WHAT IS THE PENTAGON SAYING?

Last week SecDef Panetta, with the US CJCS Dempsey, said that the US military could go to war without the consent of Congress if there was some kind of international basis, e.g. if UN and/or NATO wished it.

Is that what they said?

What exactly did they say?

Did they mean that if the UN wanted the US military to go to war then they could even if both the POTUS and Congress didn't want it?

Or did they mean that if the POTUS wanted war and the POTUS had UN/NATO "authority" then the US military could go to war without Congressional consent (as happened over Libya last year)?

Or did they mean that if the US military wanted to go to war and neither the POTUS and Congress wanted it then the US military could go to war but only if the UN and/or NATO gave their consent?

Or did they mean if the US military, Congress and POTUS wanted to go to war but the UN and/or NATO did not give them "authority" then they could not go to war?

And is there a difference between "could" and "would"?

On Sunday The New York Times reported that the Pentagon is apparently very sceptical of war on Syria, for several reasons[1]. Currently, with Russia against any intervention from the international community, starting war on Syria could lead to a nuclear war with Russia. Ditto with China. But if Russia did change its position and support, or at least not oppose, intervention then that would also have its own risks. These include Syria's sophisticated air defences in concentrated civilian areas, risking high civilian casualties, and Syria's large well-equipped military.

But there is the usual, "yes, we can" but this time with the caveat that it would be tricky.

So even though LPAC is spinning these statements in the NYT article as anti-war[2] I am not so sure. And I am not sure about under what precise circumstances the Pentagon would go to war without Congressional approval. Is it possible that the US Congress gave them the nod but the US military did not want to go to war? Upon further watching Panetta's statements[3] do appear to state that the US military could go to war without the approval of the US Congress if an agreement could be reached with international partners.

We could do with a table of six columns, at least, with the first five labelled "US Military", "Congress", "POTUS", "UN", "NATO" and the sixth labelled "War". With these five variables given the binary values 0 or 1 (0 for does not want war, and 1 for does want war) then this gives that table 32 possible combinations/entries/rows of who wants and does not want war. The column "War" would be 0 or 1 for when the US military could go to war. There is probably a sixth variable, labelled "General Coalition excluding UN and NATO", leading to 64 entries. Maybe Panetta could clarify the situation that way? As I understand it it should be the US Congress and the US Congress alone with the power to send the US military to war, but Obama's actions over Libya last year and Panetta's statements last week have cloudied the law somewhat.

But can Dempsey always claim that he is only "following orders" but communicate his apparent scepticism for any particular military action via the media, such as the NYT?

Meanwhile NATO investigated itself over its actions in Libya last year and found itself innocent of all charges of crimes against humanity. But here is Lizzie Phelan speaking to Press TV about Libya, and also Syria[4]. She was there in Libya and has been in Syria recently.



[1] Military Points to Risks of a Syrian Intervention, NYT, 11/03/2012

[2] Pentagon Correspondent: Joint Chiefs Warn Syria Intervention Is a Proxy War for Confrontation with Russia, LPAC, 12/03/2012

[3] Panetta:’International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions, InfoWars, 08/03/2012

[4] War Crimes: NATO Obviously Killed Civilians in Libya, GRTV, 12/03/2012