It includes a cancellation of the previous AUMF, right at the bottom, if I’m not mistaken. Why does he need his own if he can rely on the old law ?
Imagine if after 9/11 the U.S. put its money where its mouth was and bombed and invaded Saudi Arabia. Would’ve made Iraq look like a tea party, but it’s only logical if America wants to avoid charges of hypocrisy when it comes accusing others of supporting terrorists.
Well funding has come from Saudi Arabia. You may want to be careful and preserve the idea of the Saudi government’s clean hands, which is diplomatic, but what are they doing about these famous “private donors”, and what is the influence that official Saudi promotion of wahhabism on the ideological climate of the area ?
But you wouldn’t disagree the Saudi Government promotes Wahhabism ?
But it’s not official Saudi governmental policy to support ISIS, the bone of contention is their unwillingness to against the donors who are prominent members of Saudi society.
Because people would accuse him of being a dictator even if he tried to get specific authority?
I’m saying that literally nothing in your post has anything whatsoever to do with the standing of the US in the region, which is the issue being discussed.
Its the cancellation of an AUMF. There is no mention of the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda in the document. There is mention of the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. I imagine that one is very unpopular and I am surprised it is still in effect. Keep your AUMFs straight buddy!
All these AUMFs !
But the legal eagle quoted above said the AUMF Obama has been basing the Syrian action on is the 2001 one - it being all about Al Qaeda, offshoots, supporters etc.
Why’s he cancelling the 2002 one ?
Even more diplomatic.
So has this one here
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf
been enacted yet, or is it just a proposal ?
Why doesn’t it say anything about all the other groups like al Nusra and etc. ?
The legal eagles certainly are using the 2001 AUMF as the justification for our military action against ISIS. That makes sense since ISIS was once part of al-Qaeda.
Why does he want to cancel the 2002 AUMF? I don’t know, perhaps he thinks it isn’t applicable anymore and that it’s dangerous to keep around. Additionally, wanting to supplant the 2002 AUMF with a 2014 AUMF is an attempt to stir debate and clarify our military role in that part of the world. Relying an older AUMF with applicability only based in geography prevents us from doing so and makes it easier for politicians to avoid taking a stand on one side or the other. I imagine the typical politician would prefer knowing the outcome of our military activities in the region prior to adopting their stance.
All that is just speculation. Its clear he wants to repeal the 2002 AUMF, use the 2001 AUMF for expanded military operations against al-Qaeda, and have an AUMF with a 3 year sunset for ISIS.
It never even came up for a vote. Congress didn’t want to vote on it.
Your other question doesn’t have an answer, but al-Nusra is part of al-Qaeda.
OK thanks.
I was wondering what effect things like this would have on the region ?
Is Freedom House a CIA organisation ? Woolsey was chairman.