With people expressing concern about the large number of wiggle words in the draft authorization for the ISIS war, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest today confirmed that the language was made “intentionally” vague.
While officials tried to present the authorization as not including a ground war, the language actually only limits “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” meaning a ground war that officials could argue was either not “enduring,” which Earnest refused to define, or “offensive,” which is likely meaningless given the narrative of the war to “liberate” ISIS territory from ISIS.
Earnest says the bill was drawn up that way because it would allow President Obama to “be able to respond to contingencies that emerge in a chaotic military conflict,” meaning it is littered with opportunities to escalate the war.
The closest thing to an explicit limit on the war within the resolution, the three year deadline, itself includes a ready-made out, allowing Congress to just keep reauthorizing the war an unlimited number of times.
The administration had express objections to every other Congressional alternative war authorization, some with explicit limits and some without, seemingly entirely because they’ve spent the last several months drafting a version to gives the impression of limits while allowing truly limitless war.
6 thoughts on “White House: ISIS War Authorization ‘Intentionally’ Vague”
USA was created by slave owners, created to be a rich man’s paradise where slavery could be practiced forever and so it is today. For such a corrupt morality is it that everyone gets to enrich themselves upon the misery of those in a lower class and those in the upper half of society love it that way, as they always vote to enslave the lower half by an impoverishing minimum wage.
Oh. Stale Marxism, again? Citing amconmag:
"The most compelling explanation of why the Obama administration seemed to be shifting towards a more hawkish policy (arming the Kiev government now) is that key players in the administration have begun maneuvering for jobs in a future Hillary Clinton administration. Reflexive (but not shrill) hawkishness a necessary form of careerism in the foreign policy bureaucracy set. As an explanation for important events, it’s a close cousin to Hannah Arendt’s observation that Eichman was a banal and mediocre figure. Personally, I would prefer that the Chomskyite monopoly capitalism explanation was more credible. If we’re going to risk armed conflict with Moscow on Russia’s borders, which brings into play the possibility of nuclear war and the incineration of our civilization, the underlying causes ought to be grander than Michele Flournoy’s job aspirations."
Just another meaningless gesture so that USG can pretend it works within the law and that in the US the rule of law is still in effect, something which hasn't been the case for a long time.
How about a statement that is clear, rational, and sane for a change?
No offense intended towards you, D505, but that reminds me of the line about Wilson at the Versailles Treaty summit after WWI, asking for a just peace – "like a virgin in a whore house trying to order a glass of lemon-aid "
Just like the Libyian conflict was illegal; Obama's war against ISIS so far has also been illegal; these resolutions mean nothing; Congress is essentially saying here President we pass on our authority to declare war to you. Unless Congress declares war, then this too will be illegal.
Comments are closed.