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

[ivwshane]

I knew his position before he posted. It's protect everything Obama puts his hand to and blame the republicans. I had hoped for better from you.

Of course you did, otherwise your arguements would look pretty stupid...oops!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course you did, otherwise your arguements would look pretty stupid...oops!

Well let's leave it then. I'll let the others determine the merits of our statements. Maybe you'll have loads of supporters, who can say?

 

[blastingcap]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...-5-questions-Obama-will-have-to-address-video

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...-5-questions-Obama-will-have-to-address-video

What they don’t want is this president, or a future one – since the three-year time limit would apply to the start of the next administration, to deploy 100,000 troops for 18 months and then say that fits the not “enduring” definition because there’s an end date, explained Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

Schiff is a neocon Republican anti Obama puss. He needs to trust and obey.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree, its way to vague of a statement. I do believe there needs Obama needs some leeway if we are going to have a major military campaign against them but if they don't want troops on the ground for X amount of time or not at all or whatever they should be specific.

Personally, I think this is a political "get out of jail free card" for the politicians that passed the bill. If things go to shit and the public gets pissed about our troops dying or we are in another occupation they can point and say "We tried to constrain him but he didn't listen!".

BTW, does this remove Obama's ability to wage war on them all on his own for 90 days or are we already beyond that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

More seriously, I'm glad that at least some in Congress are aware of the potential problems that could arise from such vague language. Even if Obama uses this properly how about the next President? Think ahead folks.

 

[werepossum]

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

Excellent point.

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


WAR is a racket. It always has been.
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

Everybody mentions the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where the Navy was almost certainly mistaken about being attacked, without considering that North Korean torpedo boats without question did attack the day before. It's not like LBJ just got a wild hair to feed the military-industrial complex and made up some shit.

That said, your drill sergeant was a wise man.

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

I think there's something to be said for that approach. It deprives the opposition party of the ability to be fore it if it works out well, and against it if it goes to shit.

 

[Bock]

Calling it now, entire army corps in ISIS territory by late 2015. Full scale invasion/occupation by mid 2016, this time, there will be a quasi draft{i.e. all the daca recipients must serve to gain citizenship}.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just remember. When they start throwing accusations, it's just a mix of cognitive dissonance and projection.

The term you want is "lashing out in denial".

It's perfectly clear that the AUMF still in force from the Bush era allows Obama to do whatever he wants, but he's not playing it that way. He's going to congress seeking a new more limited AUMF, asking them to be on board rather than slipping a knife between his ribs for whatever he does.

Repubs like that knife, like what they can do with it but now they're at a juncture where they have to put it away, man-up or STFU. Obviously, they hate it.

Meanwhile, our usual ravers are screaming for blood in Ukraine even as they're trying to make this into some evil Kenyan plot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Calling it now, entire army corps in ISIS territory by late 2015. Full scale invasion/occupation by mid 2016, this time, there will be a quasi draft{i.e. all the daca recipients must serve to gain citizenship}.

Only in your fevered dreams.

 

[nickqt]

The term you want is "lashing out in denial".

It's perfectly clear that the AUMF still in force from the Bush era allows Obama to do whatever he wants, but he's not playing it that way. He's going to congress seeking a new more limited AUMF, asking them to be on board rather than slipping a knife between his ribs for whatever he does.

Repubs like that knife, like what they can do with it but now they're at a juncture where they have to put it away, man-up or STFU. Obviously, they hate it.

Meanwhile, our usual ravers are screaming for blood in Ukraine even as they're trying to make this into some evil Kenyan plot.

Well, when I analyze a typical conservative statement, it reeks of projection and cognitive dissonance. Obama is clearly socially liberal, but he's at best economically centrist. His big bad stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. Come on, tax cuts don't do shit until March of the next year. Just pay people money to do shit, and there will be less unemployment and more spending/demand. Duh.

