While the Pentagon provides plans for the Trump Administration for a major escalation of the US involvement in the war in Syria, new bipartisan legislation is being pushed in both the House and the Senate aiming to oppose the escalation and put legal obstacles in the way of it.
Reps. Barbara Lee (D – CA) and Walter Jones (R – NC) are pushing one such bill, aiming to force Congress to debate US involvement in Syria, and to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to prevent the administration from using it as an excuse for the operation.
With the repeal of the AUMF, the bill would also explicitly forbid the deployment of additional US ground troops to Syria without any permission from Congress. The bill is gaining some support in both parties, though past efforts to repeal the AUMF, and to try to limit the wars in Iraq and Syria, have never gained enough support to pass.
If it does get support, this might force a significant shift in policy, with the US nominally having capped their Syrian force at 503, but having closer to 2,000 by most recent estimates. This mirrors caps that were in place in Iraq, which were similarly long since blown past.
This is just one of the bills aimed at US policy is Syria, with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D – HI) and Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY) offering a bipartisan “Stop Arming Terrorists Act,” which would forbid US government funds from being used to support al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other terrorist group.
While that seems like common sense, the bill would effectively kill the CIA’s program to arm Syrian rebels, as many of the recipient factions are allies of al-Qaeda, or ideologically similar groups. Rep. Gabbard visited Syria shortly before the Trump inauguration, and met with President Assad.
The Gabbard bill would also require the Director of National Intelligence to provide up to date lists every six months of the individuals and groups forbidden to receive aid, either because they are terrorist groups or are working with them. This is another piece of information that the CIA has previously, desperately, sought to avoid as part of its arming program.
This bill is more likely to get some support from the Trump Administration, as President Trump had similarly argued against arming rebels repeatedly throughout the election campaign, though since the inauguration, there has yet to be a public move to end the CIA program.
Bipartisan Bills Aim to Stop Escalation of War, Arming of ‘Terrorists’…
My congrats to Dems and Repugs in Congress who have a backbone to
stand up against the Pentagon, whose Slum Lord in the WH has already proposed giving it even more money to continue its wars for profit, at the expense of ‘us’ hard-working USG taxpayers.
Unfortunately, this proposed bill won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
The Pentagon and CIA will thumb their nose at Congress, and continue to
support ‘terrorists’ through third party regimes like Saudi Arabia, and
the one currently occupying Palestine.
You are undoubtedly correct that the “Pentagon and CIA will thumb their nose at Congress,” but they should still be supported to put Congress and the voters on record.
Also, if the vote law will be ignored, it won’t “damage” US foreign policy or “national security.” It’s essentially a free vote that can be used to curry favor with the electorate.
My Rep. wrings his hands, but then turns around and votes for every Pentagon appropriation because failing to do so would hurt “the troops.” He has no such excuse to vote against these two bills, and in the unlikely event one of them passed, it would at least give peace a little momentum.
Golly I think IEDs hurt more
“… to put Congress and the voters on record.”
And that is why these bills will never make it out of committee.
This isn’t new, Bill. The neocon plan was to attack 7 countries in a period of 5 years, ending with Iran .. However, the Syrian conflict and Russia’s intervention at the behest of the Syrian Gov’t. under Bashar Assad has tossed a monkey wrench into those plans.
Now, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle united against any escalation of the war in Syria .. And the neocons are upset, as well as are the Generals in the Pentagon. The reason, I believe, is both the Russian and Syrian forces are winning handily against ISIS and other Jihadists, and making it practically impossible for the neocon plans to be successfully executed.
It was just very recently that an Israeli jet was shot down by a Syrian crew manning the S-200 missile defense system and another jet damaged, with the other two fleeing the scene. This was a serious warning from Syria to Israel not to repeat the bombing attacks. Even Putin warned PM Benjamin Natanyahu on his visit to Moscow to stop the bombing raids on Syria. The raid wherein one jet was shot down and another damaged was in the vicinity of Palmyra, which wasn’t even close to the border with Israel. The 4 jets had to fly over the Golan Heights to reach the mountains wherein Syrian crews manning the S-200’s, along with their Russian advisors, were situated.
