Saturday, August 31, 2013

Six burning questions on Obama's Syria decision

from nbc



Mike Theiler / REUTERS
President Barack Obama walks with Vice President Joe Biden to the Rose Garden of the White House on Saturday to speak on the situation in Syria
President Barack Obama's unexpected decision to seek approval from Congress before launching any military action against Syria surprised many of his own advisers as well as military analysts who predicted U.S. Navy ships were on the brink of firing missiles into areas around Damascus.  
Obama explained the surprise move on Saturday afternoon, telling the nation: "I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people."  
The president still noted that he believes he has "the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization." 
His decision raises a number of burning questions, ranging from impact the move has on the scope of presidential power to whether the president would decide to launch an attack on Syria if Congress eventually refuses to support military action after it returns Sept. 9.  
Does Obama’s decision diminish the power of the presidency, both at home and abroad?
For the past 30 years, U.S. presidents have tried to ramp up the powers of the executive branch on national security issues. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, for example, exercised military might without a vote in Congress. Obama’s decision on Syria represents a clear reversal of that trend, observers say. And his deference to congressional lawmakers could create a political, and potentially legal, precedent that may cast a shadow over future administrations.
Obama also now runs the risk of losing the vote on authorization in Congress, leaving him with his hands tied despite previous pledges to intervene if Assad used chemical weapons.
NBC's Chuck Todd describes the political process for seeking congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, and says that the president's decision to wait on Congress is a departure from 30 years of strengthening executive branch power.
Why did Obama have Secretary of State John Kerry make such a forceful case for an attack?
At the time Kerry made his passionate speech on Friday condemning the alleged chemical attack as a "crime against humanity" and calling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a "thug and murderer," Obama was still leaning toward ordering a strike without congressional approval, senior officials told NBC News. 
Analysts say Kerry was blindsided by Obama's reversal later in the day. Even a perceived disconnect between Obama and Kerry among world leaders could hurt their credibility.
"Here's a guy (Kerry) who gave probably the most impassioned and effective speech of his entire career," said retired Col. Jack Jacobs, an NBC News military analyst. "It was convincing. And yet, the very next day, this guy gets his legs cut out from under him."
NBC's Andrea Mitchell says there "seems to be a disconnect" between what Secretary of State John Kerry said and what President Obama said about possible action in Syria.
How do Obama's legal credentials come to play in the Syria crisis?
Obama, who graduated from Harvard Law School, was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago for four years. In 2007, in an often-cited critique of then-President George W. Bush, Obama said: "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."
Obama's decision on Syria was grounded in similar terms: He said he was "mindful that I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy." Administration officials said the legal basis for a potential strike against Syria had been a key part of every international discussion since the start of the debate over intervention.
A range of circumstances — the British Parliament's vote-of-no-confidence and the absence of U.N. Security Council authorization — made the legal questions more acute, officials said. And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.
Obama and his legal counsel, Kathy Ruemmler, had discussed pursuing congressional approval prior to the president's ultimate decision. Yet before Obama told key advisers Friday evening that he planned to go Congress for approval, his own National Security Council had believed that requiring a vote was not on the table, officials told NBC News. The National Security Council officials thought that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention. 
When did Obama decide to seek congressional approval?
Senior White House officials told NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd that Obama made up his mind Friday evening while walking across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough.
While debate within the administration continued into late Friday, by Saturday morning the senior advisers acquiesced, the senior officials said.  
NBC News' Chuck Todd and David Gregory join MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell to discuss whether President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before launching a strike on Syria projects weakness.
Is there a 'red line' anymore? Was there ever one?
On Aug. 20, 2012, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.
"That would change my calculus. That would change my equation," Obama said.
Many lawmakers have criticized the statement over the past several months and on Friday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the red line “was written in disappearing ink,” adding that the failure of the United States to intervene in Syria’s civil war was “shameful.”
What will Obama do if Congress doesn't authorize military action?
White House officials say Obama feels military action is required in Syria and would still order a missile strike if Congress fails to approve military action. In his speech Saturday, Obama emphasized he believes he has the authority to move forward without congressional approval.
“Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective,” Obama said. “We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.”
Obama faces a tough path forward in the GOP-controlled House, where members have previously pushed for votes on resolutions that would have blocked funding for military operations in Syria or the arming of rebel groups in the war-torn country. 
And the House has recently been fractured on national security issues, with both parties split over how far the government should go in preventing terrorism at home and abroad.
With some members of Congress deeply skeptical of Obama’s claim that Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons could endanger U.S. national security,  those same fissures are sure to emerge as the Congress – on behalf of a war-weary and deeply divided American public --  contemplates the use of force.
But Obama urged a measured reaction from lawmakers.
“To all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate,” he said. “And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.”
Congress is set to return to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 9. House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders have said they expect to consider the Syria authorization that week. 
NBC News' David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd contributed to this report. 