If Obama is calling for a specifically limited ability to go and drop bombs and shoot bullets at ISIS/ISIL or whatever the f they're called, then I'm not particularly for it, but if it is specifically limited in scope, than it is better than the reaction to 9.11.01. To be specific, I'm not a big fan of our President playing Emperor, and I feel like a "threat" to me and my fellow citizens deserves a declaration of war. A Declaration of War power is assigned to Congress, and while I don't agree with the Republican platform (or the current Democratic party status quo platform) I would rather see a Declaration of War than just another delegation of power from Congress to the President.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Obama is calling for a specifically limited ability to go and drop bombs and shoot bullets at ISIS/ISIL or whatever the f they're called, then I'm not particularly for it, but if it is specifically limited in scope, than it is better than the reaction to 9.11.01.

It's not limited and it needs to be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree, its way to vague of a statement. I do believe there needs Obama needs some leeway if we are going to have a major military campaign against them but if they don't want troops on the ground for X amount of time or not at all or whatever they should be specific.

Personally, I think this is a political "get out of jail free card" for the politicians that passed the bill. If things go to shit and the public gets pissed about our troops dying or we are in another occupation they can point and say "We tried to constrain him but he didn't listen!".

BTW, does this remove Obama's ability to wage war on them all on his own for 90 days or are we already beyond that?

Last thing first, we've been at this for about 6 months so we're well beyond the limit.

The problem with this is that it gives the WH and supporters everything they want by the prolific use of weasel words. Any decent law grad could have a field day with this as it grants any action deemed fit by a President (note this applies to Obama's successor as well) as long as it can be linked by whatever criteria he or she comes up with as noted by "associated groups". He also plugs the loop hole which made the current AUFM invalid by including future groups which do not exist and my have an entirely different agenda from ISIS. Someone get's a bug up his butt and forms another organization for another purpose anywhere and it's covered if there's "association", kind of like Saddam has an association with Al-Qaeda. I dislike that very much. Further it does not eliminate "the war on terror" as it wouldn't change the outcome of ACLU v. NSA. Obama has expanded it in some ways and has demonstrated an affinity for such programs that Cheney would be thrilled with.

In essence this is the same old in most regards and future proofs the WH ability to do what it will to protect us from "terrur".

Regarding Republican opposition, that's not just about opposing Obama. A few do not want a repeat of Iraq, but the most powerful want Obama to have this authority plus the US going after Assad. Since there is no explicit prohibition so the vague wording might be used for justification down the road, but is is not explicit and that is what the Republicans want.

Consequently a number of liberal Democrats (which I side with) don't like how effectively broad and vague this resolution is. It still serves as the basis for all the wrongs of the past while making sure that any future escapades are protected.

I think this is an interesting read.

 

[werepossum]

Well, when I analyze a typical conservative statement, it reeks of projection and cognitive dissonance. Obama is clearly socially liberal, but he's at best economically centrist. His big bad stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. Come on, tax cuts don't do shit until March of the next year. Just pay people money to do shit, and there will be less unemployment and more spending/demand. Duh.

If Obama is calling for a specifically limited ability to go and drop bombs and shoot bullets at ISIS/ISIL or whatever the f they're called, then I'm not particularly for it, but if it is specifically limited in scope, than it is better than the reaction to 9.11.01. To be specific, I'm not a big fan of our President playing Emperor, and I feel like a "threat" to me and my fellow citizens deserves a declaration of war. A Declaration of War power is assigned to Congress, and while I don't agree with the Republican platform (or the current Democratic party status quo platform) I would rather see a Declaration of War than just another delegation of power from Congress to the President.

Two points. First, a lot of the "tax cuts" were payments to people who don't pay income taxes. Those aren't tax cuts, they are hand-outs.

Second and more on topic, an AUMF IS a declaration of war, as ruled by SCOTUS. Obama's not my preferred guy, but him running things with the Joint Chiefs's advice and direction is a lot better than trying to fight a war by Congressional committee.

I agree, its way to vague of a statement. I do believe there needs Obama needs some leeway if we are going to have a major military campaign against them but if they don't want troops on the ground for X amount of time or not at all or whatever they should be specific.

Personally, I think this is a political "get out of jail free card" for the politicians that passed the bill. If things go to shit and the public gets pissed about our troops dying or we are in another occupation they can point and say "We tried to constrain him but he didn't listen!".

BTW, does this remove Obama's ability to wage war on them all on his own for 90 days or are we already beyond that?

