I think the practical lesson of the way Presidents Bush and Obama have made use of the AUMF is that even if the legislation rubs us all the wrong way because of its vagueness and how broadly it’s been applied, it really doesn’t matter because Congress hasn’t made it an issue. If they haven’t liked how it’s been used, they ultimately have the power to do something about it.
If it does breeze through the House and Senate, does that mean Obama will veto it?
Since Obama isn’t running again in 2016, he should take on all the unpopular actions and let prospective 2016 Democratic candidates take on all the popular actions, burnishing their image.
Huh?
The US bombing of Iraq united Al Qaeda with pretty well every militia in the region, and together they kicked the US from one end of that country to the other.
Later, the militias turned against and defeated Al Qaeda. Sure, they took the USs’ money, but it would have been rude not to take free money.
US bombing? Unless you have a convincing cite I’ll go with what most people accept - the US was clueless from Day One in Iraq.
Serbia was a NATO action. To refresh your memory:
Way to not answer my question. If the U.S. had not attacked Al Qaeda (it seems from your last post that you, like George Bush, get AQ and Iraq confused) do you think AQ would just have left the U.S. alone?
Anyway, you’re not going to get me to say that Iraq was in any way a smart thing. I think most people who had half a brain in 2003 could have told you that it would end poorly.
So you’re saying that the bombing in Kosovo went okay because the US went to war along with 15 or so friends? Even though the U.S. flew three quarters of the sorties?
If you say that the bombing of Serbia doesn’t count because the U.S. had a lot of partners, does that mean that if the U.S. goes to war against ISIL with enough other countries, that it might turn out okay?
I’m happy to respond to any question as long as it isn’t an infantile representation of something that never existed.
“leave the US alone” - suggestive of playground bullying.
As this thread amply demostrates the US, has had for 50 years - and as the posters in this continue to show - a huge and absurd sense of entitlement about it being okay to interfere wherever, whenever, on any scale of human cost it deems appropriate. Like say 500,000 Iraqi civiliians. The result of that sense of entitlement was Al Qaeda, amongst many other results. Your qurestion:
You reap what you sow.
The ineffectual bombing of peoples for decade after decade has got the US … where? Scared, systematically surveilled, justifying torture, disappearing victims, tens of thousands of Americans mentally or physically maimed, $trillions in debt?
So what’s the answer? More bombing.
Good post/username combo . . .
If Republicans ever give Obama exactly what he asks for, he’s gotta wonder, “What’s wrong with this picture?!”
[QUOTE=BOOM!]
The US bombing of Iraq united Al Qaeda with pretty well every militia in the region, and together they kicked the US from one end of that country to the other.
[/QUOTE]
You have an oddly skewed perspective on history. And this is pretty recent history. The US bombing in Iraq (presumably you mean during the second gulf war) didn’t unite AQ…they were already united long before that. It was the attacks on the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan after AQs attacks on the US that shattered AQ and pretty much forced them to adopt new tactics and strategies, and then the subsequent US attacks on Iraq that gave them a new front and new groups they could bring into the fold.
I won’t get into your ‘they kicked the US from one end of that country to the other’ since that’s obviously ridiculous partisan spin on what was a complex time.
Again, no point in addressing something this ridiculous except to laugh at it and move on. You condense a complex and traumatic time into non-sense with a large amount of spin and serve it up like you are saying something. Sort of like your other posts in this and other threads.
Oh, I think most would agree that the US invasion of Iraq was ill advised. But it still doesn’t do anything to make your earlier drive by assertion a reality.
And the US was and is in NATO, and US air units as well as some special forces ground units participated. The key, though is that US bombed the shit out of targets there, which was your criteria for your assertion that the US bombing people would bite us on the ass. Are you now refining your theory further to include only conflicts that begin with ‘I’, during only specific ‘50 year’ windows (that we haven’t reached yet) and that the US not merely a participant, regardless of whether our participation was the largest, but were in charge as well? Perhaps only under presidents who’s last name begin with ‘B’ and rhyme with tush? Year’s that start with a ‘20’ and end with ‘09’? Were there any other parameters you’d like to try and add to make it work for you?
