DEFENSE, OFFENSE, AND SYRIA

Subtitle: A way to shut up McCain and Graham.

Our rules of governance are archaic in some respects. Voter equality and a republican or representative form of government are not archaic. It is the best form of government yet devised by man. President Obama is commander in Chief. His job is to use the military to defend the nation.  Only congress can declare war thus direct the President to use the military as an offensive force. This statement is not just some silly play on the words ‘defensive’ and ‘offensive’. In the case of Syria, it is very real debate and the people of the Untied States are waiting to hear what the outcome will be.

The president has the power to defend the country against a sudden attack. The founding fathers never considered this possibility; there were no atomic bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles in the late 18^th century. We as a nation expect out representatives to consider seriously if Syria President Bashar Hafez al-Assad, who is also the Regional Secretary of the Syrian-led branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and his military are a threat to the United States. If he is then we have to defend ourselves. The obvious answer is no. Then they should consider if he is a threat to our regional interests. The obvious answer is yes, but our regional interests are because of two things, our business interest and our good friend Israel—right or wrong, we have a treaty obligation to defend Israel. If we fulfill that obligation, we are still talking about defense. I do not see Israel as being in immediate danger. This leaves one thing. Is Syrian President al-Assad, like Saddam Hussein, such an insult to human sensibilities that Congress should direct the Commander-in-Chief of our military to remove him from office by force? That would be an offensive move, worthy of deliberations but entirely different from defensive efforts. The people of this country should not expect the president to make that decision. He is a brave man and a leader so he will if he has to but I think it would the wrong thing to do.

First, he is term limited. The people of the United States cannot express their approval or disapproval. Second, a plebiscite is possible but seems entirely inappropriate because we have elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions; that is the America way. There is great pressure from the Republicans in congress to try and force Obama to make the decision for the obvious political advantage of being able to criticize him for starting a war even if it  turns out well but especially if it turns our badly. Obama is on solid ground if he demands they make the decision. If they decide to wage an offensive war, by law, he will honor that decision by carrying out the war in the most effective manner possible. I will guarantee that Lindsey Graham and John McCain will shut up as soon as the president put the ball in their court. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated