US Military has Doubts about Syria Strike (will they refuse strike orders?)

reply to post by starfoxxx


Since his post was referencing me, I'd love to know where I stated I supported this action by Obama....

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Rosinitiate

 

If you have solid proof we have a ground effort going on in Syria right now, I'd love to see it... Until thin I guess I'll continue to not hold my breath.

Sure no problem there buddy.

Bryant Jordan writes for Military.com, March 9, 2012, that according to a leaked Stratfor memo published by WikiLeaks, U.S. Special Operation Forces reportedly have been in Syria since December training groups to conduct guerrilla attacks and assassinations to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Stratfor is a Texas-based private intelligence-gathering company.

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...

After a
couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF teams
(presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground
focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force
intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian
Army to train right now anyway, but all the operations being done now are
being done out of 'prudence.' The way it was put to me was, 'look at this
way - the level of information known on Syrian OrBat this month is the
best it's been since 2001.'

http://__._/gifiles/docs/1671459_insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html

Let me know if that works for you or if you want me to do a little more research on your behalf.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Ground operations does not equal a military.com article saying we are training other forces. I mean a ground operation where our guys are engaging the 'enemy'.

Look that up on my behalf, thanks.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Is it a war crime to attack a sovereign nation without justification, without a threat to your own nation?

If the answer is yes then, anyone must refuse the order to attack or also be charged for war crimes along with the president?

Isn't that what the USA setup after WWII?

I know Bush said torture was ok and damn the Geneva convention, but this is a war crime plain and simple.

Or maybe someone can pass a law providing immunity, it's been done before.

reply to post by bknapple32


It's ok, I don't need to argue semantics so someone can justify murder as well justifiable. You keep your reality, I will keep mind.

I know I can sleep well at night.....

Oh and I guess hired mercenaries don't count either right?

Rosinitiate
reply to post by bknapple32

 

It's ok, I don't need to argue semantics so someone can justify murder as well justifiable. You keep your reality, I will keep mind.

I know I can sleep well at night.....

Who is justifying anything? Where did I say I support this? I'm simply debating the legality of this as pertains the U.S constitution and why Obama does not need congressional approval.

bknapple32

Who is justifying anything? Where did I say I support this? I'm simply debating the legality of this as pertains the U.S constitution and why Obama does not need congressional approval.

Any attack on Syria whether it be “boots on the ground” or tomahawk cruise missiles flying overhead are essentially acts of aggression and according to international law makes it right and just for Syria to announce war on the US not the other way around here.

It’s kind of interesting you didn’t state that the link I provided above was an unreliable source, you insinuated by not questioning its accuracy that it was accurate and only complained that boots on the ground training terrorists is not the same as being a terrorist ourselves, again I say semantics but that aside. In the article I linked for your enjoyment it clearly states that there currently isn’t even a Free Syrian Army because we didn’t create one yet….

Do you not get what the email was implying? Does that not bother you that we were planning on creating an army to oust the Assad regime form the get go?

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Of course it does. But this is reality. We've been ousting regimes for quite some time now. It's par for the course. I feel like because it's Obama, the majority of the naysayers finally take issue with it.

Point is, whether you like it or not, and I dont.... Obama striking Syria with 200 tomahawk missiles is perfectly legal and a non impeachable offense. Should he try and start a ground war without approval then he should be impeached.

reply to post by bknapple32


Well to help you unerstand my no biased perspective allow me to share with you what I wrote back in 2005:

There have always been very informative, and very intelligent people who helped shape our way of thinking and brought us into the 21st century. A couple come to mind as I watch the carnage, incompetence, and lack of empathy in the present day. Lets take Einstein for example when he said "There are two things in this world that are infinite, that's the Cosmos and human stupidity. Although I am not even sure of the prior". Then there is Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who are willing to sacrifice are essential liberties just to obtain a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security".
Now what Einstein said apparently holds true today as not only has are government been inundated with incompetence but the very people who are governed by them seem to be lacking upstairs. How can we let BushCo. And the rest of the Neocons hijack are country and force oppression on us. While supporting his dream of Global Democracy (One World Order) for the sake of financial gain for a few of the select elite. It seems funny to me when I think about how fast the Bush administration was with the clean up and recovery of 911, yet he is completely incapable of doing the same for the Katrina disaster. Granted people have brought up the fact that it is about the less fortunate, or the race card. I doubt it's a racial thing but as far as the less fortunate are concerned. Is there really any doubt?
Regardless for the reasons the fact of the matter is simply that Bush only cares for the rich. Everything he has ever done has been for the rich. From tax relief to large contracts all the way down to the doctoring of Global warming facts. Well I guess he has done a little for the poor, you know like the "No children left behind act" of course when it comes to the poor there are always stipulations like if the school does not give the military access to the students profile for recruitment purposes then opps sorry we will have to omit you from the program. Or how about Medicaid for the elderly they are required to try some experimental drugs as part of the policy. Are you F*&%# kidding me!!

