When is a declaration of war not one?

Apparently, when the target is Syria...

"... this resolution shall not constitute an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war except to the extent that it authorizes military action under the conditions, for the specific purposes, and for the limited period of time set forth in this resolution."

That text is from Section 7 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's draft resolution authorizing attacking Syria (full text below, obtained here). How, exactly, is bombarding a country with hundreds of missiles NOT a "declaration of war" as stated in Section 7? To anybody sane, it is; only in the minds of corrupt politicians is it otherwise.
We tell them we don't want war in Syria by a 9:1 margin (and it's still at least 2:1 even if they prove the Assad government used chemicals, which they haven't yet), but they devised the following resolution to go to war anyway. That raises the obvious question -- for whom do they want a war in Syria? Who benefits?
Certainly NOT the American people, although a few giant corporations stand to make millions in the short-term (which is their vision's only horizon). We've already seen "defense" stock prices rising as they orgasm over the possibility of our government needing to order new missiles, etc., to replace the ones this escapade uses.
I don't think this will benefit the Syrian people; it just adds another source of explosives and flying debris for them to hide from. In fact, it will probably push some who can't stand Assad to fight for Syria out of patriotism, on the grounds they're all being attacked by outsiders. Although many are fleeing the country in fear of the air strikes (and some government/military forces are dispersing to Lebanon to avoid them), there are also reports alleging some refugees are returning to join a potential fight against us. This should surprise no one -- If the US were attacked by an outside power, many of us would put aside our differences and unite in opposition.
Some argue it's being done for Israel, but I'm not sure they'd get much benefit either. Especially after their missile test in the Med yesterday, even if Israel technically stays out of it, they'll very likely be on the receiving end of something simply as a target of convenience. The other nations in the ME have long seen Israel as our proxy, so whatever WE do, they'll be seen as complicit.
One power who DOES seem to benefit is Saudi Arabia, the nation that's the source of many problems in that region because of its long-term export of authoritarian Wahhabi fundamentalist ideology, which tends to see both Shia and mainstream Sunni states as "infidels." Yet we think of them as "our friend" because of our oil addiction....

