Quick, Measured, and Decisive

 

War is hell, and whenever the weapons of war are used, even in a measured and deliberate way, it is frightening and worrisome. People die, which is tragic enough. Beyond that, we can never be sure what will follow, and whether the situation will escalate.

Not everyone in the world shares our values. There are men with enormous power for whom the deaths of innocent civilians — even citizens of their own countries — mean little. There are cruel and despotic tyrants, men whose ambitions are all-consuming and who are willing to use any means to achieve their ends.

In an act of civilized self-defense, most of the world’s nations have agreed to prohibit the use of certain kinds of weapons, those generally known as “weapons of mass destruction.” These include atomic, biological, and chemical weapons.

We believe that the government of Syria deployed such a weapon a few days ago, when dozens of people were killed by poison gas in an attack believed to have been launched by the Syrian government against a community it considered hostile to its interests. The dead include men, women, and children.

If we believe — and I do — that it is prudent to prohibit the use of weapons of mass destruction, then it logically follows that there should be consequences, costs, for those who choose to use them. It would be nice if the United Nations could be counted on to impose such costs, but it is a feckless and corrupt organization. Beyond that, Russia, an ally of Syria, has veto power on the UN Security Council and can prevent any effective UN response to Syria.

The United States is the world’s premier military power and the most effective guardian of global peace and security in history. We, together with our allies France and the United Kingdom, responded to Syria’s use of poison gas in a measured and effective way, destroying three government facilities believed to be crucial to Syria’s WMD programs. This is precisely the kind of targeted, limited, but serious response that I think is appropriate in these circumstances. It increases the cost of using WMDs while avoiding embroiling us in a large-scale military venture into a war-torn and unstable region.

I think those concerned about a Russian reprisal are concerned unnecessarily: Russia is in some sense already a rogue state, but unlikely to take significant military action to defend the right of an international pariah to use chemical weapons against its own people. I expect diplomatic outrage, but little more.

And, for the second time since his election, I applaud President Trump for quick, measured, and decisive military action.

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Right and since 1942 we have fallen further and further from the constitutional requirements. You’re saying that 76 years of constitutional defiance requires no justification. I’m saying that the 166 years that preceded it are justification enough.

    Except that those 166 years don’t provide much support for your position either.  During that time the US made only 5 formal declarations of war.  There were, however dozens (maybe hundreds, depending on how you categorize the various military conflicts with the Indian tribes), of other military conflicts during that period, from the Barbary Wars under Adams and Jefferson to the intervention in the Mexican Revolution and Russian Revolution under Wilson.  All of the declared wars have been major wars, rather than low level or localized conflicts – the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, and WWI & II.  Also, there is a long history of declarations of war predating the United States, which is pretty spotty and arbitrary.  If you are going to make a case on this, I think you will have to find it in the negotiations of the Constitutional Convention, because the history of warfare doesn’t provide you with much support.

    • #31
  2. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383670-mattis-wanted-approval-from-congress-before-syria-strikes-but-was

    • #32
  3. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383670-mattis-wanted-approval-from-congress-before-syria-strikes-but-was

    Must be true if it was in The NY Times.

    • #33
  4. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383670-mattis-wanted-approval-from-congress-before-syria-strikes-but-was

    Fair enough.  I think it is often a sensible prophylactic move to obtain Congressional “approval” for military action, because it somewhat insulates the President from attack if things go wrong.  And, among other things, it demonstrates public support for a military action if the peoples’ representatives vote in favor of it.  But that is a matter of good politics and not a Constitutional requirement.  I notice that Mattis did not ask for a formal declaration of war.  

    Personally, I would support getting Congressional approval for a military action if that action is likely to involve ground troops and US casualties.  I don’t think it makes sense to seek Congressional approval for a single missile strike used for strategic reasons – whether it be Trump’s strike on a Syrian chemical weapons plant or Reagan’s strike on Khaddafi’s palace in Libya.  Such strikes are meant to show resolve, which means they should be an immediate response to whatever provoked them. 

