They appear to be in the minority so far, but a handful of senators both Democrat and Republican are pushing a resolution that would oblige the Obama Administration to bring the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA), which will keep US troops in Afghanistan “through 2024 and beyond,” to an actual vote in the Senate.
The text of the deal was finalized yesterday, and is being presented to the Afghan Loya Jirga, the nation’s informal tribal assembly, for a vote before ratification. The Obama Administration has suggested no intention of putting it to the US Congress, however.
And that’s not surprising. Though the US Constitution does require a two-thirds majority vote of the US Senate for any treaty, in recent history US presidents have ignored that requirement on many controversial pacts, arguing that they aren’t technically treaties, but rather an “executive agreement” which Congress gets no say in.
The senators are hoping to attach a requirement for a vote to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but White House officials say that the pact is in keeping with President Obama’s public statements, and no such vote should take place.
Welkom to Amerika.
Does this mean putting the Afghan people on "Reservations."?
We have numerous reciprocal agreements with other nations. For example the agreement on driving with the license of one's country in the USA for one year and the reverse. It makes sense that such agreements do not clutter the Senate. However, the line must be drawn when it concerns the permanent or semi-permanent stationing of our soldiers in other countries. For that reason this so-called agreement must be submitted for advise and consent by representatives of "we the people". Otherwise our presidents will not be different from the hated King George of Britain.