Why did Obama go to Congress on Syria?

 

Late last week, President Obama abruptly decided to send a request for authorization to use force in Syria to Congress. The about-face came after several days of claims by aides that the president did not need permission from Congress to act. In fact, in a speech on Saturday, President Obama still denied that he needed permission from Congress and sources in the Administration told Press TV that the president had already made up his mind to strike Syria, even if Congress failed to give its approval.

Why did the president decide to seek congressional approval if he believes that he doesn’t need it and his mind is already made up? Obama has a long history of overstepping his constitutional authority in domestic matters so why does he suddenly feel the need to go to Congress when there is ample precedent for conducting limited attacks without congressional approval? Two years ago when Obama went to war in Libya, he not only did not ask for congressional authorization for the initial use of military force, but did not comply with the time limits of the War Powers Act, denying that U.S. forces were engaged in hostilities under the law, a position that Politifact said “violates our standards of common sense.”

There are three reasons that Obama may have moved the ball into Congress’ court. The first is that he wants to use the issue to split the Republican Party. There is an intense debate between the GOP’s foreign policy hawks and the party’s libertarian isolationist wing. Prominent Republicans like John Boehner, Lindsay Graham and John McCain have lined up to support the attack on Syria while Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have spoken out against it. Marco Rubio, who has advocated aiding the Syrian rebels for two years, seems to think that Obama’s response is too little, too late according to US News.

The downside to this strategy is that it has split Democrats as well. For the past half century, the Democrats have been the anti-war party (with the notable exception of President Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia). Florida Democrat Alan Grayson told the Australian that he believes as many as half of all Democrats will vote against the authorization.

Another motive may have been to share the blame if the intervention goes badly. President Obama’s foreign policy has led to a string of disasters from the expansion of Iran’s sphere of influence to include Iraq to the resurgence of al Qaeda and the rise of radical Islamism in many formerly secular Arab nations. Obama may well be looking at protecting himself politically if limited strikes ignite a wider war or lead to a victory by al Qaeda-supported rebels.

A key to understanding Obama’s flip-flop is the strong public opposition to attacking Syria. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Sept. 3 shows that only 19 percent support an attack on Syria. Fifty-six percent oppose any intervention. A Washington Post/ABC poll released the same day showed 59 percent opposed. Opposition was almost identical for both Republicans (55 percent) and Democrats (54 percent), but stronger (66 percent) among independents.

A final possibility is that Obama is having second thoughts about attacking Syria and is hoping that Congress will deny the authorization to attack. Almost as soon as Obama announced his decision to attack, Administration sources began to leak information that indicated that the attacks would be very limited and half-hearted.

Yesterday, Obama tried to walk back his statement from a year ago that Assad’s use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that would “change my calculus” on intervention in Syria. According to Politico, the president’s new line is that “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” Obama continued, “So when I said that my calculus would be altered by chemical weapons, which the overall consensus of humanity says is wrong — that’s not something I just made up. I didn’t pick it out of thin air. My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Although four months ago, White House officials made clear that the red line was “absolutely” the president’s, Obama is obviously having second thoughts in the face of overwhelming opposition. In spite of strong rhetoric from officials that the strike will happen regardless of Congress’ approval, it is unlikely that President Obama would make such an unpopular decision after being turned down by Congress.

A congressional defeat of Obama’s request may be likely. Political analyst Charlie Cook told the Financial Times on Tuesday that he would be surprised is the authorization passed Congress. A Washington Post analysis found the Senate split and heavy opposition in the House. Many members of both houses are still undecided.

Having stirred up a hornet’s nest of strong bipartisan opposition as well as finding little international support, President Obama may actually be hoping for Congress to deny his request. A loss in Congress would give the president the ability to avoid attacking Syria and the ability to save face by blaming Republican lawmakers.

Originally published on Elections Examiner

Obama was right on Syria… but then he screwed it up

President Obama was right in his initial decision to take military action against Syria. As evidence mounted that Bashar Assad of Syria had used poison gas against the civilian population of Syria, not once but repeatedly, the United States and the civilized nations of the world had to decide whether to take action or become complicit in the murders of untold thousands of innocents.

