The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the lead up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq became a huge political issue in the years to come, with Congressmen and Senators defined to a great extent by whether they voted for the war or against it. They’re not making that mistake again.
Not the mistake of starting a big war in Iraq, that’s totally happening. Rather, Congress is eager to avoid a vote that could come back to haunt them when the new war inevitably turns sour and stops being the trendy thing for officials to support.
It was less than a month ago, incredibly, that the House passed a resolution saying they opposed any troops being sent to Iraq without Congressional authorization. That came in the wake of polls showing overwhelming opposition for a new Iraq War, but weeks before President Obama unveiled his “humanitarian intervention.”
Congressmen have, virtually without exception, been cheering the escalation of the new Iraq War ever since, and the primary dividing line is between the pro-war and really pro-war sides, with the usual suspects pushing for a dramatic escalation above and beyond what’s already been announced.
President Obama has long made clear his preference not to seek Congressional authorizations, arguing he can unilaterally launch such wars as he sees fit and will “keep Congress informed” of his plans, more or less.
Congress pushed back a bit on Libya, though a vote never took place, and the US invasion of Syria, announced by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, was actually stopped by Congressional opposition. This time, they’d just as soon not be asked.
It’s not that a no vote is even a serious possibility, of course. Anything more than a handful of no votes in the House would be shocking. Instead, Congress wants to avoid messy conversations with constituents about what they did when the new Iraq War was launched, preferring to leave the whole thing up to the administration.
Sure, screw the people. Our betters in DC will be doin' the decidin' for us, they know what's good for us. What a fine democracy we have.
If my Congressman wants "…to avoid messy conversations with constituents about what (he) did when the new Iraq War was launched…" then sitting on the fence while reengaging on his oath and peppering me with begging emails because the Kochs are after him won't cut it.
I'm just happy to have someone else pay to throw the bum out.
Barack Hussein Obama's/English policy in Syria and Iraq is to continue with Joe Biden plan dividing Iraq, these Saudis barbarians are not one that he had in mind, the ones that are his favorites called "moderate" rebels, the ones that has become ISIS, the fifth column of Saudis and UAE are not "moderate" enough, therefore, the Iraq Syria war needs not to be expended but needs to contained and continued.
Together we slither. For divided we … well, …slither apart…
I wonder where this idea comes that Obama was ever on a slippery slope to re engagement in Iraq. It was something he’d planned for from the moment his ISIS proxies attacked Mosul.
If Americans were serious, as has been reported, about staying out of Iraq and other involvements in the ME or elsewhere, they would hold their elected to account for allowing further involvement to happen on their watch whether there is a vote or not.
I don't know when it happened or who did it, but to redefine "war" so that "war" no longer means "war" is an act of a coward. Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to declare war when sending US military forces to fight…it's not "humanitarian" when people are dying by US actions.
Is a blaming game as usual, non cares about people of Iraq nor Syrian nation. Barack Hussein Obama did what he could regarding expending the Saudi/UAE religious territory in accordance to the plan of regime change is Syria and dividing Iraq. But, losing it to barbarians from hell, Saudi Arabia/UAE is the matter where senators or WH wrong and deceitful politics shines and by that the blame game.
Senator McCain promoted the rise of ISIS, Barack Hussein Obama completed the task, Israel/Saudis/UAE/Turkish Erdogan/EU and English regime and Jordanian kingdom helped out.
If the US were serious about taking ISIS to task, we'd forego the bombs and rhetoric and let them establish their Caliphate, and maybe even offer some economic assistance in return for a little moderation. The old carrot-and-stick approach, but with less stick than we've been used to handing out. Then, when they're comfortable and living relatively well, we pull out the classic Lenin strategy: infiltrate, subvert, overthrow.
When the ISIS bunch is used to their new clothes and cars and shiny toys, the prospect of having all of those things removed will be a great incentive to stay on our good side. Notice that Iran, despite the excesses of the Shah in the 70's, became quite Westernized during our stay in that country- and who's to say the same approach wouldn't work with ISIS?
Of course this doesn't give us the immediate satisfaction of dropping bombs and whatnot for the news outlets, but it does provide a way to moderate their actions and maybe- just maybe- bring them into the fold of nations.
(And no, this isn't intended to be sarcastic- there's got to be a way to defuse the Middle East and maintain some sort of civil diplomacy all around.)
Instant karma. The recent outburst of bogus pseudo-Constitutionalism in Congress is abruptly exposed for the utter fraud it is. Pols put on the spot to come down on one side or the other immediately search out a fence to straddle, yet they demand courage and potential sacrifice of everything from our young people. Meanwhile, Obama gets all "sanctimonious" because "folks" got beheaded. Don't know about anyone else, but my mom taught me that if you're going to have more than one standard, you apply the higher one to yourself. Otherrwise you're a scoundrel and a hypocrite, which is what Obama has made of us all.