U.S. Senate Committee Backs Use of Force in Syria
September 4th, 2013I’m baffled by this situation. There is a very long and sickening history of the Executive doing whatever it wants when it comes to the use of military force (see: Presidential War Power by Louis Fisher). I don’t know why Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner Obomb-ya is bothering with Congress to get America’s next war started.
Is there some sort of legislative Trojan horse here?
Via: BBC:
A US Senate panel has approved the use of military force in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.
By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.
The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.
President Barack Obama is battling to build support at home and abroad for military action.
Despite Wednesday’s vote, the bill’s ultimate fate in the wider Senate is unclear. And the US House of Representatives must also approve the measure.
I thought much the same thing about a legislative Trojan horse. What’s baffling to me (and perhaps the reason for the vote) is this quote from the BBC article: “It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.”
Aren’t there already troops (or contractors) on the ground both in Syria and supporting from neighboring countries?
Maybe the goal is to create a different quagmire than Vietnam – One with the bombing and Napalm equivalents, but without the ground forces that are busy protecting the poppies to the East.