SYRIA JOINT RESOLUTION FOR MARKUP JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the limited and tailored use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria. Whereas Syria is in material breach of the laws of war by having employed chemical weapons against its civilian population; Whereas the abuses of the regime of Bashar al-Assad have included the brutal repression and war upon its own civilian population, resulting in more than 100,000 people killed in the past two years, and more than 2 million internally displaced people and Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, creating an unprecedented regional crisis and instability; Whereas the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the region and has demonstrated its capability and willingness to repeatedly use weapons of mass destruction against its own people, including the August 21, 2013 attack in the suburbs of Damascus in which the Assad regime murdered over 1,000 innocent people, including hundreds of children; Whereas there is clear and compelling evidence of the direct involvement of Assad regime forces and senior officials in the planning, execution, and after-action attempts to cover-up the August 21 attack, and hide or destroy evidence of such attack; Whereas the Arab League has declared with regards to the August 21 incident to hold the “Syrian regime responsible for this heinous crime”; Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004) affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security; Whereas in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States; Whereas the actions and conduct of the Assad regime are in direct contravention of Syria's legal obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention on the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and also violates standards set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention; Whereas Syria's use of weapons of mass destruction and its conduct and actions constitute a grave threat to regional stability, world peace, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners; Whereas the objectives of the United States use of military force in connection with this authorization are to respond to the use, and deter and degrade the potential future use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government; Whereas the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States: Now, therefore, be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons”. SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION-The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to: (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria; (2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and (3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future. (b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— (1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction by Syria; (2) the Syrian government has conducted one or more significant chemical weapons attacks; (3) the use of military force is necessary to respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government; (4) it is in the core national security interest of the United States to use such military force; (5) the United States has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria, to deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons, and to degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future; and (6) the use of military force is consistent with and furthers the goals of the United States strategy toward Syria, including achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict. (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541, et seq., the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution, within the limits of the authorization established under this Section. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SECTION 3. LIMITATION.  The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations. SECTION 4. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. The authorization in section 2(a) shall terminate 60 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a single period of 30 days, such authorization if – (1) the President determines and certifies to Congress, not later than 5 days before the date of termination of the initial authorization, that the extension is necessary to fulfill the purposes of this resolution as defined by Section 2(a) due to extraordinary circumstances and for ongoing and impending military operations against Syria under section 2(a); and (2) Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 30 day period; provided that any such joint resolution shall be considered under the expedited procedures otherwise provided for concurrent resolutions of disapproval contained in section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546). SECTION 5. SYRIA STRATEGY. Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this resolution, the President shall consult with Congress and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives an integrated United States Government strategy for achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict in Syria, including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. diplomatic, political, economic, and military policy towards Syria, including: (1) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian Supreme Military Council and other Syrian entities opposed to the government of Bashar Al-Assad that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States; (2) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian political opposition, including the Syrian Opposition Coalition; (3) efforts to isolate extremist and terrorist groups in Syria to prevent their influence on the future transitional and permanent Syrian governments; (4) coordination with allies and partners; and (5) efforts to limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime. SECTION 6. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING. (a) Notification and Provision of Information. Upon his determination to use the authority set forth in section 2 of this Act, the President shall notify Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of the use of such authority and shall keep Congress fully and currently informed of the use of such authority. (b) Reports. No fewer than 10 days after the initiation of military operations under the authority provided by Section 2, and every 20 days thereafter until the completion of military operations, the President shall submit to the Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a report on the status of such operations, including progress achieved toward the objectives specified in Section 2(a), the financial costs of operations to date, and an assessment of the impact of the operations on the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities and intentions. SECTION 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.  The authority set forth in Section 2 of this resolution shall not constitute an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war except to the extent that it authorizes military action under the conditions, for the specific purposes, and for the limited period of time set forth in this resolution.

Petition: Oppose war in Syria

Hi, all,

This morning I drafted and started circulating an open letter to our congressfolks and the president to express our concern regarding the mess in Syria. Please take it, make copies and get signatures (obviously, change it to your reps and senators if you're not local). Preventing this has a VERY short window of opportunity, since Congress is supposed to take it up when they return to session 9/9, and the administration is already pushing hard to convince them. 

It's often a very subtle approach, too: Many of today's newspapers probably ran an AP story in which the first paragraph states "... new physical evidence shows the Syrian government used sarin gas in a deadly August attack." The problem is that's NOT TRUE. The evidence shows sarin WAS apparently used, but the U.N. team doing the research was not tasked with identifying the perpetrator. 

Conflicting reports online accuse BOTH sides of using it and have widely variable numbers of casualties (from 335 to 1429). Among the points of view are these: the rebels have a vested interest in making it look like Assad did it; a rogue government colonel and/or Assad's brother ordered it; the government has been using it in small doses repeatedly (but this one was mixed badly); the rebels have used it before; and the rebels got it from the Saudis but most didn't know it was sarin. I'm sure there are others out there, and I certainly don't know the truth, but this list is enough to show we lack the facts to make a decent decision.

Uninformed decisions of this magnitude VERY often result in disaster. We've been playing Russian roulette in the Middle East for a long time now, and if we keep playing it, we WILL eventually land on the loaded chamber.

PETITION

TO OPPOSE INTERVENTION IN SYRIA

To: U.S. Reps Richard Neal and James McGovern, U.S. Senators Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama

From: American citizens and residents of Central Massachusetts

September 2, 2013

We, the undersigned, strongly oppose US military action in the Syrian civil war.

Although nobody denies the awfulness of chemical weapons use, allegations suggest BOTH sides have been using it over the last year or so, and the recent UN investigation there was NOT charged with identifying the perpetrator. As a war crime, it is best decided by the International Criminal Court.

