I don't like this. Nope Nope Nope. AUMF for ISIS

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thread Merge. I put Waggy's in Here

Fern
Super Moderator


Obama is asking Congress for an new authorization for military force. While that is theoretically good (he should do this), in practice not so much.

Here's the text without the "whereas"

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION._The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION._Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS._Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

(c) LIMITATIONS.—

The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION.

This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.

SEC. 4. REPORTS.

The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization.

SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.

In this joint resolution, the term “associated persons or forces” means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

SEC. 6. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

The two bolded are what's relevant. Obama has the authority do whatever he sees fit, except for "enduring ground combat operations". That's a loophole you could have ISIS walk through in a line- sidewise.

Here's what the Democratic minority whip has to say.

"What does it mean? How long, how big, is 'enduring'? 'Offensive,' what's 'offensive'?" Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Tuesday. "That, to me, is the crux of our debate."

Being in Iraq for a dozen years would be enduring. How about 200k troops fighting against ISIS? If it's intended to get out without an occupation it's not a planned prolonged stay. That's not "enduring". If it's a series of attacks which take less than whatever time Obama decides by any arbitrarily metric, then it's not "enduring". In other words this language allows any and all action simply because of vague and easily twistable language.

Naturally the Republicans will take a nice war, and I expect the usual suspects to say "well this is what the Republicans want so the American public should get it" or "We don't want to handcuff a President in time of necessary action" or "You pubtards are against this because it's Obama". The apologists and warmongers will be out defending it.

What do those who don't have their heads up the Republican or Democratic butt think? I think it's awful. Remember how citizens communications aren't being intercepted but they are. You make a call out of doors on a phone? Fair game, no warrant needed, and Obama stands behind that 100%.

Bad idea.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't like the idea of the president taking such major actions without the support of congress, so from that perspective I think obummer is doing what he should have done all along. However, I agree with your assessment, no good can come of this.

The US public is generally fine with air strikes and that kind of stuff, but a large number of boots on the ground in harms way for no particularly good reason with no particularly good objectives, with definitely no clear path on how to accomplish the goals.... not so much.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm totally against this. But I do think we should reasonably support Jordan and the Kurds. However, I draw the line at boots on the ground...enough of our young men and women have died or have suffered greatly in recent wars that we previously felt were "just" at the time...let those most threatened by ISIL lead the charge.

 

[Nebor]

We need more boots on the ground.

 

[Genx87]

We will be in Syria with ground troops if this gets passed. What could go wrong?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We need more boots on the ground.

Load up and head out!

 

[Nebor]

Load up and head out!

Because that's how it works? I'll be in training for the next couple months, but you better believe when I take command in June that I'll be pushing for a combat deployment for my company. :thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because that's how it works? I'll be in training for the next couple months, but you better believe when I take command in June that I'll be pushing for a combat deployment for my company. :thumbsup:

I thought you were trained. Now how on earth are you going to be combat deployed when so far there isn't authorization? I suppose you could do the Walter E. Kurtz thing and go AWOL.

 

[blastingcap]

Obama is asking Congress for an new authorization for military force.

I don't mind if they give it to Obama as long as Obama personally leads the charge into battle. That guy's foreign policy has been a disaster almost as bad as Bush.

 

[Subyman]

To be clear, the OP is upset about the word "enduring" and how it could be too ambiguous allowing the president to use land forces for what ever timescale they mark as "not enduring"? Is there another section of the brief that explains enduring? I doubt it.

I am not, absolutely not for another land war. I had too many friends come back from the middle east with horrible stories.

 

[Subyman]

I don't mind if they give it to Obama as long as Obama personally leads the charge into battle. That guy's foreign policy has been a disaster almost as bad as Bush.

These days, personally leading the charge in a foreign war is manning a joystick in a cargo container in Texas.

 

[blastingcap]

These days, personally leading the charge in a foreign war is manning a joystick in a cargo container in Texas.

