Bush Expands His Unilateral Warfare Doctrine

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.

Comments

[Michale32086]

@Articulator

}}}
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....

[Michale32086]

@Articulator

}}}}}
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.....

[Articulator]

Which "facts" matter? The facts on your side or those on the other side. The point is both sides in every conflict is going to have "facts" that they claim support their cause. China claims "facts" that allow them to take Taiwan by force. Russia claims it has "facts" regarding Georgia. The Palestinians have "facts" that they own the land. Isreal has "facts" that they own the land. Both sides have "facts" that justify aggression on each other. If I listen to Rush for 1 minute and he claims facts that are bizarre at best. The Japanese had "facts" of American economic interference in Sourtheast Asia that justified to them at the time the attack on Perl Harbor. The Bush administration claimed "facts" of WMD when those "facts" didnt exist. There has to be a process where these "facts" get vetted and common approval is achieved or it will be a free for all and the world will fall back in the stone age. George Bush ridicules the UN but each time he takes aggressive action he uses one of their Resolutions to justify it. The war on terror will only be won by separating the moderates from the extremists, not banding them together.

[Articulator]

"The war on terror will only be won by separating the moderates from the extremists, not banding them together."

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.

[Articulator]

Isreal has been negotiating with Syria with Turkey as the moderator. 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. Is Bush trying to side with the Hawks in Isreal and undermine those talks? I dont know but at this point in the Bush presidency, it is prudent to ask the question. It was a few months ago when George was talking in Isreal that he railed against talking to enemies, just about the time Isreal started talking to Syria. Everyone took it as a shot at Obama, maybe he was focused on those negotiations back then.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
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.....

[Articulator]

Michale32086: " So, SOME good HAS come out of the Iraq War, ..."

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.

[TheIndependenceParty]

When the youngster in Nevada was "kidnapped by Mexican Drug Dealers", ... would we have been within our rights to strike across the border for that "terrorist" act? After all, the abductors were from Mexico, No?

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!

[realpolitic]

Yes, and other countries will say that if the U.S can act unilaterally and without provocation then they can as well. There will soon be a series of mini-wars like the recent one between Russia and Georgia. All will blamed on terrorism. As usual, Bush states policies of aggrandizment without any thought given to them or what it means for our role in the world.

[Michale32086]

If "other countries" have the facts on their side and has given said country an oppurtunity to act and that said country didn't, then yes.. "Other countries" have the right under Article 51 of the UN Charter..

That's the way it's ALWAYS been...

But "other countries" better have the facts on their side.. As we did in Syria...

Michale......

[Articulator]

There hasnt been an invasion in t\he history of mankind where there wasnt a claim of having the facts on their side.

[gabbinjane]

Wait just one second , here. Wasn't it Obama that said that he would send raids and strikes into Pakistan - a nuclear power - to get bin Laden, whether the Pakistanis liked it or not?? What's your point?

[Michale32086]

Frankly, I don't have a problem with violating ANYONE's borders in the pursuit of terrorists.

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.....

[Articulator]

Of course that's if both sides agree on who the terrorists are, if not then boom...

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.

[Michale32086]

@Mnemanth

}}}}
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.....

[Mnemanth]

Quite right. Good job, Congress!
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.

[Michale32086]

In 2006, when Democrats took over, they had the option to "De Authorize" the Iraq war and the War On Terror..

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.....

[Mnemanth]

We do not need to go into any country and wage war. In today's world, all we need to do is train and prep our troops...while we cut off all funding to these foreign governments who are aiding and abetting hostile activities.

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.

[foxfan]

Someone needs to tell Syria that there's plenty more where that came from.

[rmreddicks]

So you would like to see the U.S. fighting a war along the eastern Mediterranean all the way to (and including) Pakistan? Jeez, I hope you and everyone of your ilk has enlisted. They're gonna' need you all. I don't need you all.

[Michale32086]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-George Orwell

Michale.....

[bronceye]

The surge is working in Syria, too. Nothing like a quick military victory to bring out the christian repubes to vote. Maybe Granada, again, pre election day.

[bkbigfish]

So what? Obama has said he would pursue terrorists into Pakistan without permission. Or were those just empty promises?

[JustCommonSense]

As empty as is economic plan.

[Michale32086]

@MajorKong

}}}}
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.....

[Michale32086]

I would also point out that, in the self-defense scenario, if "imminent" did translate into days or weeks, the citizen in question would have the recourse to refer to their local PD to assist the person in his/her attempts to keep them and theirs safe.

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.....

[calico jack73]

What I want to know is "WHERE THE $%@! IS THE SUPREME COURT???" Transferring the powers of one branch of the government to another branch is unconstitutional and therefore it is the Judicial Branch's responsibility to overrule it. The decision to wage war is spelled out in the Constitution as a power of the Legislative Branch (Congress)... not the Executive Branch. The War Powers Act AND the Patriot Act should have been stomped on by the Supreme Court for the provisions that transfer the powers of the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch. Just because the President doesn't term a military action as "War" doesn't get him off the hook. The interpretation is that in order for the US Military to be deployed against another power it is Congress who must vote to declare war. If it is important enough to risk the lives of American soldiers then it is important enough for Congress to vote on it.

[Mnemanth]

Good Lord! Thank you! Congress hasn't declared "war" so what exactly are we doing?
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.

[breezyholler]

Tis good to know history ....but not to repeat it..
Surely at some point civilization will move beyond the need for warfare...if not then what is there to look forward to...

[Overd0g]

Warfare is a product of civilization, not something it can "move beyond" (whatever that means).

[breezyholler]

You say war is a product of civilization...I see it as conflict on the way to civilization...war is simply not rational in this new age..Reckless destruction..as a way of fixing things ...is now obsolete...

[elpaulo]

Am I the only one that feels a bit unsteady about these cross border attacks that the US has committed in the last few weeks? Something makes me feel a bit nervous. Something does not add up. And no, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I just have learned not to trust anything about this govt. Especially when they are quiet.

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!

[Michale32086]

There is an interesting theory floating around that the Syria attack may have been done with the tacit (albeit silent) approval of Syria. This could be seen as a desire of Syria to get away from the influence of Iran and join the world community..

Michale.....

[elpaulo]

That is an interesting theory. Funny how the Bush administration sits down with the leaders of a so-called terrorist state, and its called patriotism. When Obama brings it up, he is a defeatist commie.

[breezyholler]

If Syria truly is complicit in this most recent attack ...then , having a strong military of their own , why can they not fight terrorism , overtly..These attacks not only put our troops in compromising positions..and in harms way ..they also cost us money and resources..We cannot continue to police the world..at our own expense..

[1differentdrummer]

You are realistic, in my opinion.