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Rubin: President Obama has big choices on Syria but end game is crucial as opposition radicalizes

from nydailynews



President Obama does not want to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor by acting unilaterally in military intervention against Syria, but that doesn't leave him many options.

Comments (4)
8
11
0
Print

None of the options available to President Obama on Syria are without drawbacks.



What will the commander-in-chief order our military to do in Syria, and what will it accomplish?
President Obama has two big sets of choices should he want to launch military action against Syria: What to do before the first shot is fired, and what to do once military action commences. As U.S. warships cruise off Syria, Obama’s national security team has already presented him with a menu of options.
Free Syrian Army fighters escort a convoy of U.N. vehicles carrying a team of chemical weapons experts during a visit to a targeted site in Syria.

REUTERS

Free Syrian Army fighters escort a convoy of U.N. vehicles carrying a team of chemical weapons experts during a visit to a targeted site in Syria.

For a President who likes to take his time deliberating, decision time is fast approaching.
Question one: Go it alone? The President abhors unilateralism; it was one of his big objections to the war in Iraq, and to earlier intervention in Libya. But the UN Security Council is a nonstarter, given veto promises by close Syria ally Russia. No wonder the State Department said on Wednesday the U.S. would do what it needs to do with or without the UN.
The U.S. military is locking and loading for potential military action in Syria.

GETTY IMAGES

The U.S. military is locking and loading for potential military action in Syria.

Other models exist: In 2003, President George W. Bush dredged up Security Council resolutions more than a decade old to justify action. Still, sending the lawyers in to parse past resolutions on Syria or chemical weapons likely will not convince skeptical allies, nor would Obama want to model himself after a man whose foreign policy he disdains.
White House aides have brought up the 1999 Kosovo campaign as a possible model. Lacking Russian support, the United States then acted under NATO. Could work.
Smoke rises after what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the village of Dourit in Latakia countryside.

REUTERS

Smoke rises after what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the village of Dourit in Latakia countryside.

Of course, unilateralism is also an option. In 1998, President Bill Clinton asked no one before ordering a missile strike on Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for Al Qaeda’s East Africa embassy bombings.
Any broad coalition is likely to be more symbolic than real. Only the British, French and Turks have the capability to act, and only the latter two likely have the will.
President Obama is in a tough position on Syria and all options present diplomatic quandaries.

CAROLYN KASTER/AP

President Obama is in a tough position on Syria and all options present diplomatic quandaries.

Next, Obama must decide the timeline. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is asking for four days for UN inspectors to issue a report on the chemical weapons attack. The body count, however, makes the report moot. Inspectors can interview victims, but we know that a chemical weapons strike happened, and we are almost certain the regime did it.
Momentum matters. While waiting allows UN inspectors to leave and gives countries the chance to join a coalition of the willing, it also enables those culpable to hide. And it gives the Syrian military the chance to ready their defenses and retaliation.
The United States and its allies have built their case for likely military action against the regime in war-torn Syria over alleged chemical weapons attack.

BRITTANY Y. AULD/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The United States and its allies have built their case for likely military action against the regime in war-torn Syria over alleged chemical weapons attack.

Already, Bashar Assad’s army might have loaded chemical warheads on missiles aimed for Tel Aviv, Istanbul or Amman, Jordan. In 1991, it took all of America's diplomatic leverage to stop Israel from retaliating once Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at Tel Aviv. Should Assad do so with chemical weapons, all bets are off.
The last question is exactly where to focus American force. The Pentagon will have already offered Obama a list of targets. If U.S. intelligence knows which Syrian military unit carried out the strike, then it might go after individuals to demonstrate very personal consequences for utilizing chemical weapons. Targeting other chemical weapons depots — both in government and rebel hands — would signal that the military strike was about the chemical weapons and not choosing sides.
Syrian President Bashar Assad poses with ABC News Anchor Barbara Walters for an interview airing Dec. 7, 2011. Speaking to Walters in a rare interview, Assad maintained he did not give any commands "to kill or be brutal."

AP PHOTO

Syrian President Bashar Assad poses with ABC News Anchor Barbara Walters for an interview airing Dec. 7, 2011. Speaking to Walters in a rare interview, Assad maintained he did not give any commands "to kill or be brutal."

Remember: While the Aug. 21 attack on East Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus, was the most severe chemical weapons strike, the UN has accused both sides of utilizing chemical agents.
Before striking chemical depots, however, the President is first going to want to know about collateral risks. He will not want an American bombardment to unleash a chemical cloud and endanger more civilians.
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and delves into complexity of President Obama's decision to strike Syria.

JAY WESTCOTT

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and delves into complexity of President Obama's decision to strike Syria.

