"If Congress declines to formally authorize US strikes against the Islamic State, one key senator predicts some members will try to end the military operations.
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who has introduced one of a handful of authorizations pending in both chambers, pressed hard during a Wednesday forum for Congress in coming months to debate and vote on a legal underpinning for President Barack Obama's air strikes on the violent Islamic group.
Obama last week announced he will ask Congress to approve the strikes. Due to a crowded lame duck session agenda, and the need to craft a force-authorization measure both chambers can accept, it appears Kaine's desired debate and vote will have to wait until the new Congress takes over next year." Military Times
--------------------
Tim Kaine wants the war against IS to be authorized by Congress, and he recognizes that if Obama is allowed to employ the armed forces without specific congressional approval we will have taken a big step in the direction of dictatorship. After all, what does emperor mean other than unlimited commander in chief?
Kaine wants a new AUMF that will authorize this war but not unlimited war, not war against whatever enemy some future commander in chief may want to fight.
Tim Kaine has it right. pl
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2014/11/13/new-aumf-kaine/18957077/
****************
"President Barack Obama wants his advisers to review the administration's Syria policy after determining that it may not be possible to defeat Islamic State militants without removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, CNN reported on Wednesday.
Citing senior U.S. officials, the network said Obama's national security team held four meetings in the past week that were driven by how the administration's Syria strategy fit into its campaign against Islamic State, which has seized large parts of Syria and Iraq.
"The president has asked us to look again at how this fits together," CNN quoted one senior official as saying. "The long-running Syria problem is now compounded by the reality that to genuinely defeat ISIL, we need not only a defeat in Iraq but a defeat in Syria." ISIL is another acronym for Islamic State." Reuters
----------------------
Obama's plan in regard to Syria evidently has relied on the creation of a game altering 25,000 man force of "moderate" Syrians who are yet to be vetted, selected or trained as individuals or at successively higher levels of command until a level of capability could be arrived at that would make this force the king maker in Syria. It has been HOPED that along the way this FSA force would defeat IS, Nusra and the Syrian government. IMO the creation of such a force would take five years at least.
Some of level of reality about the possibility of keeping all these Syrian balls in the air while this happens has begun to set in. As a result the Obamanites are looking for another game changer. IMO to that end we will see a new AUMF that specifically authorises US air action against the Syrian government.
The Syrian Army and Air Force present just the kinds of targets that US airmen like; big, hard to hide, and vulnerable to our advanced weaponry. Once an air war against the SAG begins the USAF and US Navy will break the Syrian govenment like a stick. Air bases in Turkey would be available.
The FSA is an illusion, an army of unicorns. Once the present Syrian government is gone the Islamists will rule in Damascus and there will be a flood of Christians, Alawis, Shia, Druze, etc. into Lebanon and Jordan.
Perhaps Congress should think about that when they write a new AUMF. pl
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/13/us-mideast-crisis-obama-syria-idUSKCN0IX03T20141113
Col. Lang:
That would be truly a Forever War as the US war with Iran would then be a matter of time only.
A war from the Chinese border to the Mediterranean Sea with no political aim.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 02:09 PM
Tim Kaine is to be lauded for requesting a debate on the AUMF. Indeed, "if Obama is allowed to employ the armed forces without specific congressional approval we will have taken a big step in the direction of dictatorship."
However, the AUMF that authorized the war on terror was so broadly interpreted that the President already has virtually unlimited powers for an unlimited time.
I expect the debate to be not over an AUMF authorizing specific action in Iraq, but over an AUMF that grants even broader, unconstrained powers to the President than did the war on terror AUMF--an AUMF that makes the President a virtual dictator.
Posted by: JohnH | 13 November 2014 at 02:14 PM
All,
Am I the only one who finds the prospect of an Islamist win in Syria madness? Assad is no Boy Scout but you don't see him cutting folks heads off.
At this rate it will take decades to fix what this and the last administration have done to US foreign policy in the ME. As my dad used to say many things can't be fixed.
Posted by: Lamoe2012 | 13 November 2014 at 02:22 PM
Before they vote on any war resolution in the ME I hope all members of the American public, and Congress are forced to watch a video of American Naval Personal being attacked in Turkey this week. And I hope it is also spelled out that it dubious, and perhaps, highly dubious, that this kind of attack is not encouraged, to some degree, by the megalomaniac regime in Turkey. Our erstwhile ally in the ME. These are our so called friends. This is who will be at our backs if and when we go to battle. And control a great deal of our supply lines.
Posted by: jonst | 13 November 2014 at 02:28 PM
The ethnic cleansing of Christians is already beginning:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/13/warren-family-escapes-isis-iraq/18940865/
Posted by: Fred | 13 November 2014 at 02:36 PM
Col. Lang,SST;
IMO any action against Syria might be regarded by Russia as an action against them. Putin's response to the initiation of such action could be very interesting. Nasrallah and his forces might also decide to use what they have before they lose it. Probably Israel is not the only nation/group with a Samson option.
In the absence of a coherent strategy, formulated by US patriots,for the benefit of the USA, under the guidance of the US constitution, the world may blunder into a nuclear war in the near future.
Thinking over all the discussions in SST, one does come to the conclusion that the place to start is the healing of the US polity. Without this step all other strategies appear to be at the tactical level.
Ishmael Zechariah
Posted by: Ishmael Zechariah | 13 November 2014 at 02:42 PM
Turkish mob assaulting US sailors... http://www.westernjournalism.com/turkish-youths-assault-u-s-sailors-istanbul-turkey/
Posted by: Augustin L | 13 November 2014 at 02:45 PM
Col. Lang, I am becoming increasingly concerned about how all this ends. It appears to me that President Obama and his team are more concerned with preventing the emergence of a Russian/Chinese bloc of which Iran and Syria are part, than anything else.
