What if the President says, "Fuck it. I'm not authorizing any military action in Syria"

[LaydeeBug]

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:26 PM - Edit history (2)

What happens then? Does that make Asshat some sort of victor?

I am against War in Syria. I am against the war in Iraq. Pretty much, I am against war altogether.

So what's the down side of NOT bombing? This is a serious question

two edits: one to make the word 'allowing' into the proper term 'authorizing' and the other to fix the quotes.

[broiles]

1. I would say Hooray!

[calimary]

17. So would I!

[David__77]

2. There would be no down side. The world would be the winners.

And certainly the American people who say NO.

[Uncle Joe]

3. No because Syria never posed a threat to the U.S. and the evidence

of the Syrian government being behind the Sarin attack is ambiguous.

I don't see a downside.

Thanks for the thread, LaydeeBug.

[Tx4obama]

4. The 'war' in Syria is a 'civil war' between the Syrians themselves.

We are not going to 'war' with Syria.

The 'use of force' resolution is for an intervention - to degrade Assad's military capabilities.

It will be limited and no boots on the ground and less than what we did in Libya.
In Libya we imposed a no-fly-zone and no one is calling for a no-fly-zone in Syria.

If Obama were to say "Fuck it. I'm not allowing any military action in Syria" - then I'd be very disappointed in him because it would mean that Assad most likely will kill more Syrians with sarin gas.

[LaydeeBug]

8. Does depleting Asshat's chem weapon supply help Al Qaeda?

Is this a valid argument against action?

[cigsandcoffee]

9. It's a strange Western arrogance that suggests you can shoot cruise missiles at people...

...and not be at war with them. It's pretty much a guarantee that the people we shoot them at will be at war with us, one way or another.

[Chisox08]

14. Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of war

It was just Japan sending a message.

[NuclearDem]

12. Really? The "it's not really war" argument again?

[JRLeft]

13. Guaranteeing blowback.

[backwoodsbob]

31. how about someone blow up your state

and ...you know...send a few hundred bombs into Texas.I guess as long as boots don't hit the ground it wouldn't be an act of war?

[stevenleser]

5. I asked former Asst Sec of State P.J. Crowley that very question. I air the interview Sunday night

on my show. More here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023612932

[LaydeeBug]

25. I hope there is an archive. i'd love to hear it. nt

[stevenleser]

26. Absolutely. You can hear it here...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/09/08/former-assistant-secretary-of-state-p-j-crowley-on-syria

[LaydeeBug]

27. Thank you!

[backscatter712]

6. The idea of a downside assumes that bombing has an upside.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

And I assert there is no upside to military action. It won't stop Assad, it won't eliminate his chemical weapons, and it won't save lives, it will destroy lives.

The only "downside" is that a bunch of politicians are going to be butthurt.

[LaydeeBug]

7. Right now, our President is telling us that there is an upside

I was trying to contemplate the inverse, because I am against war.

[RedCappedBandit]

28. +1

[G_j]

37. well said - nt

[wandy]

10. You really couldn't predict a final outcome other than whatever we do it will likely...

turn out bad. One outcome may be that Assad continues on his course, encouraging world outrage. Eventually some form of coalition forms and action will be taken.
It may even be that the Russians decide that Assad is not the type of ally they can relay on. They may even come to see him as a threat to their interests.

It is a terrible thing but the people of Syria may be faced with the choice of death by chemical weapons or death by shock and awe.

[LaydeeBug]

11. Exactly. And dead is still dead.

so what's the upside to military action? That we kept our word?

How do we support this president when we don't support the war?

[wandy]

15. Personaly, as to military involvement, I see nothing to win and a great deal to loose......

It is you're second question that brings the most frustration.

This is a bad situation, but how much further would it have degenerated had Romney been in charge?
Tanj there ain't no justice.

[AverageJoe90]

19. ....

It may even be that the Russians decide that Assad is not the type of ally they can relay on. They may even come to see him as a threat to their interests.

One would hope so, but by then it might be too late. But at least they don't have nuclear capability like Iran does.....because if something happens to the moderate new Prez and someone like Ahmadinejad, or even worse, comes into power.....Moscow had better watch their backs, or they may find a nasty surprise right up their alley.....

[Woof_Woof]

16. Political loss for the US administration and the normalization of the use of chemical weapons...

Diminished US political, diplomatic, military and economic influence...

[LaydeeBug]

21. Which isn't exactly a picnic. The president was brilliant when he said he'd put it to a vote

by making them go on record.

I mean, I believe the chess/checkers scenario is perfect here.

But the situation isn't.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Then Assad will know that he can continue to use chemical weapons

with no consequences. It will be a lot easier for him to squash the rebels. And other dictators throughout the world will get the same message.

[LaydeeBug]

24. So you propose we bomb I take it?

I am against war, but I am pretty sure he doesn't think he can get out of it at this point, for the reasons you mentioned.

[Nye Bevan]

29. I'm leaning towards some limited strikes, but I really want to see more evidence first,

and the actual UN inspectors' report. If it turns out that Assad definitely ordered the attacks then I think we should go after him personally; his palaces, his planes, and so on. I want people like him to know that there will be consequences if they breach international law.

[HooptieWagon]

20. Hmmm, there will be heavy casualties....

...in the BOG. Countless dislocated knees and sprained ankles from attempting such an abrupt 180 in position. Probably several cases of whiplash requiring a few weeks of neck-braces. Could be ugly.