    Also, the days when politics stopped at the water’s edge are long gone.  Congress is so politicized that I would not trust them to make a decision based on what is in the best interests of American foreign policy.  Between knee-jerk anti-Trump Democrats and a few crazy Republican pacifists (such as Rand Paul) there are enough votes in the Senate to block any use of military force by President Trump, which would indeed turn America into the “pitiful helpless giant” that Nixon warned us about.

    Jamie, it’s not that I don’t get your point about separation of powers.  I would very much like to see Congress reclaim some of its power from the Imperial Presidency.  Obama absolutely ran amok with unconstitutional actions that should have been impossible without Congressional action.  But I think that of all the areas where Congress could reclaim its power, a limited strategic missile strike is the worst place to try it.  I would rather see Congress start with control of the budget.

    • #34
  5. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383670-mattis-wanted-approval-from-congress-before-syria-strikes-but-was

    Must be true if it was in The NY Times.

    If they are lying I’m sure General Mattis will correct the record. 

    • #35
  6. HankMorgan Inactive
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383670-mattis-wanted-approval-from-congress-before-syria-strikes-but-was

    Fair enough. I think it is often a sensible prophylactic move to obtain Congressional “approval” for military action, because it somewhat insulates the President from attack if things go wrong. And, among other things, it demonstrates public support for a military action if the peoples’ representatives vote in favor of it. But that is a matter of good politics and not a Constitutional requirement. I notice that Mattis did not ask for a formal declaration of war.

    Personally, I would support getting Congressional approval for a military action if that action is likely to involve ground troops and US casualties. I don’t think it makes sense to seek Congressional approval for a single missile strike used for strategic reasons – whether it be Trump’s strike on a Syrian chemical weapons plant or Reagan’s strike on Khaddafi’s palace in Libya. Such strikes are meant to show resolve, which means they should be an immediate response to whatever provoked them.

     

    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya. I don’t think the president should have the power to antagonize nation states without backing from congress. Just think about Hillary launching strikes on Israel for “war crimes” or Russia for actual war crimes if you wonder why I think this way.

    A better standard might be a combination of “don’t send in troops” and “don’t hit recognized governments” without congressional approval. And I’m sure we’ll hear that “don’t take any aggressive actions at all” without congressional approval is what it should be (and they are probably right), but I’m not sure that is workable in a world with proliferating non-state actors working against us in many areas of the world. Unfortunately all this is a moot point until congress is willing to assert their constitutional powers again, and they’d have to lay down the marker beforehand given the current precedents.

    • #36
  7. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    HankMorgan (View Comment):
    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya.

    That’s an interesting standard, and worthy of consideration and debate.  I’m not entirely sure that Syria qualifies as having a “recognized controlling legal authority.”  That is a problem in civil war situations – it’s not always clear who controls or who should be recognized.  There are broad areas of Syria that are not controlled by the Assad regime.  In addition, your test would require Congressional approval for a limited missile strike lasting an hour or two, but would not require approval for, say, the intervention in Kuwait (which welcomed our help).  That just seems counter-intuitive to me.

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in our discussion – a lot of lefties would demand approval by the UN Security Council, rather than the American Congress or NATO.  I imagine that you and I agree that the UN is a corrupt joke, but that’s what the lefties want.  Even Bush 41 went to great lengths to get Security Council approval before invading Kuwait.

    • #37
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    HankMorgan (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/383670-mattis-wanted-approval-from-congress-before-syria-strikes-but-was

    Fair enough. I think it is often a sensible prophylactic move to obtain Congressional “approval” for military action, because it somewhat insulates the President from attack if things go wrong. And, among other things, it demonstrates public support for a military action if the peoples’ representatives vote in favor of it. But that is a matter of good politics and not a Constitutional requirement. I notice that Mattis did not ask for a formal declaration of war.