Beyond that, US involvement in the war carries serious risks of widening Syria's civil conflict into a full-scale regional war and/or even, potentially, a world war, with very little likely positive effect. The fact that it is already spilling into Lebanon and has sparked skirmishes with Turkey and Israel is bad enough, but we are concerned that direct American intervention – even of the “limited” type you propose – may prove to be the “last straw” for various outside powers, including Russia. Moscow has already made it clear they back the Syrian government, so our involvement greatly increases the danger of accidental direct conflict between two nuclear-armed nations. Such an event, even if of low probability, has such a high chance of global catastrophe it must be avoided.

Furthermore, both Iran and Israel have been posturing aggressively and could easily be drawn into this fight. Several nations (including Saudi Arabia) are already supporting one side or the other, and with evidence showing the better-armed rebels are al-Qaeda affiliates, we'd be stepping into a nest of vipers, inviting attacks from multiple directions.

Although we definitely should pay attention to it, this is not our war. We, the American people, are tired of overseas conflicts and need the resources they waste to rebuild our roads and schools, address environmental issues, revamp our economy and handle other problems here at home.

Sincerely,

The Syrian tripwire has been sprung

{A shorter version of this is in the SEN 8/30/13}

As most sane people expected, but only the lunatics wanted, Syria is rapidly turning into a clusterfuck of immense proportions.

Of course, I'm referring to US airstrikes on Syrian military and government facilities, the latest round of gluttonous insanity that has been all too prevalent in our foreign policy circles for years now.

Before I go on, I should add a disclaimer: I'm writing this Tuesday afternoon, after Secretary of State John Kerry's announcement we'd conduct a few days of strikes starting Thursday. It's possible we actually did nothing – something I hope is true. It's also possible that multiple nations are now ablaze, although that's not too likely in such a short time frame. The fact you're reading this obviously indicates the worst potential hasn't been realized (yet, and hopefully never).

That said, I think it's safe to say Washington's reaction, or lack thereof, has introduced a new element of randomness into an already chaotic mess. Kerry was claiming readiness to attack even before there was clarity on what kind of agent was used (some sources claim a nerve gas, some claim an industrial toxin) or on the perpetrator's identity (some ID the Assad regime, claiming desperation in the face of rebel advances near Damascus; others point at the rebels, arguing they saw a chance to bring in the US).

Neither side is one I particularly want to ally with.

Although use of chemical weapons is horrifying, the only way to actually stop the killing there that stands a chance of working requires the US, Russia, China and Iran to all be involved. Anything less might tamp down the violence for a while, but will guarantee the killing resurfaces in potentially even more nasty ways. That's because solitary intervention, especially by the West, won't actually solve the problems that sparked and continue to fuel it.

Those problems are many and of long duration. The longest fuse goes all the way back to the Sunni-Shia split that began developing around 1400 years ago. That's the surface rationale behind the way various Middle Eastern nations have taken sides: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the rebels (mostly Sunnis, with radical Wahhabi-fueled al-Qaeda elements being the best armed) vs the Alawi Assad regime backed by Hezbollah and Iran (mostly Shia, although some Sunnis and Christians support Assad).
To me, this is mostly an excuse being used by leaders on both sides to provoke co-religionists into fighting for causes that won't actually benefit them. Those leaders are using the religious differences as a tool to promote their own political influence in the region, the latest clash in a centuries-long rotation of power among the Iranian Plateau, the Arab lowlands, and the Anatolian highlands.

Layered atop that, and in practice a bigger factor, is the fact this region has long been a focal point of arrogant colonialist game-playing. Even as World War I was raging, the British and French devised a secret plan, called the Sykes-Picot Treaty, to partition the Middle East for their own benefit. It “gave” Iraq, Jordan and Palestine to Britain, and Syria and Lebanon to France, well before they had any sign of success vs the Ottoman forces that ruled the region. The 1916 plan totally ignored the wishes and cultural realities of the people who lived there, and the winners later granted newly-concocted puppet kingdoms to certain leaders even if they had no connection to the area they were to rule (for example, Faisal in Iraq).

