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

[HomerJS]

We need more boots on the ground.

American people don't have an appetite for boots on the ground because of that little fiasco the Bush admin got us into in 2003.

 

[blastingcap]

There is no such thing as a purely military solution to the Syrian civil war.

I hope the Kurds break away and Assad gets forced out of power after his benefactors--Iran and Russia--go bankrupt from low oil prices and military adventurism. The problem is, how do we know what replaces Assad will be better? Because right now, if Assad fell, there would be a substantially large chance that hardcore Islamists would take over seeing as how AQ already has a strong and deep presence there.

No Coalition countries have a coherent strategy for dealing with this. The CIA has already debunked the idea that 5000 US-armed volunteers would change anything. There is no reason to believe that what has continually failed to work in the past will work this time.

I hate to admit it, but only Assad and his allies actually have a coherent strategy. Their strategy is to go back to the pre-Arab Spring status quo. The problem is that Assad is a brutal murderer dictator friends with one of the worst actors in the region, Iran.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

American people don't have an appetite for boots on the ground because of that little fiasco the Bush admin got us into in 2003.

Wanting is irrelevant to what can happen if the person in charge has enough wiggle room to do whatever he likes by simply defining "enduring" as pleases him. I didn't want the Iraq war. Some did, some no but that is meaningless to the holder of the One Ring, which is passed down from Bush.

 

[Nebor]

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.

I have 3 friends that are conventional Army officers currently in Iraq. That's not including my SF\CA\PO friends.

Edit: And training never ends. I'm changing branches in order to take this command.

 

[Atreus21]

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"



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.



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.

Good God.

The goal should be to eliminate ISIS. They should be arguing over what constitutes ISIS' elimination (return of lands to their countries of origin, return of refugees, ass-kicking of every idiot waving the flag, etc.), not what an "enduring" presence means.

Do we want to destroy ISIS? Yes? Good. Do that.

One would think none of these morons had ever heard of Yoda.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have 3 friends that are conventional Army officers currently in Iraq. That's not including my SF\CA\PO friends.

Edit: And training never ends. I'm changing branches in order to take this command.

That explains "training". That doesn't address how you are going to push for combat duty if Obama doesn't authorize it.

 

[Nebor]

That explains "training". That doesn't address how you are going to push for combat duty if Obama doesn't authorize it.

Like I said, I have 3 friends that are conventional Army officers in Iraq right now. We have a division HQ from 1st ID and 1,000 paratroopers from the 82nd on the ground in addition to SF & their support elements. I have several more friends currently in Afghanistan.

 

[blastingcap]

I hear a lot of explaining about training.

I hear no explanation of what to do after Daesh is destroyed.

There is no purely military solution to the Syrian civil war, unless you want Assad or AQ's Nusra Front to be in charge.

 

[blackangst1]

Im not clear on what powers this would give Obama that he currently doesn't have...the 2001 resolution is still in place?

 

[Moonbeam]

1. I have noticed that when I say things with good intentions some people hear threat. That tells me that some people hear language differently than what may be intended.

2. Because I look at the actions of humanity as mechanical, driven by unconscious feelings people don't know they have, I find it difficult to muster the focus needed to deeply probe the language of this question.

3. I believe that Obama is the wisest, most intelligent, non-trigger happy and prudent President we have had since Carter which makes me worry even less.

4. Obama will not be President when this expires. God knows who will be.

5 Things once past, even with a sunset clause, set president.

6. There are no really good ways to defend yourself against psychotic threat.

7 To do nothing to protect yourself from the madness of others means that those in the direct line of that madness will suffer.

8. What is the person who will not raise his hand against evil if he has the power to do so and instead chooses to watch those without that power be plowed under. When darkness arose Gandalf the Gray turned White and fought.

9 Humanity suffers from the disease of self hate, a disease that is nearly impossible to know you have. Let he who is without this sin decide.

 

[unokitty]

Was LBJ the last Democratic President to ask for one of these authorizations?

And do declassified NSA documents demonstrate that he deceived Congress and the public to get it?

You can read for yourself from the U.S. Naval Institute:

Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Or, you can read the declassified NSA documents from the National Security Archive.


WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

We have been sending young Americans over to the middle east to fight for 13 years now...

And what have we won? And what more does Obama expect to win with this new authorization?

This old dog soldier thinks that enough defense contractors, politicians, and politician's friends have gotten rich from 13 years of war. And that too many young Americans have died.

Its almost like my drill sergeant told me: "What man learns from history, is that man does not learn from history."

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

 

[boomerang]

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

Par for the course - pun intended. It's not like this is the first time he's done it and we were warned. We were told that after the mid-terms he was going to ramp it up.

We either acquiesce or we fight back. I already know how it's going to shake out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

1. I have noticed that when I say things with good intentions some people hear threat. That tells me that some people hear language differently than what may be intended.

2. Because I look at the actions of humanity as mechanical, driven by unconscious feelings people don't know they have, I find it difficult to muster the focus needed to deeply probe the language of this question.

3. I believe that Obama is the wisest, most intelligent, non-trigger happy and prudent President we have had since Carter which makes me worry even less.

4. Obama will not be President when this expires. God knows who will be.

5 Things once past, even with a sunset clause, set president.

6. There are no really good ways to defend yourself against psychotic threat.

7 To do nothing to protect yourself from the madness of others means that those in the direct line of that madness will suffer.

