Some random items on Syria

From Foreign Policy: The War Precedent.

- The author review recent history regarding presidential war powers.

From Breaking Defense: A Limited Strike on Syria?

- The author questions the effectiveness of limited strikes and wonders if a limited strike on Syria will be truly limited.

From The Atlantic: Your Labor Day Syria Reader.

- The author highlights commentary from an analyst with expertise on the Middle East that tries to determine what we know and don;t know about the chemical attack in Syria.

The justification for using military force in Libya

From CBS News.

Here is a copy of the memo produced by the Office of Legal Counsel which justified the firing of missiles to protect the residents of Benghazi in 2011.The involvement of Congress hinged on the definition of "war." 

. . . in 2011, the administration took military action in Libya without any congressional approval, prompting the Republican-led House of Representatives to vote to rebuke the president.

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

The OLC augmented that argument by noting the operation in Libya would be limited to air strikes in support of a United Nations resolution, and that no American lives would be put at risk. And while Mr. Obama in 2007 said the president could only act unilaterally in a matter of self-defense, the OLC in 2011 justified the use of force in Libya as "in the national interest." 

 The story notes that there has been no UN support for the strikes, which makes this different than Libya. 

Should American Be the World's Policeman?

Quite a few students asked this question this week, so with that in mind its probably a good idea to find out what a few smart folks think about the subject. It will be central to an upcoming look at foreign policy in the US, so its worth a look.

First off, I assume that when people complain that we are the world's policeman, they refer to the idea that we are expected to intervene when conflicts flare up around the world. I haven't been able to find data that shows how often the US responds to crises as opposed to other countries, so it would be helpful to have empirical proof of this claim.

But it is true that having the largest military, by far, in the world the US is in a better position to intervene than are other nations. $600 billion in military spending allows us to effectively control the seas, air, and space, which allows conflicts to be mediated on our terms, but it seems to come at a cost. Since we have the ability to intervene when humanitarian crises occur, it follows that many argue that we should.

Here's a link to debate on this subject from 2008 - it should still be relevant for us today.

The arguments in favor of the idea the the US ought to be the world's policeman centered on the observation that the world is a dangerous place and the predatory countries are destabilizing. Only the US - hopefully backed by allies - is in a position to keep the peace. And a peaceful world is a more prosperous world.

The arguments against the idea are that intervention can lead to anti-Americanism, and a backlash within the US of active foreign affairs. It is also not popular among the American people many of whom would prefer to spend money to improve mattes within the US. There is also a sense that we can do more harm than good when we intervene.

For more on the debate:

- BalancedPolitics.org.
- The world would miss the American policeman. (paysite)
- The US must not be the worlds policeman.
- What if the US stops policing the world?
- Debate.org.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves use of military force

From the NYT:

A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian government, setting up a showdown next week in the full Senate on whether President Obama should have the authority to strike.

The 10-to-7 vote showed bipartisan support for a strike, but bipartisan opposition as well.

. . . The approved resolution would limit strikes against the Syrian government to 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days upon consultation with Congress, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops. But to retain the support of Mr. McCain, considered crucial to the authorization’s final passage, the committee toughened some of the language.

Jack Goldsmith compares the version of the AUMF passed by the committee with that proposed by the Obama Administration (courtesy of The Dish).

- Here is the administration's proposal.
- Here is what passed the committee

Obama's August 31st speech on Syria - and the people who helped shape it

Click for a transcript here.

In order to get a head start at a look at the White House Staff - which we will cover when we look at the section on Presidential Power - let's look at some of the people responsible for gathering the information contained in the speech.

The National Security Council: This group was created in the same piece of legislation that created the Department of Defense, among other things: "the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies."
- Click here for the White House page on the NSC

Some relevant news items:

Here's a look at the internal debate within the council about whether to strike against Syria, and whether to ask Congress for authorization.Here's a look at the NSC's attempt to brief members of Congress - especially the members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees.

The NYT has links to past stories involving the NSC.

The National Security Advisor is the primary advisor to the president on security affairs and heads the NSC's staff - which collects the information and conducts the research that forms the basis for the advice sent to the president.

- Here's a wayback look at the NSC staff during the Clinton years.

Something to file away for later use: The NSC is just one of the may advisory institutions which allow presidents to manage the multiple functions carried out by the executive branch. More on this in a few weeks, but its useful right now in order to figure our where the president is getting the information that suggests that a tactical strike against Syria is the right thing to do in response to the  recent chemical attack.  

Two questions to ponder as war with Syria is considered

The first is the practical question: Is it the right thing to do?

The second is the constitutional question: Does the president have the constitutional power to do so without congressional approval?

These will guide our approach to both public policy making and understanding the US Constitution in 2305, though we should kick this up in 2306 also. I'll post a few items related to the debate as they emerge.

The War Powers Resolution

2305 students ought to get familiar with this significant piece of Vietnam War era legislation. It's applicability to the current situation in Syria will be debated heavily in the upcoming week - last week as well.

It was an early attempt to reign in executive war making powers, though its actual impact is subject to debate. It has never been tested constitutionally, so there's a question about whether it allows Congress to interfere with powers related to the "commander in chief."

Members of Congress insists Obama seek congressional approval in order to strike Syria

From The Hill:

More than 100 lawmakers, including 16 Democrats, have signed a letter that says President Obama would violate the Constitution by striking Syria without first getting authorization from Congress.

A total of 107 lawmakers had signed the letter as of 3 p.m. Wednesday, highlighting bipartisan interest and growing momentum in ensuring a role for Congress in any decision to use force in Syria.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” states the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.).

The Speaker of the House wants a case to be made for intervention:

In a letter to the president, Boehner said the briefings key lawmakers have received so far have failed to assuage their concerns about the administration's strategy.

“I respectfully request that you, as our country’s commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy," Boehner wrote.

He stopped short, however, of demanding a congressional vote, even as more than 107 House members have signed a letter to the president making the case for such an authorization.

Boehner hinted that he supports retaliation following allegations Bashar Assad's forces used chemical weapons, saying the president's response had implications for America's “credibility” beyond Syria, notably in Iran. But he asked no fewer than 14 pointed questions about the long-term goals of a military response, notably regarding the risks of empowering Islamist militants and drawing Assad allies Iran and Russia into the fight.

Some House members argues that an attack would violate the War Powers Resolution:

House members demanding congressional approval for a military attack against Syria are making detailed legal arguments that ignoring Congress would violate the War Powers Resolution (WPR).

Dozens of House members are now on record as insisting that Congress must authorize military action against Syria, including more than 100 who plan to deliver a letter to the White House on Thursday.

That letter argues that the Obama administration is stretching its authority under the WPR, which was passed in 1973 and defines the circumstances under which the executive branch can commit military assets overseas.

Under the WPR, the president can "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities" pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or under a national emergency "created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or its armed forces."

In the letter to be sent Thursday, members argue that Obama has already weakened that standard in regard to Libya. It notes that in 2011, the administration's Office of Legal Counsel said Obama can rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the "national interest" by conducting limited military operations in Libya.

The pros and cons of war with Syria

I'll post more of these, but here's something to start a class discussion.

Where is Syria anyway?

If we're going to war with it, we should at least know where it is. That's just common courtesy.