Syria- The Great Big Syrian Civil War thread.

[Levant]

Syria will NOT do anything to Israel.  The Assad regime has it's hands full with the FSA/rebels.  They don't need another front/fight to deal with.

Even though they hate Israel with a passion, Assad's smart enough to keep Israel out of this.  If he wasn't, he'd have already attacked them by now.

Assad is content to keep this within the borders of Syria, besides, he's winning on the ground.  Pushing the rebels back, slowly but surely.  My bet is that within a year, there will be a "Peace Conference" and Syria, gets divided along tribal (or ending battle) lines, ala Germany and North Korea.

The opportunity to fight a common enemy might be too much to pass up for either side.  It's a common way out of political problems at home.

[Tallpine]

That is my thought also.  Is bombing Syria worth even one US life?  I doubt it is even worth the bombs we would use.

I was thinking that we have such a huge budget surplus that we need to burn up a bunch of money on another war.

[HankB]

If we start sending planes into Syria, Russia might just decide to have Syria test some new hardware.

I can't believe I agree with him, but the other day I heard Denis Kucinich say that bombing Assad would mean we're functioning as Al-Qaeda's air force.

***********************************************************************************

Here's a thought: Suppose the U.S. Congress votes NO on bombing Syria. Further suppose that Obama says <expletive> to the Congress and issues orders for an attack anyway.

Now consider a scenario that has maybe a 0.01% chance of coming about: What if the U.S. military declines to attack, citing the Congressional vote, and states that they swore an oath to the Constitution, and not Obama personally?

This is probably the longest of long shots, but it would be very interesting to see this play out. 

[TommyGunn]

I was thinking that we have such a huge budget surplus that we need to burn up a bunch of money on another war.

Your math is off. 

[Levant]

I can't believe I agree with him, but the other day I heard Denis Kucinich say that bombing Assad would mean we're functioning as Al-Qaeda's air force.

***********************************************************************************

Here's a thought: Suppose the U.S. Congress votes NO on bombing Syria. Further suppose that Obama says <expletive> to the Congress and issues orders for an attack anyway.

Now consider a scenario that has maybe a 0.01% chance of coming about: What if the U.S. military declines to attack, citing the Congressional vote, and states that they swore an oath to the Constitution, and not Obama personally?

This is probably the longest of long shots, but it would be very interesting to see this play out. 

I would pull the switch on the electric chair for any general who refuses the order.  The last thing I want to see in this country is a military coup and just as soon as the military starts making the decisions instead of the civilians that is what we have.

I had an employee on my team once - I was not the supervisor; I was the lead developer.  This employee, in his first year out of college, decided he knew more than me and refused to do what I asked him to do more than one time.  The supervisor didn't back me up.  I was no longer able to function as the lead so I moved into a different team in the company.  Once a subordinate learns they can refuse orders without consequences then they have usurped the authority of their superior.

There is the expectation that the military would refuse an unconstitutional order but this is nowhere near so constitutionally questionable that it could be refused as unconstitutional.

[Triphammer]

I was thinking that we have such a huge budget surplus that we need to burn up a bunch of money on another war.

 Among my first thoughts were that ; if we pull out of Iraq/ A-stan how will it look for O if all these young folks start hitting the job market & there are none to be found?

[lupinus]

I would pull the switch on the electric chair for any general who refuses the order.  The last thing I want to see in this country is a military coup and just as soon as the military starts making the decisions instead of the civilians that is what we have.

I had an employee on my team once - I was not the supervisor; I was the lead developer.  This employee, in his first year out of college, decided he knew more than me and refused to do what I asked him to do more than one time.  The supervisor didn't back me up.  I was no longer able to function as the lead so I moved into a different team in the company.  Once a subordinate learns they can refuse orders without consequences then they have usurped the authority of their superior.

There is the expectation that the military would refuse an unconstitutional order but this is nowhere near so constitutionally questionable that it could be refused as unconstitutional.

I sure as hell wouldn't fault a commander for refusing to follow such a blatantly illegal order.

[Tallpine]

I sure as hell wouldn't fault a commander for refusing to follow such a blatantly illegal order.

Not to mention such a blatantly insane order.

[Fitz]

One if the most central duties for us, is the duty to refuse an illegal or unlawful order.

[HankB]

I would pull the switch on the electric chair for any general who refuses the order.  The last thing I want to see in this country is a military coup and just as soon as the military starts making the decisions instead of the civilians that is what we have . . . There is the expectation that the military would refuse an unconstitutional order but this is nowhere near so constitutionally questionable that it could be refused as unconstitutional. 

So the President has absolute authority to unleash our military on anyone he wants so, including committing the USA to a war over the objections of Congress with a country that has NOT attacked the USA or its allies and with no U.N. mandate . . . got it.

Would you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that expressly grants this power exclusively to the President?   

[lupinus]

One if the most central duties for us, is the duty to refuse an illegal or unlawful order.

So the President has absolute authority to unleash our military on anyone he wants so, including committing the USA to a war over the objections of Congress with a country that has NOT attacked the USA or its allies and with no U.N. mandate . . . got it.

Would you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that expressly grants this power exclusively to the President?   

DING DING DING!

