Did Syrian Strikes Succeed?

[BigRob]

Opinion here amongst the political elites seems divided on the basis of “legality” being that there was no UN mandate for such action, however, as it’s been pointed out to the opposition party, since as it was probable the Russians would veto any such proposal the nicety of having a mandate was unlikely.

There will always be the back and forth here about the legality. Congress is split on the issue, every President since its inception has declared the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has shown no appetite to take the issue up. Unless Congress acts to clearly change the dynamic then for all intents and purposes the President clearly has the power to do what he did.

I’m rather on the fence with these sort of “slap on the knuckles” actions. If one is opposed then do something meaningful. What I mean by that, well, even I don’t know as it’s difficult to see the picture that’s emerging, however, I’m convinced that such hit and run tactics whilst they may serve a political narrative achieve very little. To be brutally honest I’m net even sure I care!

I think you are correct. Had chemical weapons not been used (over and over again) I don't think anyone would fundamentally care about what is going on Syria. On some level this is really a debate between the West and Russia and its not really about Syria at all. It's Cold War politics all over again.

 

[The Scotsman]

Cold War politics all over again.

Yeah does seem to be going down that road again...ah well be there before..

 

[Old_Trapper70]

what is that then...some sort of law which allows the president to take action on his own volition?
Does the US need to have UN Mandates or the like before commiting to acts of aggression?
I'm not even too sure what the law is here...??? Seems like they just a quiet chat about it and then go off and do it and deal with the fallout after its all over..!!??

Under our Constitution there has to be some form of threat to the country itself before military action can take place. However, that is according to the Constitution itself. The last legitimate military action taken was WW2. Since that time there has been no such declaration, and there has been no such threat. Congress then passed the War Powers Act (Resolution) which was intended to limit the powers of the President. That has largely been ignored, and Congress has refused to hold the President liable when they violate the resolution such as Clinton did in Bosnia.

https://www.history.com/topics/war-powers-act

We now have a situation where the military is being used through unConstitutional means, and it seems that the Republican Congress has again shown no desire to return to a Constitutional form:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/war-against-isis-unconstitutional