If the White House wants only symbolic action, it might go after Assad’s palaces but not Assad himself.
The President’s advisers are also asking him what he sees as the end game. It’s a crucial question.
Decapitating the regime is not an option Obama is likely to choose because of fear of what comes next. The opposition has radicalized, and handing them a victory would be like French-kissing Al Qaeda.
If the White House expects this might be the first shot in a longer campaign, then it will also target enemy airfields and air defenses. A big exception here, however, will be in the neighborhood of the port city of Tartous, which hosts Russia’s only military base outside the confines of the former Soviet Union. Consider Tartous to be Assad’s safe haven.
In any scenario, Obama is going to want to destroy regime missiles before they can be launched at American allies. If Syrian missiles are mobile, then that means multiple sorties as aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles determine damage and track targets.
Sorties carry risk, however. The Kremlin might order its navy to shadow U.S. ships, risking an international incident. Syrian anti-aircraft batteries are not as strong as some suggest — the Israelis have managed multiple strikes without Syrian air defenses firing a single shot — but the Syrians could always get a lucky shot.
A downed American pilot-turned-POW would change the diplomatic game dramatically.
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Western powers face widespread skepticism over military strike on Syria

from washington post

By Updated: Wednesday, August 28, 4:20 PM


LONDON — As Western powers build their case for possible military strikes in Syria, a still-forming coalition on Wednesday confronted a chorus of resistance at home, throwing up possible delays for what initially seemed like a rapid timetable for action.
In Britain, Washington’s staunchest military ally, the ghost of faulty intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq hung over Prime Minister David Cameron’s push to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad after last week’s alleged chemical attack near Damascus.
A woman lays on a puddle of tomato juice during the annual 'tomatina' tomato fight fiesta in the village of Bunol, 50 kilometers outside Valencia, Spain, Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. Thousands of people are splattering each other with tons of tomatoes in the annual 'Tomatina' battle in recession-hit Spain, with the debt-burdened town charging participants entry fees this year for the first time. Bunol town says some 20,000 people are taking part in Wednesday's hour-long street bash, inspired by a food fight among kids back in 1945. Participants were this year charged some 10 euros ($13) to foot the cost of the festival. Residents do not pay. (AP Photo/Alberto Saiz)

Photos of the day

Tomatina, tensions rise over Syria, Yosemite wildfires, coral spawning and more.

Israelis rush for gas masks, expecting U.S. strike on Syria

Israelis rush for gas masks, expecting U.S. strike on  Syria
While analysts say retaliation by Syria against Israel seems unlikely, rising tensions have citizens worried.

In Mexico, teachers fight education reform tooth and nail

In Mexico, teachers fight education reform tooth and nail
Proposals call for periodic evaluation, shifting authority away from traditionally powerful union.

Western powers face skepticism over strike on Syria

Western powers face skepticism over strike on Syria
Opposition in Britain to military action is widespread, even in the prime minister’s party.

Iran cautions against U.S.-led strike on Syria

Iran cautions against U.S.-led strike on Syria
Some Iranian lawmakers imply that military intervention in Syria would trigger counterattacks on Israel.
Cameron’s government presented a draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday seeking to authorize “all necessary measures” to protect Syrian civilians, after Foreign Secretary William Hague said the world had to act even if the United Nations didn’t.
But hours later, tepid domestic support in Parliament for fast action forced Cameron’s government to back down from a planned vote Thursday that would have effectively paved the way for the immediate use of military force. Instead, the prime minister compromised with critics who thought that London was acting too hastily, promising to offer a watered-down measure Thursday that called for a second vote before strikes would be undertaken. That vote is likely to come next week, after U.N. inspectors now in Syria have submitted their report.
Opponents of military strikes, including a substantial minority of Cameron’s own Conservative Party, described multiple issues clouding a military response. There was the difficulty in assessing blame for last week’s attack, they said, as well as what they described as a still-vague mission goal. They also cited the chance that a strike could heighten violence in the region and drag allies into a more protracted operation, and lingering concerns that a blow against Assad’s government could strengthen extremist groups fighting within the Syrian opposition.
“I’ve had 100 e-mails [from constituents] on this matter and not one of them was in favor,” said Adam Holloway, a Conservative member of Parliament. “This idea that we want to draw a line in the sand is ridiculous. There is already a feeling that [former prime minister] Tony Blair allowed George W. Bush to drive drunk into Iraq, and that we can’t trust everything we’re being told. And frankly, I can understand that.”
Cameron does not require the backing of Parliament to join what would likely be a limited military operation confined to missile assaults on selected targets. But analysts called parliamentary backing vital to boosting support for action in Britain and beyond. As of Wednesday night, the opposition Labor Party was still demanding conclusive evidence of the Assad government’s culpability before supporting any military strikes.
Fears of retaliation
Nations that have long resisted Western intervention in Syria, including Russia and Iran, were reasserting their opposition, saying the drumbeat was preempting the inspectors’ work. Any military action, they insisted, would only escalate violence in the region.