(Washington Post) After Syria chemical allegations, Obama considering limited military strike

President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.

The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles ”” or, possibly, long-range bombers ”” striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, Defense, National Security, Military, Economy, Ethics / Moral Theology, Foreign Relations, House of Representatives, Middle East, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Science & Technology, Senate, Syria, The U.S. Government, Theology, Violence

7 comments on “(Washington Post) After Syria chemical allegations, Obama considering limited military strike

  1. Br. Michael says:

    The President does not have the power under the Constitution to commit the United States to war against another nation. That power lies with the Congress through a Declaration of War. That we allow Presidents to usurp the power of Kings to go to war without the consent of the governed shows just how far down the drain our republic is.

    No citizen is obligated to support an illegal war.

  2. Ad Orientem says:


  3. Cennydd13 says:

    1..We are not at war with Syria, and therefore, the President does not have the power to order an attack on targets there without the permission of Congress via the Presidential War Powers Act.

  4. Cennydd13 says:

    If there is to be any military action against Syria, it should be a punitive action on the part of NATO, and should not involve American forces.

  5. Brian of Maryland says:

    If he has evidence, bring it before Congress and the UN. Personally, I think the rebels did it as a false flag.

  6. Cennydd13 says:

    First there was Vietnam, then the first Gulf War (which was justified), then the second Gulf War, then Kosovo, then Afghanistan, and now maybe Syria? When and where will it all end? Haven’t we had enough wars? How about trying tough economic sanctions against Assad?

  7. Br. Michael says:

    Regardless, the decision to authorize the use of troops, absent an attack on the US, is the prerogative of the Congress. It is to Congress’ everlasting shame that they allowed the President to usurp this power.

    And as Brian says (we agree for once!!) if Obama as evidence of chemical use by Assad, let him bring it before Congress as part of his request for a declaration of war. If the Congress deems the evidence sufficient and deems the use of those chemicals as a cause of war (even though not directed against the US) then let them declare war and Obama can wage it as commander in chief.