Let me just throw out a few things before I end here to solidify my point:

Companies with connections to Bush have already clinched contracts for the Katrina aftermath (or as the first lady would say Carrina) IE: Halliburton.

Lets not forget the leaking of a CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Or the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

How about the abuse of "enemy combatants" with complete disregard to the Geneva Conventions.

Then there is always the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and 911.

Oh we can't leave out all them scary WMD's.

Have you had enough yet? Anybody? The clock is ticking and I fear if we don't take back are government now we will loose it forever. And to think I was once evicted from an apartment for being too loud, but one of the worst criminals of modern day gets to keep his nice pad paid for by my own hard earned cash.

starvestruck.blogspot.com...:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=2

God how I would love to hear that military response. "We can not, in good conscience send our forces to war in Syria simply to support the ego of the President."

We will not put boots on the ground in Syria---but we may send snake eaters in limited numbers and roles to help the rebels. Even this would be better served by sending special forces from neighboring countries instead of Americans.

We will not overfly Syria with B-2s or high value aircraft. The risk is too great,and the cost associated with that risk is not worth the payoff.

We will not send manned aircraft over Syria-simply because one shoot down and we are screwed.

The only option left is missile strikes. But what do we target?
If we target Assad and with no Air Battle Control and real time intel,we miss,its just bad form.
Do we take out his command control and comm? His alleged chemical weapons? His airforce?

The number of missiles to ensure that the targets are hit is pretty impressive.

The backlash then-from Russia-Iran-Iraq-China is not worth it. Because we will not have done anything worth doing.
Iraqi Shia will go nuts-allowing Iran a virtual freeway to get supplies to Syria.The Russians will increase efforts from the Med.China may give NK more room to play its games,and diverting our assets.

This is the picture that I think the JCS see. For them its an issue of-why bother?The cost is greater than any benefit.I do not think they will refuse the order,but they will try to convey the concept that it is a worthless act.

In the end,if Assad is ousted via US airstrikes,troops on the ground or an assassins bullet we will have a Syria that is extreme in religious ideology and a new nest for terrorism.They will not owe the US any allegiance.
I think Assad is a better option.

Our military brass and all our military people are much too smart to directly disobey an order. They would find other ways to not carry out the attack.

some strange anomaly with the radar or launch systems which prevents ships/planes from attacking and forces them to return to port.
a mix up with refueling forcing planes and ships to turn around so they don`t run out of fuel.

The ship captain calls the radar operator into his cabin and tells him:
"we`re not launching any missiles we`re returning to port because of that problem with the radar"
"but sir, there isn`t anything wrong with the radar"
"I guess you didn`t hear me son!, I said we`re returning to port because of that problem with the radar!"
"YES SIR!"

It wouldn`t be the first time that they we`re ordered to do something and then lied to cover each others butts.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by starfoxxx

 

Since his post was referencing me, I'd love to know where I stated I supported this action by Obama....

He was referring to this statement you made:

As of now, I see nothing illegal about what will transpire over the weekend. Therefore no one will be disobeying the orders. Boots on the ground? Different story

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The illegality is the lack of declaration of war by Congress without imminent threat to US.
Obama’s own words…



Nothing illegal? That’s what’s wrong. Defense of this action is seen as support for Obama’s agenda. Obviously even Obama knows it's wrong to attack without Congress. Maybe that's why US hasn't attacked yet.

What are the Syrian civilians asking for? What do they expect? What do they want? When I read about this I get so confused. I know the whole country is fractured and divided up fighting with one another...