[NuclearDem]

22. Don't worry, the whaambulance is always on standby.

[LaydeeBug]

23. I'm not sure being anti-war is the same as whaambulancing but I do recognize

the President is in a rock and a hard place.

[Marrah_G]

30. trying very hard not to giggle.

My dog is looking at me funny.

[JoePhilly]

33. Actuallly, its the Combustable Hair Club who will suffer

something like, bilateral Patellar disruption.

From what I can tell, the folks in the BOG expect one thing from Obama ... a circumspect and deliberative process in making this complex decision.

The Combustible Hair Club has been predicting a full scale invasion of Syria for about 2 weeks or more now.

If (when) that does not happen, that flammable group is going to be very angry. How dare Obama not start WWIII as they've predicted!!!

The folks in the BOG seem to expect, limited strikes at the most, and perhaps not even that.

The Combustible Hair Club expects ... a sheet of glass where Syria used to be.

[HooptieWagon]

41. Bwahahahaha!

Wow, denial and projection all in one post....congradulations!
Uh, the posters saying US war in Syria is not the axnswer have been consistantly saying so. Saying no to war is not secretly hoping for war to say I told you so. That is merely your fantasy and fear.
otoh, the posters beating the war drums have been chomping at the bit, unwilling to accept a wait for UN investigation, and cheering for war no matter Congess's vote. You are merely cheering for Obama, not taking a principled stand. If Obama changes his mind, and backs away from the cliff, you will be cheering his deliberation and wisdom for not committing the US to yet another war. IOW, you have no principles whatsoever, and are merely sheep.

[LaydeeBug]

44. I don't support a war and I don't want a war, but I certainly think I'm going to get one

we all are.

[JoePhilly]

32. Does he have to say "Fuck it."?

I mean ... he could decide that, while he thinks the world should step in ... the fact that the UN and our Congress are unwilling to "step up" indicates to him that, while he could take action on his own, he'll delay further, and work to obtain a larger consensus on what to do next.

For all of the freak out on DU, some seem unable to see this relatively simple path forward.

Bush talked Congress into giving up their role in such events. Obama is basically telling them ... "we are in this together, either way".

[LaydeeBug]

35. Well I do think that the cussing would be cool, given his Congress

Do you really think that he'll delay further, and work to obtain a larger consensus on the next thing, and what do you think that will be?

[JoePhilly]

38. Wasn't he suppoed to invade about a week ago?

DU was SURE we were invading before Labor Day.

In a recent speech on this, the President said that the military is ready, and that there is not rush. He said, we could go in a day, a week, a month, there is nothing that forces our action so far. That was a week ago.

My view ...

Prediction 1) Senate says yes, House says no ... Obama again says the US is ready to go, but that he's going to demonstrate our strength though caution.

He's already rattled some saber. And he'll have Congress "on the record". Their ability to bitch and moan will be reduced. He'll hold all options open.

Right wing and media will freak out, as will the left who will be pissed that he didn't blow up Syria and prove he's evil.


Prediction 2) No matter what the Congress says ... Obama performs very limited strikes.

The difference between 1 and 2 is small. 2 actually shows he will strike. Even if very limited. He wants Assad to know that we will fire again.

The invasion prediction on DU, will not happen.

See of you can get the Combustible Hair Club to be this specific. My prediction there is that no matter what happens, they'll be pissed.

[LaydeeBug]

42. This makes a lot of sense, and I've had a crash resurgence of the Hair on fire club myself

so I tend to lean with you.

Do you have military experience? It sounds like you do.

[CakeGrrl]

34. Yes, some will then label him a weak quisling. You KNOW how it goes.

The criticisms don't follow logic. Whatever he does or says will be attacked. The GOP is particularly shameless in their hypocrisy.

But if or when another attack on Syrian citizens occurs, those shouting "NO" or voting down any action have no standing to say a goddamned thing about it.

[LaydeeBug]

36. That's exactly how I feel about it.

I swear, when they start bitching "how are we going to pay for this" I always scream, "With the Iraqi oil revenues", which makes me sound hawkish but I don't want this.

I guess I just don't like the Republicans trying to pretend they're the anti war party.

[philosslayer]

39. The President doesn't say he won't "allow" any military action

He can say he won't "authorize" any military action. Nothing happens without his say so. The military doesn't act independently of the President. The President "owns" them. He is the CIC.

Minor difference in language, but i believe an important one.

[LaydeeBug]

40. Good point. I'll change it . nt

edit: typo

[Puzzledtraveller]

43. We are going to war.

[geek tragedy]

45. Downside to not bombing is known by everyone:

Assad gets a green light from the rest of the world to gas the rebels, their families, and their villages at will until he crushes the rebellion, even if it means 100,000 Syrians die of nerve gas poisoning.

And then, in the future, other states or armed factions with poison gas supplies will figure they can get away with it too.

In short, the prohibition against using chemical weapons since 1925 will have been revealed to be a big bluff and a fraud, and considered a dead letter.

Since it won't be American citizens getting nerve gassed, we still don't have an interest in stopping that from happening.

[LaydeeBug]

46. so if he turns over his weapons, is that a green light?

or a yellow one?

And if the prohibition against using chemical weapons is lifted, how long before it will be Americans?