Obama’s Syria Attack Resolution Authorizes Boots on the Ground
Plan for military intervention greases skids for war throughout the region, says Harvard professor
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com September 3, 2013
The Obama administration’s draft resolution for military intervention which Congress is set to vote on next week is so broad that it would authorize boots on the ground as well as regime change and open ended war throughout the entire region, according to Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003–2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002–2003.
In an article for the Lawfare Blog, Goldsmith reveals how the White House’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) would give Obama the power to deploy ground troops in Syria, despite the administration’s claims that it is only seeking to carry out “limited” strikes that have no connection to regime change.
“The phrase ‘The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate’ would include authorization for ground troops, should the President decide they were ‘necessary and appropriate,’” writes Goldsmith.
Goldsmith points out that although the resolution authorizes the President to use the US military to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by (chemical weapons),” it does not limit the countries or groups against which this mandate applies.
“The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets,” writes Goldsmith, emphasizing that the language does not limit military force to the territory of Syria, merely that it must be connected to WMD use in the Syrian conflict.
The AUMF also contains no time limit for when this mandate expires without further congressional approval, meaning it creates the pretext for an open ended war that would “permit the President to use military force against any target anywhere in the world (including Iran or Lebanon) as long as the President, in his discretion, determines that the the target has a connection to WMD in the Syrian civil war.”
In response to complaints that the authorization is far too broad and would possibly be rejected by Congress on this basis, the Washington Post reports the the administration may be preparing to, “rewrite the proposed resolution to clarify that any operation would be limited in scope and duration and would not include the use of ground troops.”
Former vice chief of staff of the US Army General Jack Keane told BBC Radio 4 today that Obama’s claim that the planned missile strike on Syria will merely be an act of punishment for the use of chemical weapons and not intended to sway the course of the conflict or damage Assad’s military capacity is not the case.
“What he has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad’s military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance,” said Keane, adding that the attack plan has “much more substance than we were led to believe”.
Secretary of State John Kerry and another unnamed senior State Department official have both made it clear that the Obama administration will proceed with an attack on Syria whether Congress gives the green light or not.
Comments
Good assessment, Byron.
I think there are multiple reasons for this war.
1 it was planned over 10 years ago
2 It started right after Iran Iraq and Syria signed an agreement to run gas to Europe via a pipe line and bypassing the use of the petro dollar.
3 To set up a central bank.
4 To destabilize Israel's enemies Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon where the pipe was proposed to go into the ocean, because they would become to rich and powerful.
4 The military Industrial complex needs another long term war to keep their money flowing and boots are needed to accomplish that.
5 Qater sits on the same gas reserve that Iran and Iraq and they want a gas line through Syria to Turkey and Syria won't let a Muslim brother Hood country go in theirs so Assad has to go. Qatar has put 5 billion into the rebels campaign and used Saudi Arabia to find the rebels. This is why Turkey is involved they want the money from the pipe line also.
6 the war is going too long and not well for the rebels so now it has to be completed so the march on Iran can take place.
7 Israel has found another gas reserve off their coast and wants to become a player in the gas boom, they are drilling into it right now, who owns our congress, AIPAC
Those are the obvious reason and we know we have put a dent in the plans for the NWO's plan to take over the world by using the internet to expose everything they try to impose on us.
The Cabal is running scared and needs a distraction to take down the USA with a large False flag is also my guess while the world is watching Syria. Whenever O say's something look the other way, No boots means boots. His plan is to destroy Assad's military because he said he wouldn't. Those are what I have come up with not thinking a PX event is coming yet.
Here's an additional thought - maybe they're not going to Syria at all - maybe they are going to the underground bunkers for storage - getting ready for a possible catastrophic global event (whether man-made, solar or celestial).
I don't necessarily think this will happen - but it's a possibility.
Cheryl, maybe they are moving troops and equipment off shore so they can do what you've suggested (a nuclear false flag on US soil) and then return (like the cavalry to the rescue) as huge hero's.
But ultimately what for? More control? Depopulation?
That's one possibility, but then there's still the "odd" celestial body out there doing what-ever - they won't tell us!
Whatever the reason - keeping the general population focused and debating on Syrian issues is a great cover!
Whatever the real reason, it is a flimsy excuse.
It could be a set up for a nuclear false flag on U.S. soil.
Keith, maybe it's people power starting to have some influence and making it harder for democratic governments to commit these atrocities.
I know there are a few failings in the above statement - such as thinking democratic governments are freely elected - however, I'm a glass half full person and still think there is a possibility people power can and will prevail.
Having said that, the battle for peace will probably not be won on this occasion and unfortunately Obama will strike Syria.
The distraction I think is that Obama is claiming the reason for striking Syria is the use of chemical weapons by the regime against the Syrian people - this is not the real reason, never mind who actually used the chemical weapons - as I think many of us know the real reason is control of people, land and money making assets.
Keith, do you think they are hiding something else?