2
2
0
From: Navy Times
Congress appears to be in no hurry to weigh in on the U.S. fight against the Islamic State group, even as military operations ramp up in the Middle East.
President Obama has asked lawmakers to pass a new authorization of military force for missions in Iraq and Syria by the end of the year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R- Ky., publicly pushed his colleagues earlier this month to take up the issue as soon as possible.
But with only a few days left in the 2014 legislative session, no credible plan for a new force authorization has emerged, and most lawmakers seem resigned to the idea of not addressing the question until sometime next year.
By then, the military will be more than five months into the training and airstrikes campaign. The operation's cost already is approaching $1 billion — not even including a $5.6 billion contingency fund request from the White House — and whose U.S. troops totals will swell to about 3,000 in coming weeks.
On Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., called the lack of action on a new war authorization "an abdication of congressional responsibility" and an embarrassment for lawmakers.
He has been among the leading voices pushing for a new vote, arguing that the existing authorization used by Obama to justify the start of the campaign is outdated. But there is little consensus on that point, or who should take the lead on writing a new force authorization.
Several lawmakers — including Kaine — have offered drafts. During a Nov. 13 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the topic, Republicans questioned why the White House hasn't offered its preferred language, coupling that with wider criticisms about the lack of a coherent strategy in the region.
"Until you get words on paper, it's kind of hard to make progress," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the incoming committee chairman.
Other Senate Republicans and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have publicly backed delaying any such moves until the new Congress is seated. Boehner has said that decision should not be made by "members who are on their way out the door."
Numerous Democrats have argued that the longer U.S. operations last in the region without a formal authorization, the more worrisome the precedent becomes. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he worries the unchecked military action creates "a greater danger that the country gets sucked into one conflict after another."
He has pushed not only for clearer guidelines for the Islamic State group campaign but for sunset dates on past and future military authorizations, to prevent this type of uncertainty in the future.
Obama has insisted that some action is needed as soon as possible on the authorization issue, to show "clear and unified support" for the military mission. But in the absence of a congressional authorization vote, the administration and Pentagon officials have vowed that the fight will go on.
Earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is committed to "do what is necessary to take action against ISIL, to degrade their capabilities, to build up our efforts on the Iraqi side of the border, to get them out of these safe havens."
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2014/11/24/no-military-auth/70008908/
Congress appears to be in no hurry to weigh in on the U.S. fight against the Islamic State group, even as military operations ramp up in the Middle East.
President Obama has asked lawmakers to pass a new authorization of military force for missions in Iraq and Syria by the end of the year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R- Ky., publicly pushed his colleagues earlier this month to take up the issue as soon as possible.
But with only a few days left in the 2014 legislative session, no credible plan for a new force authorization has emerged, and most lawmakers seem resigned to the idea of not addressing the question until sometime next year.
By then, the military will be more than five months into the training and airstrikes campaign. The operation's cost already is approaching $1 billion — not even including a $5.6 billion contingency fund request from the White House — and whose U.S. troops totals will swell to about 3,000 in coming weeks.
On Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., called the lack of action on a new war authorization "an abdication of congressional responsibility" and an embarrassment for lawmakers.
He has been among the leading voices pushing for a new vote, arguing that the existing authorization used by Obama to justify the start of the campaign is outdated. But there is little consensus on that point, or who should take the lead on writing a new force authorization.
Several lawmakers — including Kaine — have offered drafts. During a Nov. 13 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the topic, Republicans questioned why the White House hasn't offered its preferred language, coupling that with wider criticisms about the lack of a coherent strategy in the region.
"Until you get words on paper, it's kind of hard to make progress," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the incoming committee chairman.
Other Senate Republicans and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have publicly backed delaying any such moves until the new Congress is seated. Boehner has said that decision should not be made by "members who are on their way out the door."
Numerous Democrats have argued that the longer U.S. operations last in the region without a formal authorization, the more worrisome the precedent becomes. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he worries the unchecked military action creates "a greater danger that the country gets sucked into one conflict after another."
He has pushed not only for clearer guidelines for the Islamic State group campaign but for sunset dates on past and future military authorizations, to prevent this type of uncertainty in the future.
Obama has insisted that some action is needed as soon as possible on the authorization issue, to show "clear and unified support" for the military mission. But in the absence of a congressional authorization vote, the administration and Pentagon officials have vowed that the fight will go on.
Earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is committed to "do what is necessary to take action against ISIL, to degrade their capabilities, to build up our efforts on the Iraqi side of the border, to get them out of these safe havens."
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2014/11/24/no-military-auth/70008908/
Congress
Barack Obama
Iraq
ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
10
10
0
A few thoughts:
- Declaration of war is a congressional responsibility as per the US Constitution.
- Congress has not formally declared war since December 8, 1941.
- The failure to declare war (or not to declare war) since WWII is both an organizational failure to fulfill Constitutional responsibilities as well as an individual act of cowardice with the below caveats.
- "Policing actions", "authorizations of military force" and other euphymisms can be a measured step short of declaring war but these are now the "go to" actions for Congress. One time is a data point. At least five times and counting since WWII is a trend that should not be ignored.
- A decision not to make a decision is a valid decision (contrary to the ongoing dialogue on the separate issue of immigration and POTUS executive order).
- Politicians used to decide national security issues based upon what was good for the US National Security. Sadly that is no longer the case. National security issues are now decided by politics (see Hillary Clinton statements in presidential election cycle of 2008).
