President Obama has decided that he can send troops into Syria without approval from Congress. He would be sending troops into Syria for using chemical weapons. He said that it was part of his executive authority as commander-in-chief to send in troops. 200 members of Congress are demanding that Obama get Congressional approval, but the White House has decided that it is under their Constitutional authority to conduct military affairs without consent from the legislature. Not only isolationist Republicans are calling for approval in Congress, but also anti-war Democrats. But President Obama's view on his authority was not only this way.
When President Obama ran for president in 2007 he said George W. Bush, "does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Apparently his opinion on that has changed.
I think that the President is correct in using his executive authority to send in troops to Syria without consent from Congress. That is part of his duty as commander-in-chief. I think this is the way the Founding Fathers meant for the President to act as commander-in-chief. They were looking for something that would let out military be quick and decisive. If we had to vote on every military action, the military would never get anything done. That's part of the reason the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate for the nation. They didn't put someone in charge of the military. With the Constitution we have someone who will take action when action needs to be taken.
The president may have the ability to use his executive authority and send troops into Syria, but the question remains: should he? Should he involve the United States into someone else's war? Also, part of the reason why Obama was elected for his first term was because he promised he would troops out of Iraq and that he would try to use different strategies to circumvent the things that were happening there. Is he now going back on his promise in a way by sending troops into Syria? It's good to have a president who is decisive, but in a matter such as this, should he act rashly like he is?
ReplyDeleteI think that I agree with you and Kasey on these points. I think that you are right, that the president needs this power to be able to act quickly and decisively. However, the purpose of that part of the Constitution was for when the nation was under threat. The question that I think is the real underlying question from what Kasey was asking is this: Is Syria a threat to the United States? Are their chemical strikes directly affecting the safety of the U.S.? I think that the only answer to that is no. As of right now, they are not. America has become known as "the world's police man." I think that we should help where we can, but does that mean we attack another nation? I would have to say that, as of right now, we should pursue all diplomatic means possible, and then when all else fails, if we absolutely have to, revert to force.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Tanner. I don't think that we should put ourselves in danger because we think we have the obligation or we are the "world's policeman" like you said. In Vietnam and Korea we were in similar situations. We lost lots of men, money, and supplies. Also, if we were to overthrow the government in Syria, the people we would be giving the power to would probably be worse than the ones before. If we overthrew the current government in Syria, Al Quaeda would take over.
ReplyDelete