I really did mean personally. Man up Obama, or you're a chickenhawk. We have no business sending troops there which would only reinvigorate worldwide recruiting on the other side.

Furthermore it's painfully obvious that Obama's "we have no strategy on Syria" statement last year is still true today. If you have no strategy, then what's the point of sending troops to die fighting Daesh while Assad grows stronger? Obama's just making stuff up about how 5000 trainees can somehow help dislodge Assad. Historically that kind of stuff has almost never worked, according to a CIA report.

 

[IronWing]

I like Section 6. The rest, not so much.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is there another section of the brief that explains enduring? I doubt it.

There is no qualification of what the terms mean, nor is it given to Congress to decide. Once approved this is entirely up to Obama unless the AUMF is revoked, and that will never happen once shooting starts.

 

[Nograts]

I don't want to go back...

 

[Jaskalas]

ISIS holds a specific territory in Iraq and Syria.
This resolution does not specify location.

That bothers me, and I must object without amendment.

 

[boomerang]

I think that what we think won't factor into what happens at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think that what we think won't factor into what happens at all.

This is the "What you or anyone thinks is irrelevant, this gives me the explicit right to do what I wish" authorization.

 

[Subyman]

ISIS holds a specific territory in Iraq and Syria.
This resolution does not specify location.

That bothers me, and I must object without amendment.

That is an interesting question. Seems like this authorizes military force against ISIS regardless of what country they are in.

 

[brandonb]

Because that's how it works? I'll be in training for the next couple months, but you better believe when I take command in June that I'll be pushing for a combat deployment for my company. :thumbsup:

Leading the sheep into the slaughterhouse? Why not, you are the Shepard.

 

[MiniDoom]

call me crazy, but i think the request for AUMF should come before we drop a couple thousand bombs on a country.

 

[child of wonder]

call me crazy, but i think the request for AUMF should come before we drop a couple thousand bombs on a country.

Dude, that's SOOOOOO WW2 mentality. Get with the times.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dude, that's SOOOOOO WW2 mentality. Get with the times.

There was already approval according to Obama. I'm sure he'll be as careful in interpreting the new AUMF as he was with the old.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I don't like the idea of the president taking such major actions without the support of congress, so from that perspective I think obummer is doing what he should have done all along. However, I agree with your assessment, no good can come of this.

The US public is generally fine with air strikes and that kind of stuff, but a large number of boots on the ground in harms way for no particularly good reason with no particularly good objectives, with definitely no clear path on how to accomplish the goals.... not so much.

My guess is the idea is this

Utilize Iraqi, Kurd, and Jordanese ground forces. They know the area, it's their homeland, and they have the incentive/drive to actually fist fight ISIS troops.

The US though, in order to make it's air support effective, needs 'some' men on the ground that are trained to paint targets and can survive going into hostile areas; aka special forces.

I don't see the US littering the area with troops of their own, but there may be a large amount of special forces teams being flushed into the area so that there can be a quick, massive air assault. Then after some shock and awe, the local fighters can storm in and mop up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My guess is the idea is this

Utilize Iraqi, Kurd, and Jordanese ground forces. They know the area, it's their homeland, and they have the incentive/drive to actually fist fight ISIS troops.

The US though, in order to make it's air support effective, needs 'some' men on the ground that are trained to paint targets and can survive going into hostile areas; aka special forces.

I don't see the US littering the area with troops of their own, but there may be a large amount of special forces teams being flushed into the area so that there can be a quick, massive air assault. Then after some shock and awe, the local fighters can storm in and mop up.

When the AUMF which is being used was first approved there wasn't much talk of war. It would be military force. Since there weren't any real restraints that took the entire top off the can of worms. People guessed wrong. With this one, the top of the can is still attached by a millimeter and bent all the way back, but it's still one piece so that keeps the worms inside? Not at all.

Once approved there is no recall. I don' like guessing about such things no matter what the presumed intent is. That's a foolish mistake.