Eileen, I’m well aware of everything you’ve written, but thank you for repeating it for others who may not be as well informed as you or I.
Unfortunately, it’s only a minority of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who oppose further intervention in the Mideast. The overwhelming bipartisan majority are totally on board with the MIC and CIA. That’s one of the reasons the going has been so tough for Trump. He has bucked this bipartisan majority by calling for better relations with Russia and an end to US interventionism. Both positions are anathema to the MIC/CIA Deep State for obvious rea$on$, even though Trump has promised to expand military spending.
I don’t like Trump’s other policy positions, but I hope he’s able to get the Deep State under control, my highest priority issue.
We can hope, but I fear this is voices crying in the wilderness. These things are controlled by The Blob, as Obama put it. The bipartisan DC Consensus on foreign policy cannot be questioned by anyone hoping for a job.
This will be real when it reaches into The Blob.
Add to Obama’s Blob the active and virulent DNC Blob — and the mix is potent.
The DNC and their media are sick, sick, sick Bianca. What you are missing is that the Repubs are just as sick. They’re both very prowar and Trump is right with his side on it. The main page of this site is full of stories that prove it!
Everybody is so negative on this working. The pentagon and the CIA will thumb their noses, blah, blah.
In truth, if the US congress was able to pass this bill then the warmaking process would be stopped. It’s just never been done before by both parties and so nobody thinks it could be effective.
Not that it can happen of course because it would require the Republican congress stopping the president. US politics is far from being there yet but there’s at least some hinting going on that the psychopath that was elected as president must be stopped.
Could it be that is Raimondo’s angle he’s playing with his support of Trump? He’s so crazed with his prowar madness that something new could come out of the US congress?
Finally something to get behind for a real change!
Mar 14, 2017 Rand Paul And Tulsi Gabbard Unite For Most Important Act Of 2017
In this video we talk about U.S Senator Rand Paul Introducing Tulsi Gabbard’s “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” In Senate. This for our analysis Ian the most important law in the U.S representatives that would reshape American foreign policy and put this country on the right track. We also give context to this law by detailing Obama’s and Donald Trump’s foreign policy.
https://youtu.be/z0mxnW-J11g
Brian’s vid below gives hope, even though it spends too much time with it’s anti-Obama bias. In any case, that doesn’t matter as long as it makes the point on Trump just as thoroughly. And it probably does.
It would be nice to get excited about this but unfortunately these two together , Gabbard and Paul, are seen as loose cannons in their respective parties. There’s no denying that so it kills most hope.
But on the bright side, the positions of the US congress as individuals could be ferreted out by this initiative. And that could be the consolation prize because it will cause everybody to recognize that they have no friends in government. And especially with Trump, which could cause Raimondo to open his eyes finally.
Loose cannons? In other words, you do not like them. With both of them on good terms with Trump — this puts thrm both on your s-list.
I like them both, for what they’re worth, and that’s going to prove to be not much. And they’re loose cannnons on their party’s ship of state. Gabby on the Dem ship and Paul on the Repub ship.
To be opposed to more wars is not to be with Trump. That’s your main misunderstanding that I’ve been trying to get you past Bianca. The only small chance of Trump being antiwar would have been if there was ever something in what he said during his campaign babbling about better terms between Russia/US. And that’s been dead in the water ever since his campaign babbling.
On Syria Trump is prowar and is advancing the nuclear war clock with Russia.
On N.Korea Trump is prowar and has advanced the nuclear war clock with China.
And Trump is promising to destroy the peace deal with Iran which is again advancing the nuclear war clock with Russia and China.
Where in f–k do you get all this hope in Trump from? Is your admiration for the creepy bas-ard in you having some confidence in him bluffing or something?
No way either comes close to passing. The pro war faction is bipartisan also but with much larger numbers.
The Pentagon just has to kill someone. They wanted to bomb Syria in 2013 but the American people didn’t like it so they just gave weapons to ISIS to take out Assad. Now that a new policy is in effect, the Pentagon wants to bomb ISIS on account of the Russians getting too much credit for doing so. In either case, civilians get killed and new terrorists are created.