    Personally, I would support getting Congressional approval for a military action if that action is likely to involve ground troops and US casualties. I don’t think it makes sense to seek Congressional approval for a single missile strike used for strategic reasons – whether it be Trump’s strike on a Syrian chemical weapons plant or Reagan’s strike on Khaddafi’s palace in Libya. Such strikes are meant to show resolve, which means they should be an immediate response to whatever provoked them.

     

    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya. I don’t think the president should have the power to antagonize nation states without backing from congress. Just think about Hillary launching strikes on Israel for “war crimes” or Russia for actual war crimes if you wonder why I think this way.

    A better standard might be a combination of “don’t send in troops” and “don’t hit recognized governments” without congressional approval. And I’m sure we’ll hear that “don’t take any aggressive actions at all” without congressional approval is what it should be (and they are probably right), but I’m not sure that is workable in a world with proliferating non-state actors working against us in many areas of the world. Unfortunately all this is a moot point until congress is willing to assert their constitutional powers again, and they’d have to lay down the marker beforehand given the current precedents.

    I could sign on to something like this. 

    • #38
  9. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    HankMorgan (View Comment):

    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya. I don’t think the president should have the power to antagonize nation states without backing from congress. Just think about Hillary launching strikes on Israel for “war crimes” or Russia for actual war crimes if you wonder why I think this way.

    A better standard might be a combination of “don’t send in troops” and “don’t hit recognized governments” without congressional approval. And I’m sure we’ll hear that “don’t take any aggressive actions at all” without congressional approval is what it should be (and they are probably right), but I’m not sure that is workable in a world with proliferating non-state actors working against us in many areas of the world. Unfortunately all this is a moot point until congress is willing to assert their constitutional powers again, and they’d have to lay down the marker beforehand given the current precedents.

    I could sign on to something like this.

    That surprises me Jamie.  I thought you objection was based on adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution.  I think Hank’s approach might have practical merit, but it certainly doesn’t appear in the Constitution.  Perhaps I have not understood you correctly.

    • #39
  10. HankMorgan Inactive
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    HankMorgan (View Comment):
    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya.

    That’s an interesting standard, and worthy of consideration and debate. I’m not entirely sure that Syria qualifies as having a “recognized controlling legal authority.” That is a problem in civil war situations – it’s not always clear who controls or who should be recognized. There are broad areas of Syria that are not controlled by the Assad regime. In addition, your test would require Congressional approval for a limited missile strike lasting an hour or two, but would not require approval for, say, the intervention in Kuwait (which welcomed our help). That just seems counter-intuitive to me.

    My concept of it revolves around the idea that war is a condition that can exist between nation states, but doesn’t really apply to non-state actors. Perhaps I should have phrased it as or added “against a recognized government”. That would cover the Kuwait issue. As for Assad, like it or not he is the recognized government of Syria even if that fact is being vigorously contested. If we were to recognize a Kurdish government in eastern Syria that might shake things up, but we haven’t.

    Another tough case would be Ukraine. As things are we could strike at Putin’s “little green men” in eastern Ukraine as they are operating without official sanction from Russia, but we could not strike Russian targets in Crimea as they are officially Russian. That seems like an appropriate balance to me and would incentivize Russia to knock off this frozen conflict crud and either press their territorial claims or stop wrecking the Ukraine.

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in our discussion – a lot of lefties would demand approval by the UN Security Council, rather than the American Congress or NATO. I imagine that you and I agree that the UN is a corrupt joke, but that’s what the lefties want. Even Bush 41 went to great lengths to get Security Council approval before invading Kuwait.

    I see no reason to try to deal with the UN in good faith anymore. We should use the UN like every other country, pressing our claims and shutting down our opponents the way everyone else does. Ceding any authority to the UN is absurd and dangerous.

    • #40
  11. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    HankMorgan (View Comment):
    I see no reason to try to deal with the UN in good faith anymore. We should use the UN like every other country, pressing our claims and shutting down our opponents the way everyone else does. Ceding any authority to the UN is absurd and dangerous.

