush made it abundantly clear that he is expanding the notion, known in the parlance of international law as "anticipatory self-defense," which helped served as the fig-leaf of justification for his war against Iraq. Now, in a speech today at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Defense Secretary Robert Gates spelled out Bush's message even more explicitly, which appears to be anything but peaceful. According to Gates,
"Today we also make clear that the United States will hold any state, terrorist group or other non-state actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction -- whether by facilitating, financing or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts."Yikes! Them's fightin' words, if I ever heard them.
Now, obviously, the U.S. would act if it has firm information to stop terrorists, which is what Barack Obama was saying when he declared that he would take out Osama bin-Laden were Pakistan was unable to carry out the job. But the problem with the Bush administration's definition of preemptive action is that it's phrased so vaguely and broadly as to legitimize just about any military action, whenever and wherever it pleases. In other words, it means that the U.S. can run roughshod over any country it pleases by announcing that it has discovered that country A or B is supporting or enabling terrorists.
So the bottom line is this: the administration continues to attempt to expand relentlessly the powers of the presidency in the most important sphere of the presidency -- waging war. Congress doesn't even figure in this scheme except as a passive bystander, compliantly cheering on the commander-in-chief. So much for the Constitution. If you thought Bush was bad, just imagine what John "we are all Georgians now" McCain would do with this kind of untrammeled, monarchical power.
}}}
What I'm saying is that blind self righteousness without regard to the concerns of others is isolating and dangerous.
{{{
I am not advocating "blind righteousness" or not regarding the concerns of others..
I stated that the violated country should be given every opportunity to do the right thing. If they refuse and there are American lives at stake, I see NO problem with taking the matters into our own hands.
I don't think we should let our "regard" for other countries and THEIR concerns deter us from safeguarding the lives of our OWN citizens.
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale....
}}}}}
There hasnt been an invasion in the history of mankind where there wasnt a claim of having the facts on their side.
{{{{{
The "claim" isn't relevant.
Only the "facts" matter...
Michale.....
I meant to add to the end of that: Without being very careful and without proper diplomacy (which has nothing to do with everyone sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya), unilateral military action can put the world on the side of our enemies (banding extremists and moderates together), especially if the world thinks they were lied to. Unless we are now willing to open wars with Iran, Russia, and Pakistan, not to mention a few others, we are going to need the help of the moderates in those countries to go after their own extremists.
The Iraq war shifted the balance of power between Sunni's and Shiites in the world. I recently read that it is possible this shift has made Syria less comfortable being friends with Iran thus creating an opportunity for Isreal to achieve better relations.
{{{{
So, SOME good HAS come out of the Iraq War, as far as stability in the region goes...
If what you read is true, I wonder how many on the Left would be ready to concede THAT point, eh? :D
Michale.....
You are starting to get what I am trying to say. There is more to pay attention to than what can be seen through the simple minded filter of "we are good and they are evil so therefore we can bomb anyone at anytime" which has been the mantra of the far right and has ruled our foreign policy for the last 8 years. Our attack on Syria makes any such agreement between Isreal/Syria less likely or at least puts the US on the outside if an agreement does come about. I dont know but given Bush's record, the question has to be asked, was Bush just siding with Hawks in Isreal and trying sidetrack any such agreement?
Michale32086: "...as far as stability in the region goes..."
The aforementioned shift in the balance of power from Sunni to Shiite has empowered Shiite Iran and pissed off Sunni Saudi Arabia (any connection to the price of oil the last few years?) which by the way, I believe led to Bush's recent sale of $20 billion dollars of our high tech military equipment to the Sunnis (now that'll help bring Peace to the area, hopefully American soldiers wont be shot at some time in the future with those weapons). So I dont know about that stability thing.
If the Iraqi insurgent is breaking laws, extradite him. If Syria will not do so, take it up in the World Court. Oh, ... that's right, ... we don't take part in the World Court.
God Help Me! I can not wait for January 2009!
That's the way it's ALWAYS been...
But "other countries" better have the facts on their side.. As we did in Syria...
Michale......
Give said country a chance to do the right thing. If they refuse then Boom....