Though mass murders by dictatorial regimes are all too common, there has been an effective ban on the use of chemical weapons since shortly after World War I. The ban has only been broken four times. Italy used mustard gas against Abyssinia in 1935 and Japan used chemical agents in its conquest of China in 1938. In World War II, Adolf Hitler did not use poison gas against Allied soldiers for fear of retribution, but the Nazis did gas millions of people in their death camps. In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein used poison gas against the Iranian army as well as against the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Iraq.

Aside from the violation of international law and the moral implications of allowing Assad to gas innocent civilians, the U.S. also has a national interest in enforcing President Obama’s “red line.” Two of the Syrian government’s allies in the civil war are Hezbollah and Iran. Both Hezbollah and Iran have already shown willingness to take on the U.S. directly. Hezbollah, supported by Iran, was responsible for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut. In 1985, they hijacked TWA Flight 847 enroute from Athens to Rome. They were also allegedly responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which targeted US military members. Iran has also tried to attack the U.S. directly. Two years ago, Iran was implicated in a plot to carry out a series of bomb attacks in Washington, D.C. In spite of the plot and continued Iranian work on nuclear weapons, the Obama Administration has resisted any punishment for Iran including additional sanctions.

Ignoring Obama’s self-imposed red line for Syrian use of chemical weapons would increase the risk that use and development of weapons of mass destruction would become more common around the world. If the Iranians determine that the U.S. is not serious, it makes it even more likely that such weapons will be used again by terrorist groups like Hezbollah for use against Americans abroad, U.S. allies, or even the American homeland. It also makes it more likely that Iran would continue to develop and feel free to use nuclear weapons.

With ample evidence of Syria’s violation of international law and a compelling U.S. interest, President Obama should have ordered an attack on Syria’s WMD facilities and airbases as well as targeting President Assad. Although President Obama has a long history of abusing executive authority such an order would have been well within his constitutional role as commander-in-chief. The Constitution does not require a declaration of war in such an instance and there is a long history, dating back to Thomas Jefferson’s attack on the Barbary pirates, of presidents taking military action without congressional approval.

Instead, President Obama flip-flopped late last week after finding strong bipartisan opposition to an attack on Syria. After dithering for days, Obama abruptly decided that he would ask Congress for authorization to attack, but stopped short of asking representatives to cut their recess short and return to Washington to address the matter. According to CBS News, Congress will return to work on September 9.

The delay can only serve hearten President Assad and his allies in Tehran. Opposition to the attack in Congress could derail President Obama’s plan to attack Syria entirely. If it doesn’t, the Syrian government will have had nearly a month to prepare and disperse its chemical weapon stocks and other high priority targets. It will also have had plenty of time to beef up its air defenses making casualties among the attacking Americans more likely. All of this means that the deterrent effect of a strike will be lessened.

In reality, Obama would probably be relieved to be able to blame Congress for his inaction in Syria. His foreign policy has been one of American withdrawal from the world. Obama’s original campaign theme was calling for an end to the Iraq War. Today, the war in Iraq continues even though American forces are gone. Obama is planning a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan. During the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the beginning of the Syrian civil war, the Obama was conspicuously absent from supporting democratic activists. This policy led to al Qaeda domination of the Syrian opposition forces and Islamist victories in Egypt and Tunisia. Obama had to be dragged into his unconstitutional Libyan intervention by several NATO allies. He also squandered a chance to support Iranian dissidents during 2009’s “Green Revolution.”

Obama seems to have long held the belief that American power has caused problems throughout the world and that disengagement is a key to peace. Obama’s policy of withdrawal and “leading from behind” is how that belief was put into practice. The chaos in the Middle East is the result.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

TSA says no knives on airliners after all

The Transportation Security Administration announced on Wednesday that it was reversing its previous decision to allow small knives and other previously prohibited items to be carried on airline flights. In March, the TSA had announced that it would allow airline passengers to carry small folding knives with blades less than 2.36 inches long and less than half an inch wide in carryon baggage. Sporting equipment such as golf clubs, hockey and lacrosse sticks and miniature baseball bats would also have been allowed.

The items have been prohibited from carryon baggage since the September 11 attacks. The TSA focus on knives and small, sharp objects led some to joke that the agency’s acronym stood for “taking scissors away.”