I assume Obama is no longer holding up Yemen as an example of how his ISIL strategy is supposed to successfully play out.
Well, if you’re just going to get on your soapbox and not answer simple questions, what’s the point of asking you a question to further the debate?
There’s little sense in silly exchanges like this:
Poster A: “If you assert that the historical records shows that military intervention backfires when the US does it, should the US have left Al Qaeda alone?”
Poster B: “Iraq!!!”
Poster A: “Iraq was a clusterfuck. But Serbia wasn’t, so how to you explain that?”
Poster B: “Iraq! NSA surveillance! Drone assassinations! Debt!”
Poster A: “Well, okay then.”
The initial story was less clear about some aspects of what’s being asked for. The proposal includes use of ground forces for missions including:
The first is pretty much a SOCOM mission (USAF Pararescue, aka “PJs”). The second is still in the same ballpark by definition although I could conceivably see some conventional forces for logistical support and base security. Intelligence collection can include human intelligence. It’s an authorization for military force not intelligence assets that aren’t under DoD. Maybe it’s something like on ground military intelligence folks to analyze, vet, and release actionable intelligence to the Iraqis. Maybe it’s a commitment of on ground assets to gather and develop information. The no longer existent Armored Cavalry Regiments were reconnaissance organizations that could have gone toe to toe with ISIS forces in Divisional strength. I doubt they are talking heavy assets and numbers like that. It’s a vague piece. I could see something like a Ranger Battalion being sent (technically SOCOM so they fit under the second point and their raids would gather information as well). That Ranger Battalion is still a decent chunk of well trained light infantry that could sway some big fights if things were about to go sideways.
Obama wants to commit ground forces even if it’s in relatively small numbers. Given that the US is currently “boots on ground” phobic it’s probably a very good call to take that to Congress to get buy in. That’s not just about domestic election politics. It’s also about assessing and building political will to do the job. Without that will it’s pointless to take the risk because the first setback likely results in abandoning the effort. Without that political will there’s only limited capability to influence the end game. The coalition attacking ISIS is barely applying force. It may have taken a while to get to the point of asking to do something meaningful but it’s here.
I had to quote this for amusement; someone who relies on mainstream US media saying someone who doesn’t has an oddly skewed perspective on history…
A couple of you guys remind me of views that cropped up in other debates 5 or 10 years ago, like UHC maybe, stuff like that.
It must be hard when all you have to rely on is various shades of propaganda and you want to believe in the integrity of those sources.
And it’s easy to take one point of data and form an entire theory of history from it. You only have to learn one thing and then you can just give one answer to every question.
The reality is that history is complicated and trying to apply one simple answer to it means your answer will often be wrong. But that doesn’t stop some people from preferring a simple answer to a correct answer.
Keep in mind that the opposite of propaganda isn’t truth. The opposite of propaganda is just different propaganda. People who tell you everyone else is lying to you, are themselves telling you lies. You shouldn’t trust any single source uncritically. Always listen to every side and suspect them all.
Emphasis added. That could mean almost anything.
It’s also interesting that Obama is asking to repeal the (Iraq) AUMF of 2002, but not the AUMF of 2001.
So, a political hypothetical:
Since the Republicans face a tough choice in Congress (vote yes on the AUMF, and you can’t criticize Obama for this war in the future; vote no on the AUMF, and you seem weak on terrorism; ) what would be the political perception if all the Republicans abstained from voting yes/no on the AUMF?
But they would still lose some ability to criticize Obama in the future, since critics would rightfully say, “You could have voted against the AUMF but chose not to.”
It must be hard for you to live in a world where you are one of the few in the know while the rest of the herd just don’t get it. The Truthers, Moon Hoaxer and Kennedy assassination guys certainly feel your pain.
At least he didn’t actually use the word “sheeple.”