End of terrorist problem.
But that's just me...
I didn't used to be like this. Retirement has mellowed me some... :D
Michale.....
the start of the terrorist problem.
Of course, if you've lost the hearts and minds of all the moderates in all the surrounding countries, you might be surprised on who is considered the terrorist. Unilateral action without proper justification can do more harm than good. I'm not saying that is the case in Syria or anywhere else the US has acted and I'm not saying it isnt. What I'm saying is that blind self righteousness without regard to the concerns of others is isolating and dangerous.
}}}}
Good Lord! Thank you! Congress hasn't declared "war" so what exactly are we doing?
{{{{
Actually, you are partially correct..
Congress hasn't declared war..
However, on 18 Sep 2001, Congress DID authorize and and all actions, up to and including use of military force in the fight against terrorism.
That authorization is still in effect and the Syrian strike surely comes under that authorization.
Michale.....
Now, help me understand how you fight an idea? This authorization means nothing, as an idea is open for endless interpretation.
"We're going to fight "x" because of "y"" makes sense. There was an action (y) committed by (x) and we're going to do something about it.
Take out the (x) and....sorry, where are we going? What are we doing? What's the objective?
(Yes, I'm a former military plans and ops guy.)
Again, abdicating responsibility. Opening the flood gates isn't a responsible use of power- it's a means to evade your duties. And, again- Congress- if you don't want to do the job you were hired to do, then you- Congress- need to pack your bags and resign so we can get someone in there to take care of business.
Because they feared how that would make them look, Congress not only continued to support the war in Iraq, but they also increased the power to President Bush to continue to prosecute the war on terror..
If I may indulge in a little prognostication here, I doubt you will see much change after these elections, even when Obama wins and if Democrats get the Super Majority they are hoping for..
Michale.....
Scenario:
(Pick Foreign Country)- if you want continued military equipment (yes, dearies- we do sell guns to the rest of the world!), training (yes- we do train them how to use them), and cash (the U.S. Army transports pallet loads of hard U.S. currency all over Iraq today- much of it "lost" without question or investigation), then you'll (fill in the blank).
However- this isn't going to happen. Too many corporate interests here at home with a lot of profits to lose if we go about things more "diplomatically". Can't have that oh-it-makes-me-sick-it's-so-huge military budget if we're not out playing tough.
-George Orwell
Michale.....
}}}}
There's a big difference between "He had a gun and was threatening me" and "He was talking about maybe going out and getting a gun someday".
{{{{{
Agreed..
I didn't touch on the concept of "imminence" when I posted.
However, I am constrained to point out that what is "imminent" in my self-defense scenario would amount to a matter of seconds or even minutes..
Such "imminence" translates to days, weeks or even months when dealing with nations-states-organizations..
In the Syria attack situation, there are reports that an "imminent" attack was going to take place in a matter of days, perhaps a week or so. That is sufficiently "imminent" to warrant the pre-emptive attack under UN Article 51 which provides the right of individual or collective self-defense to member states.
Michale.....
The US has no such option and is, in fact if not actual practice, the only "PD" around.
"The UN", you say???
Shirley you jest....
Michale.....
Frankly our congressional leaders need a cut in pay. For the past 8 years they've abdicated more and more of their responsibilities to el presidente. If you were hired to do a job, but find someone else to do your work for you, what are you still collecting a salary for?
Punch our leaders in the wallet, and I'll bet they sit up and pay attention.
Surely at some point civilization will move beyond the need for warfare...if not then what is there to look forward to...
OK, these are my thoughts.
1. The GOP has lost so much footing because of their actions in the war on terror. From prisoner abuses, torture, the invasion of iraq....etc......, why would they NOW start another level of preemptive strikes right before the election when their candidate is down in the polls?
2. The administration has been so quiet lately. They were previous to 9/11 as well. Always makes me nervous.
3. I can see them pulling Osama out of a cave in Syria to parade around in front of the camera to boost the Rep chances in the election.
Am I crazy? Am I shellshocked after 8 years of this BS? Or am I on to something?
HELP!
Michale.....