Senate; half-assing the next war, too
Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee decided that half-assing wars is what they do best, so they voted to limit the use of ground forces in operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria according to Stars & Stripes;
The bill would prohibit President Barack Obama from deploying large-scale ground forces for combat but makes some exceptions. The troops could be sent in to rescue Americans, collect intelligence, direct airstrikes and conduct operations planning.
“The massive deployment of ground forces in the Middle East ends up creating more enemies than it ends up killing,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “I think that is an air-tight, take-it-to-the-bank lesson from over the past 10 years.”
The authority of the president to wage war would also expire after three years, meaning the Congress would be required to revisit the conflict following the election of the next president.
Someone tell Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut that what creates “more enemies” is when you tell them right from the get-go that you’re not serious about winning a war against them. I’m definitely not saying that we need a massive deployment of troops to face ISIS, but what I am saying is that the armchair quarterbacks in Congress shouldn’t be telegraphing to the enemy that we don’t intend to defeat them.
Category: Terror War
Well, I won’t bag on them for not wanting to give carte blanche to this administration. They questioned Lurch about the failure of this administration to lay out what they wanted the authorization for use of military force for. Lurch didn’t have an answer, so they said go get the plan and come back. Lurch said the administration doesn’t need to give a plan to the senate and the senate said we aren’t going to give you a blank authorization. i agree with that, especially when it comes to this group.
If you can’t articulate a plan, no carte blanc is the appropriate answer.
Though, I did not on other reporting the last two days that “large scale” is pretty undefined. Which is still much more permissive than Reagan got for El Salvador and Clinton got for plan columbia.
Ace of Spades lays it out nicely.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/353666.php
Very nicely. And I quote, “Strong nations are strong enough to dare to show an openness for peace, and strong men as well. Craven men like Obama bring only discord, strife, and more war.”
Did you really expect the next war to be different from anything else the Senate has done during the last 6 years, Jonn?
Curious stuff. On the one hand, Congress alone gets to declare war. For all of the shooting wars we have been in, Congress has done so only five times. On the other hand, there is the chief executive as the commander in chief who gets to direct military action and in practice, initiate the use of military force. Then we have this bill, which seeks to limit the use of military force—which, at first blush, is bassackwards. It’s as if Congress (or one committee, anyway) is saying, “We will surrender our authority to declare war and you, Mr. President, will surrender your authority to direct the military.” It really makes my head hurt to ponder what has become of a couple of very simple, enumerated Constitutional powers.
At least Congress is doing something, all to ofter over the last 30 years they have done next to nothing.
I’d like to know where Congress has given permission to use military force.
I know alot of folks cite the AUMF 2002. But it clearly defines the authorization as being for defending us against the threat from Iraq and enforcing all relevant UN sanctions. (AUMF 2002 Sec 3(A) (1)&(2))
Since the Iraqi regime that it was intended for has been overthrown (thank you boys!) and the UN sanctions that would apply therein also are invalid as the current regime is NOT knowingly harboring Al Queda or pursuing WMD programs etc…; where does the imminent threat to the US come from?
Barring that threat, the president can’t act past his 180 day window without congress.
So when do our congress critters do their job and stop this nonsense?
This crap is why I don’t support going back. If I thought they’d let them go in to kick ass I’d be fine with it.
Last half of the VietNam War, Redux, when Preezy Johnson and the DemonRat politicians took over the war from the Generals, and lost it.
From what I have heard and understand, the US military had the VietCong on the ropes. But the VC hung in there, because between the protestors (filthy hippies) and the politicians, the military would soon go home.
As I said above, VietNam, second half, Redux.
To be honest the last thing our race extortionist in chief needs to be in charge of is another military failure. Is it really a bad thing that even the slugs in the senate realize everyhing this guy gets our military involved in ends up as a fucking disaster?
Everybody that isn’t a delusional shitfuck understands our Muslim Islamist appeaser in the White House won’t effectively combat his brother in arms so restriction his action in needlessly killing our shrinking military is a plus.