The current AUMF is a political "get out of jail free card" for the current CongressCritters. If it goes well, they can take credit; if it goes to hell, they can accuse Obama of overstepping his authority. While there is probably legal justification for operating inside Iraq under Bush's AUMF, a new AUMF forces all the CongressCritters to take a side now. Getting everyone on record makes it more likely that everyone pulls in the same direction rather than whatever direction looks best politically at the moment.

As far as constraining Obama, that's a double-edged sword. The more specific (and therefore constraining) is the language, the more latitude ISIS has to safely work around it. In war, one should never give the other side too much info on your constraints.

Only real problem I have with this is that it would allow air strikes inside Syria, and as of now we still don't have a coherent, sensible policy on Assad.

 

[Ventanni]

That's my main problem with it. It basically gives the president full power to mount a full scale invasion to wipe out ISIS plus take out Assad while they're at it. Why are we wanting to take out Assad? Because the Turks and the Saudis don't like him? If he goes after Assad, it will trigger war with Iran, Lebanon, and possibly Russia.

This is purely a Sunni/Shia conflict in the same way Europe experienced Protestant/Catholic wars several hundred years ago, and we need to stay out of it as best we can. It needs to be fought and resolved by Arabs finally stating, "Ya know what? All this bloodshed just ain't worth it anymore." And while Assad is a monster, we've learned what removing these despots does, and it is far worse than what Assad is capable of. Syria, despite the civil war going on, is still a sovereign nation, and we need to respect that. Americans weren't too pretty to each other either during our civil war.

Full scale American ground forces in the Middle East is just a bad, bad, bad idea.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I would rather see a Declaration of War than just another delegation of power from Congress to the President.

The SCOTUS has ruled that an AUMF is, for all intents and purposes, a "Declaration of War".

There are some subtle differences between the two. E.g., some medals etc cannot be awarded, some types of combat pay are not authorized unless we are under an official Declaration of War ("DoW"). Since WWII we have operated under AUMF's. Congress then passes separate laws authorizing such medals and pay.

I think under an actual DoW the President can also unilaterally declare embargoes on other countries.

I.e., there is no need for an actual DoW and the few additional powers it automatically confers.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I will again mention that a lack of strategy on Obama's part is a problem here. Without a clear understanding of what his strategy is I don't see how Congress can reasonably be asked to draft a 'tight' AUMF limiting his authority to only that which is necessary.

How can "necessary" be known at this point? Are we asking Congress to come up with a strategy for Obama? If so, is that reasonable?

If Congress must determine the strategy they are going about this all wrong. They need to put Obama to the side and start dealing with the military. But Obama wouldn't allow that, would he?

People, at the end of the day it must be realized we've got a President who too often can't seem make serious decisions on matters of foreign policy etc.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I will again mention that a lack of strategy on Obama's part is a problem here. Without a clear understanding of what his strategy is I don't see how Congress can reasonably be asked to draft a 'tight' AUMF limiting his authority to only that which is necessary.

How can "necessary" be known at this point? Are we asking Congress to come up with a strategy for Obama? If so, is that reasonable?

If Congress must determine the strategy they are going about this all wrong. They need to put Obama to the side and start dealing with the military. But Obama wouldn't allow that, would he?

People, at the end of the day it must be realized we've got a President who too often can't seem make serious decisions on matters of foreign policy etc.

Fern

There is no real military strategy and there never will be one, you cannot defeat an ideology with weapons.

Once Americans understand this, our elected officials will stop calling for more military waste and futility. Sadly, every beheading and kidnapping only reinforces our stupid war on terror policies, which is exactly what ISIS wants and needs in order to grow bigger.

 

[blastingcap]

If he goes after Assad, it will trigger war with Iran, Lebanon, and possibly Russia.

Full scale American ground forces in the Middle East is just a bad, bad, bad idea.

Your first sentence is false.

Your second sentence is true.

 

[blastingcap]

I will again mention that a lack of strategy on Obama's part is a problem here. Without a clear understanding of what his strategy is I don't see how Congress can reasonably be asked to draft a 'tight' AUMF limiting his authority to only that which is necessary.

How can "necessary" be known at this point? Are we asking Congress to come up with a strategy for Obama? If so, is that reasonable?