The proposed changes were part of move by the TSA to transition toward risk-based security initiatives which recognize that the majority of airline passengers do not pose a risk, even if they carry a knife or hockey stick. Risk-based security focuses on determining which passengers pose a greater risk through behavior analysis, interviewing, and screening out low-risk passengers through additional information provided voluntarily through programs like Pre-check and Clear.

Even though risk-based screening has a proven history in Israel, the technique has sparked criticism in the United States. According to a USA Today report, a Homeland Security inspector general cited problems with assessing the effectiveness of risk-based screening and the lack of a comprehensive training program. Critics have also alleged that the system amounts to racial profiling.

The proposed changes to the prohibited items list drew opposition from a wide range of groups. 133 members of Congress, primarily Democrats, wrote to TSA administrator John Pistole to oppose the change. Flight attendants, air marshals, and other law enforcement officials also opposed the new rule.

Airline travelers can find a comprehensive list of acceptable items for both carryon and checked baggage on the TSA website. As a general rule, knives and other items that are considered weapons are permitted only in checked baggage. Chemicals and flammable items may not be permitted at all. When in doubt, travelers should also contact their airline.

See the 10 dumbest things people try to get through airport security.

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/tsa-decides-not-to-allow-knives-on-airliners

The electromagnetic pulse threat

A single nuclear warhead could disrupt the entire country in an EMP attack.

One afternoon last summer, an afternoon thunderstorm moved through my hometown of Villa Rica.  Lightning from the storm knocked out power in most of the town.  Without power, all commerce stopped.  We had intended to order a pizza, but the restaurant employees told us that they couldn’t cook anything electricity.  Even if they had food to sell, we wouldn’t have been able to buy it since they couldn’t use the cash register.  Across the street, grocery store customers with full carts of food found that they couldn’t buy anything either.  Police had their hands full directing traffic since all of the traffic lights in town were out.

Now imagine that the blackout is not confined to one town, but is spread across the whole country.  It also is not confined to the electrical grid.  Nothing electrical is working.  Your car engine might die.  Your cell phone is dead.  Even the battery in your watch is dead.  Instead of a thunderstorm, you have likely experienced an electromagnetic pulse attack.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack is a specific type of attack with a nuclear weapon.  Rather than leveling a city, the object of an EMP attack is to destroy a developed nation’s economy by destroying its electrical infrastructure.  The attack would also sever the command and control links between the government and military units making it difficult or impossible to fight back or coordinate relief efforts.

The effects of EMP after a nuclear airburst detonation were first observed after tests in the 1960s.  In one test, codenamed Starfish, a 1.4 megaton nuclear warhead exploded at 250 miles (400 km) over the South Pacific and damaged electrical and telecommunications systems almost 900 miles (1400 km) away in Hawaii.  Street lights failed, circuit breakers popped, burglar alarms were set off.

The EMP is a spike in gamma radiation following a nuclear detonation.  The first energy pulse is sent out within a few billionths of a second that damages electronics over a wide (hundreds of miles) area.  A second component that is similar to lightning follows next over the same area.  Finally, a third component is a slower, longer lasting pulse that can cause disruptive currents in electric transmission lines.  The third component is of a more limited range than the first two.  The three different components each cause separate damage.  Further, damage from later components builds upon the damage caused earlier.

An EMP attack would be carried out by exploding a large nuclear weapon at a high altitude above the target country.  The explosion of a large (at least one megaton) weapon several hundred miles above the United States between Chicago and Kansas would destroy or disrupt a majority of the US electrical capacity.  The extent of the damage would depend on the altitude and yield of the weapon.

Because the weapon would have to be boosted hundreds of miles above the earth, terrorist groups like al-Qaeda would not be able to mount an EMP attack.  On the other hand, there are indications that terrorist regimes in Iran and North Korea are working to develop EMP technology.  The Iranians have already test fired their missiles in a profile that is consistent with an EMP airburst.  Both nations have Scud missiles that could launch a lower-altitude EMP attack, but the Iranians also possess Shahab-3 medium range missiles that could detonate a warhead in space for maximum effectiveness.

