Don't Miss Sarah Jones's Essay On Kristi Noem Titled Predatory Is The Point On The Daily.
According to the United States Constitution, only the U.S. Congress has the power to declare war, and they have exercised that power eleven times in the nation’s history. However, the last time Congress made a declaration of war was in 1942, and yet this country has engaged in several bloody and costly protracted conflicts and interventions that were by any definition all out wars. In 2001, George W. Bush sought and was granted permission by Congress to pursue al Qaeda in Afghanistan that he interpreted as blanket approval to “take the fight to the enemy” wherever he and his warmonger administration decided a terrorist group set up residence. Yesterday, President Obama made a wise decision to go to Congress to seek authorization for limited military action against Syria for the brutal use of chemical weapons against 1,429 innocent civilians including 426 children.
America has been involved in some of the bloodiest, costliest, and protracted wars in its history in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq to name a few, and Congress did not use their power to authorize war other than approving funding and more recently giving Bush carte blanche to wage war wherever and whenever the mood struck or natural resources were available. President Obama’s decision to go to Congress not only sets a precedent for future presidents to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, it ends years of ignoring regular order and hopefully puts a damper on future Republicans likely to wage war for oil and the military industrial complex’s profits.
There are, of course, inherent dangers in returning war powers to a Congress with extremist Republicans in control of the House. Republicans have already shown their inclination to shirk their constitutional duty on myriad issues, and they announced they would indeed take up the question of military strikes against Syria, but only after they finish their 5-week hiatus; who can blame them? The labor-weary and beleaguered Republicans will have to toil a total of 126 days throughout all of 2013, and dog forbid they give up any of their 239 days off just to debate and vote on authorizing action against a dictator who gassed hundreds of children to death in plain sight. Of course, there are the typical Republican warmongers who, although pleased the President is coming to Congress for authorization, want real military action they enjoyed when George W. Bush launched full-scale war for regime change wherever and whenever the mood struck him.
Perennial warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham welcomed the President’s announcement to seek congressional approval for limited military action, but they will not support “isolated military strikes that are not part of an overall strategy to remove Assad from power” who they claim is “a growing threat to our national security interests.” In fact, the two armchair generals parroted Bush a second time and claimed anything less than all-out war “would send the wrong signal to America’s friends and allies, all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.” The President’s announcement did send a signal to America’s friends and allies, but it was that his intent is a limited military strike to enforce “the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States.” America’s friends and allies certainly remember Bush’s war mongering and welcome the Presidents assurance any military action will be limited and only to enforce the prohibition against chemical weapons.
The President’s announcement answered the calls of about a hundred members of Congress and 80% of the American people who wanted debate and congressional approval before America takes any military action against Assad’s forces. He also put to rest the consternation of liberals who feared a repeat of the Bush administration’s blood lust and apparent joy at waging war for regime change in two sovereign nations this country’s people will be paying for over the next three decades. It is important to remember that the nation’s deficit suffers from Bush’s two unnecessary and unfunded wars that are still accruing debt, and are estimated to add $4 trillion to the deficit on top of $2 trillion Bush’s folly in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost to date.
The question of whether to launch limited strikes in Syria is a very, very complex issue and questions America’s role in intervening and influencing a sovereign nation’s internal affairs. Syria is roiling from a rebellion and civil war to topple Assad, but it is still unclear exactly who the rebels are and what kind of government will result if they prevail over the government forces. It is true that any civil war is bound to involve innocent civilians, and there have been numerous reports of Assad’s bombs killing innocent men, women, and children indiscriminately. But the brutal use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law and by rights the international community bears the responsibility of holding the Syrian government accountable for gassing 1,429 innocent civilians including 426 children. The President’s announcement appealed to other governments to assist in enforcing the universally accepted prohibition against the use of chemical weapons and appealing to Congress reveals he is not following the Bush approach of waging war for ideology and corporate profits.
President Obama’s decision to adhere to the Constitution was the right one and not only sends a message to Republicans used to a president waging war on a whim, it informs all Americans that regular order is being restored to a nation weary of war for fun and profit. Is there a risk that Republicans in Congress will follow their pattern of opposing any and everything this President proposes because he is an African American? Of course, but it is likely that when the facts of Assad’s brutality are laid bare, and the President’s intent to use limited assets without an invasion force are considered reasonable, it is difficult to believe Congress will condone Assad’s brutal use of chemical weapons against his own people.
However, this is 2013 and Republicans have opposed regular order for the past two-and-a-half years so no American should be shocked if they reject the President’s attempt to restore constitutional order regarding military action. Regardless of Republicans in Congress decision after their 5 week vacation, President Obama has at least, after several decades, returned the power to wage war where the Constitution mandates it belongs and sets a precedent for the future that cannot be understated.
Audio engineer and instructor for SAE. Writes op/ed commentary supporting Secular Humanist causes, and exposing suppression of women, the poor, and minorities. An advocate for freedom of religion and particularly, freedom of NO religion.
Born in the South, raised in the Mid-West and California for a well-rounded view of America; it doesn’t look good.
Former minister, lifelong musician, Mahayana Zen-Buddhist.