8. What is the person who will not raise his hand against evil if he has the power to do so and instead chooses to watch those without that power be plowed under. When darkness arose Gandalf the Gray turned White and fought.

9 Humanity suffers from the disease of self hate, a disease that is nearly impossible to know you have. Let he who is without this sin decide.

My problem is that I think there are situations in which it is the wisest course of action to not believe in something which cannot be known, and in this case it's Presidential intent. It might be that Obama will not abuse this authority, but no matter what I believed before the last AUMF was issued it would have made no difference. That does not mean I would oppose any authorization, although that does not mean I embrace the result.

Words have been used before, and indeed the current situation gives me pause for concern. The President said he did not need the approval of Congress, but says he does. It may only be to make future actions more legitimate, but when all is permitted by language, how can I be confident that I could say to the families of the dead that I was justified because I believed?

I would rather be more restrictive and be guilty of being overly concerned than to find to the regret of all too many that I was wrong.

I can be wrong, but I would far rather be wrong for the right reasons.

 

[waggy]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/index.html

President Barack Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to formally authorize the use of military force in the war against ISIS, the first time a U.S. President has asked for such approval in 13 years.

Lawmakers on Wednesday morning received a draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a resolution that would formally authorize a six-month U.S. military effort against the militant group. Shortly after the request was sent to the Hill, the White House announced Obama would speak to the public on the issue Wednesday afternoon.


So much for not putting boots on the ground. Wonder how long we will be against ISIS.

Gotta admit i am really against it.

 

[Genx87]

Now we get to see how both of these entities hate each other so much by passing an authorization bill to kill more people in the middle east.

 

[blastingcap]

Already a thread on this topic

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2420536

 

[waggy]

well shit i didn't see it. even searched.

OK mods lock this bitch up!

 

[rudeguy]

great thread waggy!

 

[blastingcap]

well shit i didn't see it. even searched.

OK mods lock this bitch up!

Well to be fair, your thread title is less jargon-y and more to the point. Maybe merge this thread into the other thread, but with YOUR thread name.

 

[waggy]

I question what do they think they will achieve? has the last 2 wars not taught the admin anything?

Great. you go and "destroy isis" but don't think for a instant something else won't take it's place.

first it was Ql'quada. Now it's ISIS. nothing changes.

I for one am tired of destroying kids lives (yes kids. 19-20something are kids) and the countries we invade.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Great. So after holding his ground for years, he gives up now? Thanks Obama.



Seriously, this is a horrible decision. Every time we go into one of these countries, we end up being antagonized by whatever group wants us to stay most, and then spend a decade or two fighting... the whole time lamenting what a stupid mistake it was to go in to begin with. Hezbollah and the SAA/NDF are currently mopping up Quintera, what is the urgency for us to do this?


It can only go so many ways. Either the US exterminates ISIS and leaves, or the US exterminates ISIS and stays... and you know once we get troops in there, the hawks are going to want to dump more and more troops in there. Lets hope our military decides to work with Hezbollah, instead of fighting against them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I question what do they think they will achieve? has the last 2 wars not taught the admin anything?

Great. you go and "destroy isis" but don't think for a instant something else won't take it's place.

first it was Ql'quada. Now it's ISIS. nothing changes.

I for one am tired of destroying kids lives (yes kids. 19-20something are kids) and the countries we invade.

Well we're in it no matter what we want. On one hand I do not like the consequences of taking action as a lot of innocents will die, but on the other I do not want more people being killed by the likes of ISIS. Since we are involved I think it best to be restrictive up front. Once this horse is out of the barn there's no getting it back.

 

[waggy]

Well we're in it no matter what we want. On one hand I do not like the consequences of taking action as a lot of innocents will die, but on the other I do not want more people being killed by the likes of ISIS. Since we are involved I think it best to be restrictive up front. Once this horse is out of the barn there's no getting it back.

I'm just tired of war. I have 2 nephews that went and they came back different people. I think the young men of the US has paid enough for no gain.

while i agree ISIS is terrible. Does anyone think we can destroy it? or is it just going change to something else?

personally i think the outcome with the US involved is going to be far worse then if we ignore it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I question what do they think they will achieve? has the last 2 wars not taught the admin anything?

Great. you go and "destroy isis" but don't think for a instant something else won't take it's place.

first it was Ql'quada. Now it's ISIS. nothing changes.

I for one am tired of destroying kids lives (yes kids. 19-20something are kids) and the countries we invade.

It appears that Obama wants to cover his ass after his Libya debacle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm just tired of war. I have 2 nephews that went and they came back different people. I think the young men of the US has paid enough for no gain.

while i agree ISIS is terrible. Does anyone think we can destroy it? or is it just going change to something else?

personally i think the outcome with the US involved is going to be far worse then if we ignore it.

Tired of war. Yeah, there's been too much of that. I don't know exactly what I would do, but I believe I would attempt to seek a means of protection of people from ISIS and hinder the latter whenever reasonably possible. The problem with "reasonably" is that what I believe that to be is irrelevant and it's vague. We can have thousands of pages of regulations, but we can go to war by making sure that the conditions of engagement hinge on a most imprecise word subject to interpretation by whoever it gives authority to.