Additionally, the Iranians have demonstrated the ability to launch Scud missiles from cargo ships.  This could be used to launch a surprise attack on US cities.  A freighter approaching port cities such as New York, Los Angeles, or Savannah could, without warning, launch strikes into the US heartland.  Depending on the version of the missile, a freighter hundreds of miles off the coast of Savannah could easily strike Atlanta with either a conventional nuclear warhead or an EMP airburst.  The jihadis on board could then sink the ship, leaving no clues as to the origin of the attack.  For maximum effectiveness, simultaneous attacks on several ports or seaboard cities could be coordinated.

Depending on the altitude of the airburst, there might be little or no physical damage or immediate loss of life.  After the explosion, the energy pulse would travel at the speed of light and simultaneously fry electronics within the effective radius of the weapon.  Commercial computer equipment, from traffic lights to telecommunications equipment would be affected.  Power surges from overloaded electric lines would short out computers and appliances.  Cars and trucks with electric ignition systems would shut off causing accidents and traffic jams. 

The long term effects would be disastrous.  There be no electricity until power lines and transformers could be replaced.  This might take years.  In the meantime, commerce would grind to a halt.  Food would quickly disappear from store shelves.  Produce would rot in warehouses since refrigeration systems would not work.  Cars that still worked could not be refueled since the electric pumps at gas stations would not work.    Telephone, internet, radio, and other methods of communication would all be down.  The economy would screech to a halt.

People would be isolated and stranded, unable to communicate, and running out of food.  This would inevitably lead to civil unrest.  There would likely be a societal breakdown similar to that seen after Hurricane Katrina, only this time the scale might well be national.  Law enforcement and relief agencies would be quickly overwhelmed.  Starvation, disease, and violence would run rampant.  The death toll could be in the millions.

In 2001, Congress formed the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United State from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack.  The commission has published several reports and studies on the EMP threat.  They have also issued recommendations for preventing and minimizing the EMP threat.  The most important recommendation is to prevent attacks from occurring in the first place.  This means preventing rogue nations from obtaining the technology to launch an attack.  Unfortunately, the nuclear cat is already out of the bag in North Korea and soon will be in Iran.

Second, commercial electric systems such as generators, turbines and transformers should be shielded and configured to minimize the damage from sudden shutdown or attempted restart after an attack.  Many military systems are already somewhat shielded as a legacy of the Cold War, but civilian electrical systems are completely vulnerable.

An additional solution is to implement an effective antimissile system.  The US already has a limited anti-ballistic missile capability in the form of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and US Navy Aegis cruisers armed with SM-3 missiles.  Other programs are currently under development.  The missile threat from rogue nations is different from the Cold War threat posed by the Soviets.  The terrorists would be able to launch far fewer missiles, but they might come from a shorter range, similar to a launch by a Soviet submarine.  Our current capabilities should be expanded and shorter range anti-missile defenses should be added to defend America’s coastal cities.

Even if an attack never occurs, many of these preparations would also help to minimize the damage from traditional blackouts and power failures.  The effects of a solar super storm, in which the sun ejects massive solar flares, would be similar to an EMP attack on a global scale.

Additionally, individuals should also prepare.  Whether we are faced with an EMP attack or some other disaster, individual Americans need to be able to fend for themselves for a time until relief agencies can help them.  In a burglary or home invasion, that might mean fending off an intruder for long minutes until police can arrive.  In a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake, help might take days to arrive.  In the case of electromagnetic pulse attack, there might be no help for weeks or months.  To learn how to begin preparing your home for an emergency, click here.

In the midst of a Great Recession and with the federal debt at record levels, it is difficult to think about more government spending to protect our electrical grids.  Nevertheless, as radical and homicidal extremists like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il gain, and share, the nuclear and missile technology to launch EMP attacks that could literally destroy our economy and bring the US back into the stone age, we must ask ourselves whether we can afford to tempt fate and do nothing.  History has shown that both Iran and North Korea are more than willing to strike first if they believe that they can get away with it.

For more information:

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/apjemp.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748923919852015.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Weapon_yield

http://www.missilethreat.com/archives/id.60/subject_detail.asp

http://www.survivalblog.com/2010/08/emp_attack_and_solar_storms_a.html

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs41elecpuls.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559504575631111672617070.html

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-electromagnetic-pulse-threat">