How do foreigners step in and try to sort that crap out? It can't be done. It is an internal conflict that must be solved within, from their sovereign cultural worldview. We have no business over their except in a humanitarian role.

But furthermore, my question is, if we strike, who are we striking? Assas, rebels, civilians, loyalist - they are ALL Syrian people. If we strike is this, America saying Syria is a total loss and back to Allah they go? What about the children?

Leave them to it, and we - everyone else - needs to butt out. This can not end well for us. If Obama strikes, the entire world is justified in calling us the USA - the enemy.

Now excuse me while I just face palm myself and cry.

Cirque

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

But furthermore, my question is, if we strike, who are we striking? Assas, rebels, civilians, loyalist - they are ALL Syrian people. If we strike is this, America saying Syria is a total loss and back to Allah they go? What about the children?

Great question; all of them!

My thought is we’re supporting the people who opposes the brutality of the Assad regime (similar to Iraq).

My fear is we’ll end up with worse when we’re done (Similar to the current situation in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc).

Leave them to it, and we - everyone else - needs to butt out. This can not end well for us. If Obama strikes, the entire world is justified in calling us the USA - the enemy.

I agree. There is too much at stake with a strike. It will ignite fires we’re not even discussing.

I say 'let it play out'. The time to support the Syrian opposition was long ago. At this point (years too late) anybody with the right frame of mind has been killed or neutered IMO. We will create a vacuum that will be filled with the exact people most of us despise (radical Islamist killers who don’t value human rights).

They should have doubts.

This one will bite us all on the ass if we are stupid enough to take the bait. If they are going to do this, then it should be all or nothing, not just some half assed politically motivated surgical strikes, they need to destroy the Syrian army, the regime, all related facilities, and eliminate all insurgents and al Qaeda infiltrators among the rebels... That can't be done without massive civilian losses, and a ground invasion and occupation that could last for decades or more... Anything less is a wasted effort, and will only threaten our own security more than it is now... Assad may also attack Israel if he believes his regime is going to fall, that could unite the waring factions in Syria against Israel and the west... Making this a huge cluster ____ any way you look at it.

Sadly for the Syrian people there really isn't a good outcome, no matter what happens now.

Some things are best left alone... Intervention of any kind will likely be counter productive now, and especially in the long term.

Hopefully the idiots in charge will take some time to consider all of this.

reply to post by bknapple32


The thing about most diehard liberals is that they will support this president in anything he does, and even when corrupt, borderline criminal, maybe impeachable, they will defend him.

Hell, I bet you that Obama could say that for the good of the country all children with disabilities must be euthanized because of the costs to the new healthcare system are just to high, and would be better spent on more viable people who need healthcare... The liberal media would jump onboard and make the case for him.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


" Yea.. Except if that were to happen, Obama would just relieve them of their command and get someone who will listen to his orders. The President is after all the highest authority in the military. To disobey his orders is a HUGE deal. For every officer you pull out that doesn't want to follow Obama's orders, you can probably find a handful more that will. It's just the name of the game. "



Considering the President did not ASK or RECEIVE Permission from Congress for the go ahead on a Syrian Attack would present a Reason for the Joint Chiefs to Refuse to take Action against the Syrian Goverment at this time on grounds that it Violates the Seperation of Powers Act, and thus they could Legally Decline to obey an Executive Order by President Obama .

Originally posted by muse7
Anyone that refuses the orders of the Commander in Chief should be jailed period.

Are you being serious or satirical here? Period? No if's ands or buts? With all due respect, that's a pretty dumb thing to say. I am not calling you dumb, mind you. Just saying that is a dumb thing to say.

Let's say for the sake of argument that our Commander in Chief handed down illegal orders. Well, by law our military has the right to refuse illegal orders.

But with what you just said, they should be locked up even if it is illegal.

What if the order was to turn their guns on it's own citizens? Should they be jailed if they say no?

That's simply a very narrow way of thinking on your part.


In reality, there are so many examples of when people do not need to be jailed for refusing orders. There are even laws that say you can't always throw people in jail for refusing orders.

Though, I am sure the president wishes that things worked the way you suggested they should.

Luckily they don't though. At least not yet....