    Agreed.  I also think we should withhold funding – at least for the General Assembly.

    • #41
  12. HankMorgan Inactive
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    HankMorgan (View Comment):

    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya. I don’t think the president should have the power to antagonize nation states without backing from congress. Just think about Hillary launching strikes on Israel for “war crimes” or Russia for actual war crimes if you wonder why I think this way.

    A better standard might be a combination of “don’t send in troops” and “don’t hit recognized governments” without congressional approval. And I’m sure we’ll hear that “don’t take any aggressive actions at all” without congressional approval is what it should be (and they are probably right), but I’m not sure that is workable in a world with proliferating non-state actors working against us in many areas of the world. Unfortunately all this is a moot point until congress is willing to assert their constitutional powers again, and they’d have to lay down the marker beforehand given the current precedents.

    I could sign on to something like this.

    That surprises me Jamie. I thought you objection was based on adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution. I think Hank’s approach might have practical merit, but it certainly doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Perhaps I have not understood you correctly.

    In my head we are more discussing how it should be, rather than how it currently is (in the Constitution or in actual current practice).

    I think we all have much more common ground when we draw out those distinctions.

    • #42
  13. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    HankMorgan (View Comment):

    My preference would be to require congressional approval for any military action that does not have approval of the recognized controlling legal authority of the area it occurs in. If Nigeria requests strikes on Boko Haram I don’t think approval is necessary, but I would like approval for strikes against other sovereign nations like Syria and Libya. I don’t think the president should have the power to antagonize nation states without backing from congress. Just think about Hillary launching strikes on Israel for “war crimes” or Russia for actual war crimes if you wonder why I think this way.

    A better standard might be a combination of “don’t send in troops” and “don’t hit recognized governments” without congressional approval. And I’m sure we’ll hear that “don’t take any aggressive actions at all” without congressional approval is what it should be (and they are probably right), but I’m not sure that is workable in a world with proliferating non-state actors working against us in many areas of the world. Unfortunately all this is a moot point until congress is willing to assert their constitutional powers again, and they’d have to lay down the marker beforehand given the current precedents.

    I could sign on to something like this.

    That surprises me Jamie. I thought you objection was based on adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution. I think Hank’s approach might have practical merit, but it certainly doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Perhaps I have not understood you correctly.

    I am at the end of the day a pragmatist. 

    • #43
  14. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    @markcamp, there are two threads going on here: mine, and everybody else’s. I’m just musing about why we deplore chemical warfare more than , ah, “conventional” warfare. ( I dunno, if it’s a “convention” how bad can it be, really?) 

    Hypatia, I think your comment begs the question. One form of mass killing isn’t necessarily “worse” than another. But we have a framework in place for prohibiting nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons specifically. If that framework included carpet bombing, incendiary weapons, or nanotechnological weapons, then I’d probably be in favor of punitive actions, when practical, against nations that used those as well.

    But it includes the nuclear/chemical/biological weapons right now, and so I think there’s a clear argument to be made for punitive strikes — when there is little risk of triggering a major-power conflict — when those are used.

     

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Barring a defensive and necessarily reactionary action by our armed forces the President is required to obtain a declaration of war from Congress prior to military action against a foreign state. The constitution is clear on this: Congress has the power to commit us to war, the President commands them once committed.

    I maintain that the Constitution is ambiguous as to what the President, as commander-in-chief, can do absent a declaration of war.

    Yes, Article I says that Congress has the power to declare war; yet Jefferson used military force in 1804 without a declaration of war — though with the approval of Congress. And the War Powers Resolution authorized the President to use military force without a declaration of war: clearly, there’s some question as to what, specifically, is required before the President can unleash military power.

    Also, I don’t recall — correct me if I’m wrong (and I could be) — the Constitution actually making an explicit exception for a President’s defensive use of force without Congressional approval. If that’s simply something that we assume as reasonable (and I’m open to that), then it does invite the question: what else might  be assumed to be reasonable?

    • #44
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.