Top administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, are pushing hard for Congress to sign off on President Obama’s Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS.
Carter claimed ISIS is “metastasizing” outside of Syria and Iraq, and that US military action is “desperately needed” to counter them. US military action has been going on for months now, of course, without the AUMF.
Secretary of State John Kerry is also pushing, saying that US troops on the ground in Iraq need “reassurance” that Congress is behind them in the ongoing war.
President Obama put forward the AUMF in mid-Feburary, months after it should’ve legally had to be settled. The White House bragged it was deliberately vague, to give moderates cover to vote for it while allowing the president to do whatever he wants.
Ultimately, the vagueness satisfied no one, and support for the bill plummeted. The most recent talk in the Senate is that the bill may never even make it out of committee, with Republicans split on it and not a single Democrat endorsing it.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- US Slams Human Rights Groups, Blames Them for Leaving UN Human Rights Council - June 20th, 2018
- Afghan Govt Offers to Extend Taliban Ceasefire for Another Year - June 20th, 2018
- Taliban Seizes Afghan Military Base, Kills 30 Soldiers - June 20th, 2018
- Iraqi Cleric Sadr Struggles With Forming Coalition Government - June 20th, 2018
- Fears for Yemen Civilians as Fighting Reaches Hodeidah Residential Areas - June 20th, 2018
Instead of a nebulous AUMF, why doesn't Congress grow a pair and pass an official Declaration of War against the Islamic State? Other than a general mood of the public not wanting to get tangled in another war, by making it official we would at least have some direction and a definable goal. While I am the last to advocate going to war when it's not necessarily our problem, if we're going to be dragged into it the least Congress could do is make it legal. These AUMF's are nothing more than passing the buck of responsibility and providing plausible denial for Congress- neither of which Congress is authorized to do by the Constitution.
"… at least have some direction and a definable goal."
And therein lies the problem. They don't want to tie themselves down with a definitive goal – other than to "defeat the enemy" of course. Putting restrictions on our military would, they say, hamstring the Generals. It's much better to let them run free and easy wherever their ideological desires take them – or Israel sends them.
As General Ripper noted in 'Dr Strangelove', war has become too important to leave to the politicians who have neither the training nor the inclination for strategic thought. On the whole the world's militaries are probably the last ones who want a war, because they know they will be the ones bleeding and dying for someone else's decisions- let the generals of each side meet and hammer out a peace deal rather than some stuffed-suit politician who has absolutely no skin in the game whatsoever. As we have seen time and time again, soldiers the world over are pretty much the same- they'd much rather go home to wife and family than spend months or years fighting a senseless war.
Normally I'd say you're right. But it seems there has been an infiltration of fundamentalist ideologues in our Generals corps and they're all trying to re-open the Cold War against Russia. I wouldn't trust them with a cap gun.
"…troops on the ground in Iraq need “reassurance” that Congress is behind them…"
Perhaps they should be more concerned about the American people being "behind them" and not Congress since it's overwhelmingly obvious that Congress is not in touch with the American people and frankly doesn't give a ratsbehind what the American people think or want.
This is so true. People supported Obama because they wanted change. But he drove the getaway car for the bankers, so the economic model remained the same only worse. He said Bush's wars were stupid. So while he has yet to succeed in ending them, it has been almost unnoticed that he has consigned us to at least as much future war as Bush did. Was toppling Libya smart? Was saying Assad must go while terrorism blossomed in Syria smart? Was deciding to poke the Bear via Ukraine smart?
I am furious with Washington. They have fiddled while bangsters burned the economy to the ground. They have outsourced political and military power to globalists who have used up our peace and prosperity for their own vile purposes. Obama liked to say his regime-change targets had "lost their legitimacy." I'd say the same is true of Washington. Obama has been a disaster and the Republican loyal opposition sounds certifiably insane. A pox on them all.
Just don't step out of line and forget to display your 'support the troops' bumper sticker or you'll be labeled as one of those commies or worse, a terrorist supporter. Sadly, most people don't understand that the best way to 'support the troops' is to not send them into senseless conflicts and if they do go to war make sure they have competent leadership all the way to the top. These days the most patriotic thing we can do for the troops- of all branches- is bring them home and get them out of harm's way when they don't need to be there.