Nope. The US wants Syria and it doesn’t want to share with Russia. Actually, I don’t think Russia wants to share Syria with the US either.
I said it before and I’m just gonna keep f**king saying it- Tulsi Gabbard For President 2020!
And Ron Paul for VP as long as he can forget his libertarian stuff.
So we’re going to see in short order if the antiwar cause has any backing in the least in US congress. That’s a real side benefit of this bill! And I think it’s going to either prove my point of there not being any, or I’m going to be wearing some egg. Gladly if the latter is so!
But wouldn’t that be something! Even if a dozen of the c—suckers backed it, it would be a huge accomplishment!
It’s way too early to be saying that.
For one thing she has yet to indicate any interest in running.
She’s also a fairly junior member of a body which last produced a winning presidential candidate (who in addition to being a US Representative was a former general) in 1880.
And finally, the Democratic Party’s establishment does not yet seem ready to drop its tired old failures and embrace the wiser voices of its younger generation, the ones who tried to save it from Hillary Clinton last year. Until the old guard surrenders or is overthrown, she’d be casting pearls before swine. And swine just don’t know what the hell to do with pearls.
All true. But that’s not gonna stop me from voting for her in the primaries. Also, I don’t remember all this pie in the sky talk during the Libertarian primaries. Perry over Johnson? Sounds like pearls before swine to me. This kettle calls foul on the pot.
comrade,
I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.
Perry expressed an interest in running a principled version of what everyone knew was going to be a losing presidential campaign regardless of who was nominated.
Gabbard has expressed no interest whatsoever in running any kind of campaign for the nomination of a party that could conceivably actually win the White House.
So it’s sort of an imaginary kettle calling foul on a real pot.
All the more reason to start “f**king saying it”.
I said, during the primary campaign, that Bernie should have thrown a Hail Mary Pass and take Tulsi as his running mate — during the campaign itself, in contrast with Taft-MacArthur in ’52 and Reagan-Schweiker in ’76. It would have put Killary on the spot to name a running mate as well, and Tulsi would have had the military street creds to attack Killary’s foreign policy.
But she just turned 35 last April. She’s got a safe House seat — high 70% to low 80% general election wins, though the Killary-ites could try to pull a Walter Jones on her in the primary. And I don’t know how much state-wide support she’d have in Hawaii itself. (She was unsuccessful in getting state Democratic support for appointment to the Senate vacancy caused by Inouye’s death.)
A lot can happen in four years (actually, more like two years considering the interminable presidential election cycles we’ve got anymore). But at her age I don’t think it would be smart to throw away a safe House seat for some kind of long-shot.
Someone “moderate” one day is revealed as jihadi linked to al Qaeda the next. That happened to McCain when he visited a group that promptly became al Qaeda as soon as he left.
That is why the CIA does not want to reveal who is deemed “moderate.” They know it will blow back to embarrass far too many times.
Do you have any particular reason to believe that Gabbard will be a good candidate? Just grabbing at a name that did one good thing isn’t idealism, it’s laziness.
She has been the only person in congress who is consistently and aggressively antiwar. No one on the Hill has been more vocal about their opposition to the wars in Iraq and Syria and her opposition began under a Democratic Administration. She has shown the kind of willingness to take on her own party that I haven’t seen since Ron Paul retired and Dennis Kucinich was pushed out. Her only major flaw on foreign policy is her support for the use of drones in active battlefields. Which still makes her at least as consistently antiwar as Gary Johnson who you voted for.
So she’s consistently and aggressively antiwar except that she supports drones?
Yes, I voted for Gary Johnson. He was running. Do you have any information that she is?
Here’s the ketch, she supports the use of drones in active war zones but she supports shutting down said active war zones making said drones null in void. She only supports them in aid of US ground troops such as herself but she is vocally apposed to ground troops in Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. Don’t get me wrong, I hope she changes her position on this but it’s not enough to discount her as a morally viable candidate.
And yes, Tom, I’m well aware that she’s not running yet, but I hope she does. Drown me.