Just because the pres is the CIC doesn't give him the ability to tell the military to do whatever he wants, nor does it oblige leadership to follow an order that is given illegally. Such as, oh I don't know, attack a country which congress has expressly said shall NOT be attacked.

[French G.]

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1

I see nothing about do what the president says, no matter what.

So says the ossifers. For us proles we get a line about obeying the orders of the president and the officers appointed over us. That comes after the support and defend the Constitution part though. An illegal order is no order at all.

But it should never get to that. Such an executive override ought to spark immediate impeachment. Electric chair for generals who disdain the Nuremberg cop-out? So, what punishment for presidents who completely gut the separation of powers? An officer corps that has to do whatever the president says is also a military coup, one run by the CinC.

[Levant]

You might all be right.  It might be unconstitutional but no more so than attacking Iraq or Afghanistan.  But the courts and Congress have all accepted those wars.  Now it will be up to Congress and the courts to clean it up.  There's precedence supporting the President's authority - which I agree he does not actually have.

I know we all hate this president and most of us hate the idea of yet another middle-eastern war.  But I also love my country and do not want to see us have a military coup.

This is not at all the same as Nuremberg.  Obama is not considering gassing civilians, creating concentration camps for Syrians, or genocide.  He's talking about the same kind of missile shoots that Clinton did during the 90's and much less that what both Obama and Bush have done in drone shooting througout the middle-east.

I think it's stupid to attack Syria.  I think the repercussions could be serious for our nation.  I despise Obama and Congress and want to see them all thrown out.  I hope Congress would impeach him if he does attack.  With all of those things, I am with the group here but the last thing I want to see is our armed services refusing to follow an order - especially if Congress goes along.

[dogmush]

You might all be right.  It might be unconstitutional but no more so than attacking Iraq or Afghanistan.  But the courts and Congress have all accepted those wars. 

Wait, what?  Bush had Congressional approval for both those wars before the shooting started. How were they unconstitutional?

[French G.]

This is not at all the same as Nuremberg.  Obama is not considering gassing civilians, creating concentration camps for Syrians, or genocide.  He's talking about the same kind of missile shoots that Clinton did during the 90's and much less that what both Obama and Bush have done in drone shooting througout the middle-east.

I was just following orders... We're talking a hypothetical if Congress said no and Barack said yes anyway. That's a Constitutional crisis we haven't seen, and won't because he's too scared.

[Fitz]

Wait, what?  Bush had Congressional approval for both those wars before the shooting started. How were they unconstitutional?

This

[Tallpine]

Wait, what?  Bush had Congressional approval for both those wars before the shooting started. How were they unconstitutional?

Funny how Obama is more like Bush than even Bush 

[lupinus]

Wait, what?  Bush had Congressional approval for both those wars before the shooting started. How were they unconstitutional?

^This.

They can whine, cry, wring their hands, and be against it before they were for it and got against it again, but congress approved both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and iirc a more vague authorization against Al Qaeda in general but don't quote me on that one. That means there wasn't a damned thing illegal about it. The merits can be questioned all we want, but it damn sure wasn't illegal.

But I also love my country and do not want to see us have a military coup.

What coup? The military refusing to follow an illegal unilateral order from the President, one which is perhaps in direct opposition of the orders of Congress, would hardly be a coup. Hell, I'd go so far as to even say it's their job and duty to refuse to follow it if it's illegality is evident enough. Such as, say, congress saying "no, we aren't authorizing military actions against Syria" and the President ordering the pentagon to attack anyway.

[Fitz]

I'd like to know where this "congress didn't authorize Iraq / Afghanistan " myth came from, but I've heard it no less than 10 times in recent weeks

In any case, if the president asked congress for authorization, and they denied it, an he ordered a strike anyway... THAT would be the coup. The military obeying it would be the illegitimate government.

That said, and it won't make me friends here... I would obey.

Not because I want to go to Syria, but because if it came to a ground campaign, my soldiers would need me

[roo_ster]

[French G.]

I'd like to know where this "congress didn't authorize Iraq / Afghanistan " myth came from, but I've heard it no less than 10 times in recent weeks

In any case, if the president asked congress for authorization, and they denied it, an he ordered a strike anyway... THAT would be the coup. The military obeying it would be the illegitimate government.

That said, and it won't make me friends here... I would obey.

Not because I want to go to Syria, but because if it came to a ground campaign, my soldiers would need me

Valid reason. I'd say that any decision such as obey or not( in this situation vice a run the gas chambers sort of thing) is well above your or my paygrade. It's not all cocktail parties and powerpoint, some days you have to get out there and earn those four stars. 2 million E-1 to O-4 Shmuckatellis deciding whether or not to follow orders will serve no one except elements that don't need to be served. See Invergordon mutiny. Scratch that and you find commie labor agitators.

[lupinus]

I wouldn't fault the boots on the ground and equipment dudes for following or not following such orders. That, some scenarios excluded, is something well above their heads.

But Generals and such? Not above their heads IMO.

[RoadKingLarry]

Part of the crew, part of the ship.

[Fitz]

Another thing to think about


The oath includes duty to the constitution, duty to the officers appointed over me, and to the president.

The oath is sort of "simon says" with the constitution standing in for simon.

If simon doesn't say, then the rest is moot.

[lupinus]

Boehner...

What. The. *expletive deleted*ck.