They obviously conclude that an ISIS type creature can be first contained and then degraded at Americas leisure. To me, this sounds once again like failure of imagination - an inability to comprehend that these bearded funny talking savages might actually threaten the "stability" of the entire gulf region in time.
There is also the unstated assumption that American air and space superiority is unchallenged and unchallengeable. I think this is unwise, especially if President Putin decides to augment Syria’s air defence system.
Posted by: Walrus | 13 November 2014 at 03:03 PM
Let us hope the same packs of people who backed Obama down over bombing Syria the last time can back him down this time.
I knew many months ago that overthrowing the SAG remained Obama's deep ambition even after being held in check by Putin and Orlov and the British Parliament. I did not know that he would be so ack-basswards as to retain that goal even today after all that has happened. Does he have any reason for this beyond spiting Putin? Beyond showing Putin a thing or two? Does he have any motive beyond his pathotoxic narcissism? Does his pathotoxic narcissism outway his lust for money he expects after leaving office?
President Obama . . . if your staffers are reading this . . . think about the money! Are you willing to blow the money that awaits you? All that beautiful money . . .
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2014 at 03:11 PM
Re: "Once an air war against the SAG begins the USAF and US Navy will break the Syrian govenment like a stick."
In other words, we now face something of a race:
Will it be Libya that morphs into something much like Syria before the United States blasts Syria into something much like Libya?
Posted by: Duncan Kinder | 13 November 2014 at 03:46 PM
I must have missed something.
I thought the US position last week was a grudging US acceptance of the Syrian government as an ally in the war against ISIS, and any overthrow of that government would at least have to wait.
It makes no strategic sense to me to take out Assad now, not that it ever did, but doing so now hands victory to ISIS imho.
Of course if we didn't have such an insane, contradictory policy, the surest way to destroy ISIS would be to directly assist the Syrian Army with arms, intelligence, and truly coordinated air support. Our engagement in Syria is truly one of the most egregious FUBAR moments in recent history.
BTW--anyone have any take on how the Russians would respond to an all out US assault on Syria?
Posted by: steve | 13 November 2014 at 03:55 PM
The Just War Doctrine specifies "Legitimate Authority" as a criteria for finding a war just. Under our system Congress is the Legitimate Authority - or so it would seem. If this is the case there is a moral issue involved. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops should be a voice in the debate. They should be calling on Congress to stand up to its constitutional and moral responsibilities by voting on the AUMF. They, however, seem to be preoccupied with other moral issues and power struggles with the Obama administration.
Posted by: Herbert Ely | 13 November 2014 at 04:45 PM
Israel has been ethnically cleansing Christians for almost 70 years...
I'd like to know why it's newsworthy only when our enemies do it.
Posted by: JohnH | 13 November 2014 at 04:55 PM
"preventing the emergence of a Russian/Chinese bloc of which "?
That is already a fact.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2014 at 05:08 PM
The millinealists continue to work hard to bring about their desired scenario and the dragon continues to smile broadly.
Sanity flees.
Posted by: curtis | 13 November 2014 at 05:28 PM
Herbert Ely
IMO the bishops are more concerned with their old maid politics than anything else. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 13 November 2014 at 05:43 PM
IMO if Assad's SAG is destroyed and Turkey was allowed to run Syria as its protectorate, it would satisfy a lot of ambitions in the region. Russia would need to keep its naval base along with other concessions in the Black Sea. Turkey would accede to its Ottoman ambitions and provide a military to hold an Eastern Border against IS. Israel and Saudi Arabia would be happy for the time being. Iraq/Syria Sunnis and Kurds could be assured a pathway to statehood, just set the Westphalian ideology aside. Sorry, Iran you were left out of the room.
Posted by: grizziz | 13 November 2014 at 06:00 PM
Self correction . . . when I said "Orlov" , I meant to mean "Lavrov".
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2014 at 06:07 PM
Steve,
I think the Russians will "prespond" by upgrading and bulking-up Syria's air defense system, maybe putting some tripwire Russians in and around key targets to give Obama pause, and putting more ships into the Med and elsewhere.
Posted by: different clue | 13 November 2014 at 06:10 PM
Col,
Breaking the Syrian government before there is a tangible "FSA" would seem obviously counter productive. It would hand Syria to IS "on a platter". I'm speculating that Obama may choose to lead everybody to agreement that there is nothing that can be done without US ground intervention in the near future by means of "exploring" other options, and then to an acknowledging there is no public support for such an undertaking, even with CNN's, FOX's, et al's very best efforts to the contrary. Old community organizer trick.
Got a working theory he has already decided that if the regional players won't go in on the ground, then there WILL be an IS, at least for his last two years.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 13 November 2014 at 06:28 PM
Here's a before/after (2011/2014) nighttime satellite view of Syria, that illustrates the retreat of "civilization"...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107111001.htm
Posted by: pbj | 13 November 2014 at 06:48 PM
Sadly, I think you are right.
Posted by: Herbert Ely | 13 November 2014 at 07:23 PM
Seconding what JohnH has said. The Israelis have been doing this since before the state was founded.
Dubhaltach
Posted by: Dubhaltach | 13 November 2014 at 08:06 PM
And we still have 2 more years to contend w/ Obama's policies...wonder where Daesh will be in 2 years...double sigh...
Posted by: makosog | 13 November 2014 at 09:22 PM
What makes you believe that Turkey would "provide a military to hold an Eastern Border against IS"?
Anything more than wishful thinking? Or, just another idle thought that fitted well with your other prognostications?
Posted by: FB Ali | 13 November 2014 at 11:46 PM