Adding to that was the fact Britain had also been under pressure from Zionist Jewish and Christian leaders for a couple of decades to support creation of a Zionist state in Palestine. London did so in the Balfour Declaration and helped hundreds of thousands of European Jews get to Palestine, especially as the horrors of the Holocaust came to light.

Unfortunately, that aid conflicted with promises London had made to Arab allies and the facts on the ground there, and Arabs have never forgotten. At the time, Palestine, today's Israel, was a sparsely populated corner of the Ottoman province of Syria. It was almost entirely Muslim with very few Jews, although Jewish communities were scattered all over the empire, particularly in the cities. The evidence shows they were well-integrated into the Muslim majority and usually practiced their own culture with little trouble until after Israeli independence in 1948.

The post-WW2 years brought a new form of external influence – the Cold War. In 1971, Moscow established a fairly small naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus; the Russians are still there despite the Soviet collapse in 1991*. They've reportedly been renovating it to support larger warships in recent years, and Russian technicians have gone to Syria to operate new air-defense batteries, but how many are there is unknown.

A widespread lack of information is one of the biggest risks US air attacks have. We don't know what treaties Syria has with Moscow, or what Russia is likely to do if its facility or people are hit. Putin has warned the US to stay out of Syria repeatedly, as has Iran, which recently stated a US attack would cause the whole region to become a “ball of fire.”

The confusion of alliances there is unpleasantly reminiscent of those in the Balkans in 1914.

On Tuesday, the Guardian's Julian Borger reported that Washington wouldn't wait for the results of the UN investigation already in Syria, only for a vote in the UK Parliament slated for Thursday.

The same story states, “As presidential systems, the US and French governments do not have the same obligation to go to their legislatures to seek approval to act ….” He's dead wrong about that. Our Constitution specifically gives only Congress the power to declare war. Since the attack in Syria wasn't against us and the UN has not authorized intervention, the president has no authority to act absent such a vote.

Even if “successful” (whatever that means here), such an attack puts us right in the crosshairs of an ancient trait of Arab culture: the Bedouin sense of honor. Under that code, attacks do not go unpunished – a tendency that has often led to very long blood rivalries between tribes. It's true that Israel is widely believed to have bombed a few Syrian convoys and, several years ago, Syria's nearly-complete nuclear reactor, but there's a difference from what Obama's planning. Syria did not react then because Israel did it literally in darkness and never admitted it (which would have triggered the honor issue), but US warships blatantly launching missiles at Syria do not have that culturally-sanctioned “deniability.”

Ironically, Obama's doing it to “save face” as well, since he made the “red line” ultimatum months ago. Under the circumstances, his “honor” means far less than the big-picture consequences, and is definitely not a good reason for war.

As usual, caught in the middle are millions of civilians who'd much rather just live their lives without fear of being blown up, shot or poisoned. For them, this is truly a no-win situation,and most of the statements of concern about their well-being, from all sides, are little more than propaganda.

That's always the case in wars; they're invariably driven by somebody's overweening ego and thirst for power, with “humanitarian concerns” being just a pretext. Unfortunately, such BS will continue until normal people force the warmongers to fight to the death among themselves in steel-cage matches – then we kill the winner when he steps out. War over, no civilian deaths, no massive destruction to rebuild, no innocent people huddling in terror as the next bomb screams down.

* Given the potential explosiveness of this situation, I think it's worth noting that an errant US missile hitting the Tartus base and nearby rail center was the final straw leading to nuclear war in Pat Frank's classic novel Alas, Babylon. Although that book is quaintly out-of-date in many respects (it was written in 1959, well before nuclear winter theory), it still serves as a good warning: we'd count ourselves extremely lucky if a nuclear WW3 manifests that gently....