If Congress must determine the strategy they are going about this all wrong. They need to put Obama to the side and start dealing with the military. But Obama wouldn't allow that, would he?

People, at the end of the day it must be realized we've got a President who too often can't seem make serious decisions on matters of foreign policy etc.

Fern

Agree that we need a strategy and basically we don't have one. The strategy is basically to kick Daesh out of Iraq and Rojava and then hope it burns itself out. That's Obama's strategy.

Ignore the 5000 trainee thing, that was just to appease Turkey/KSA. In reality as the CIA report last year showed, training insurgents almost never results in success.

I am tempted to say Obama's foreign policy is the worst ever among US Presidents, but then I am reminded of how we got in this mess in the first place circa 2003.

 

[Fern]

There is no real military strategy and there never will be one, you cannot defeat an ideology with weapons.

Once Americans understand this, our elected officials will stop calling for more military waste and futility. Sadly, every beheading and kidnapping only reinforces our stupid war on terror policies, which is exactly what ISIS wants and needs in order to grow bigger.

I think that's hogwash.

Fascism, communism, socialism and democracy etc, all are ideologies. They can all be fought.

People are people; they die just the same. And there is no such thing as an unlimited source of anything, much less jihadists.

Anybody advocating that we don't fight needs to offer up another way.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

That's my main problem with it. It basically gives the president full power to mount a full scale invasion to wipe out ISIS plus take out Assad while they're at it. Why are we wanting to take out Assad? Because the Turks and the Saudis don't like him? If he goes after Assad, it will trigger war with Iran, Lebanon, and possibly Russia.

This is purely a Sunni/Shia conflict in the same way Europe experienced Protestant/Catholic wars several hundred years ago, and we need to stay out of it as best we can. It needs to be fought and resolved by Arabs finally stating, "Ya know what? All this bloodshed just ain't worth it anymore." And while Assad is a monster, we've learned what removing these despots does, and it is far worse than what Assad is capable of. Syria, despite the civil war going on, is still a sovereign nation, and we need to respect that. Americans weren't too pretty to each other either during our civil war.

Full scale American ground forces in the Middle East is just a bad, bad, bad idea.

Good points.

I think it's our problem to the extent that their sights will be on us if they get into power. Therefore our goal should be to reinforce and support those whose interests also lie in not allowing ISIS to gain power, but who are much closer.

There is no real military strategy and there never will be one, you cannot defeat an ideology with weapons.

Once Americans understand this, our elected officials will stop calling for more military waste and futility. Sadly, every beheading and kidnapping only reinforces our stupid war on terror policies, which is exactly what ISIS wants and needs in order to grow bigger.

The bolded is without a doubt the most stupid thing commonly repeated in foreign policy discussions. The ONLY way to defeat an ideology that is expanding by violence is with weapons. We saw that with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Communists in Vietnam and Cuba defeated democracy with weapons. Hell, America was founded on defeating an ideology (obedience to a king) with weapons. Doesn't mean that ideology necessarily disappears, it just means that ideology is denied its desired ends. Democratic Germany, Italy, and Japan and communist Vietnam and Cuba are eloquent rebuttals of your platitude. Hell, Europe's very existence as a secular Christian continent is an eloquent rebuttal of your platitude, as it was with the sword that Islam was prevented from establishing its brutal reign across the continent.

 

[Fern]

That's my main problem with it. It basically gives the president full power to mount a full scale invasion to wipe out ISIS plus take out Assad while they're at it. Why are we wanting to take out Assad?
-snip-

I didn't see anything that would seem to authorize war against an official state like Syria.

What did you see in the AUMF that suggests this to you?

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I didn't see anything that would seem to authorize war against an official state like Syria.

What did you see in the AUMF that suggests this to you?

Fern

There's no explicit mention of Assad like the Republicans want, however part of the justification for going after Saddam was his supposed ties to Al-Qaeda. While I doubt Obama will repeat that particular egregious action one never knows, nor do we know what his successor might do.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Ok well if we take out Assad and ISIS we are for sure screwed because that will leave a power vacuum sure to be filled by something that is somehow worse than either. Either we take out Assad, or ISIS. I vote ISIS.