- The US and our allies won the Cold War because Democrats and Republicans agreed upon two basic issues: 1. Communism was bad and 2. At the end of the day, it was going to be us or them going down.
- The US and our allies are losing GWOT/OCO because Democrats and Republicans do not agree upon two basic issues: 1. Radical Islam is bad and 2. At the end of the day, it is going to be either us or them going down.
- Declaration of war is a congressional responsibility as per the US Constitution.
- Congress has not formally declared war since December 8, 1941.
- The failure to declare war (or not to declare war) since WWII is both an organizational failure to fulfill Constitutional responsibilities as well as an individual act of cowardice with the below caveats.
- "Policing actions", "authorizations of military force" and other euphymisms can be a measured step short of declaring war but these are now the "go to" actions for Congress. One time is a data point. At least five times and counting since WWII is a trend that should not be ignored.
- A decision not to make a decision is a valid decision (contrary to the ongoing dialogue on the separate issue of immigration and POTUS executive order).
- Politicians used to decide national security issues based upon what was good for the US National Security. Sadly that is no longer the case. National security issues are now decided by politics (see Hillary Clinton statements in presidential election cycle of 2008).
- The US and our allies won the Cold War because Democrats and Republicans agreed upon two basic issues: 1. Communism was bad and 2. At the end of the day, it was going to be us or them going down.
- The US and our allies are losing GWOT/OCO because Democrats and Republicans do not agree upon two basic issues: 1. Radical Islam is bad and 2. At the end of the day, it is going to be either us or them going down.
(10)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
I SAY LET THE JOINT CHIEFS AND GENERALS AND THE MILITARY HAVE AN INPUT AND MAKE THE CHOICES NOT THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS
(0)
(0)
CPT Erik Eriksen
I used to listen to the 'declared war' debate all through high school and college in the 70's. At that time, not including the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, we had been in 105 major conflicts of which only 5 were declared wars.
Can anyone name them?
World War II
World War I
The Spanish-American War
The Philippine Insurrection
The Boxer Rebellion
We have been in several more major conflicts since then. So...the question is: Other than from a Constitutional point of view, at what point does a formal declaration of war become irrelevant?
Can anyone name them?
World War II
World War I
The Spanish-American War
The Philippine Insurrection
The Boxer Rebellion
We have been in several more major conflicts since then. So...the question is: Other than from a Constitutional point of view, at what point does a formal declaration of war become irrelevant?
(2)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
I WONDER HOW THE MORALE OF OUR TROOPS IS BECAUSE WHEN I SEE THE PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRAPPS I FEEL ANGRY AND SAD AND THINK HOPELESS BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE USA AND OUR TROOPS AND MY MORALE AND HAPPINESS
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
As I predicted, there were no (significant) "Boots-On-The-Ground" until after the mid-term elections.
Is there going to be an increase in US military involvement in Iraq?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Are both the Democrats and the Republicans going to support this increase?
See above.
Are all the 2016 Presidential Candidates going to be saying that they will limit/reduce the US military involvement in Iraq?
See above.
Will the successful 2016 Presidential Candidate call for "national unity" and "support for our troops" who have "gone into danger" and are "risking their lives" in order to "protect freedom and democracy" as they increase the US military presence in Iraq?
See above.
Will both the Republicans and the Democrats continue to play petty political games that place unnecessary risks on American troops in order that the politicians can "score points" and increase their chances of election/re-election in 2016?
See above.
Is there going to be an increase in US military involvement in Iraq?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Are both the Democrats and the Republicans going to support this increase?
See above.
Are all the 2016 Presidential Candidates going to be saying that they will limit/reduce the US military involvement in Iraq?
See above.
Will the successful 2016 Presidential Candidate call for "national unity" and "support for our troops" who have "gone into danger" and are "risking their lives" in order to "protect freedom and democracy" as they increase the US military presence in Iraq?
See above.
Will both the Republicans and the Democrats continue to play petty political games that place unnecessary risks on American troops in order that the politicians can "score points" and increase their chances of election/re-election in 2016?
See above.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well said Sir. All of my thoughts on this are now perfectly worded. So now it's get ready for the word that will come, eventually.
(0)
(0)
SGT James Hastings
I believe that President Reagan talked about "trickle down" economics. We seem to have "trickle down" military decisions made by Congress. They have, I'm sure, a complete picture of events in each foreign country. I believe that sometimes economic results for America may outweigh concern for the lives of those in countries undergoing internal turmoil. I believe that an invasion that loses more than 10% of their forces the first wave results in consequences for the officer in charge. It is sad to think that losing less than that doesn't call into question the decisions of the officer that authorized the invasion.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
The closest analogy I've ever heard to the actual results of "trickle down economics" is what happens to the sparrow which is eating the undigested grain in the horse's faeces when the horse urinates.
PS - If you actually believe that Congress has "a complete picture of events in each foreign country" I have a really nice bridge that I'll sell you cheap. Now if you had said that you believed that Congress had "a complete picture of events in the US" I'd be willing to sell you the Grand Canyon for a real bargain price. What you have to remember is that the majority of the Senators and Representatives HAVE NOT READ the legislation which they vote for (or against) and that the vast majority DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the legislation is going to do [except, of course, for the 'rider' which they have attached so that taxpayers' money is spent in their electoral district in order to help with their re-election bid].
I'd be the last person to accuse Senators and/or Representatives of being crass, venal, and grasping after personal aggrandizement - mainly because I don't believe that they have either the intelligence or the personal fortitude to aspire that high.
Take a good look at the American political system as it ACTUALLY operates and ask yourself "Is the system's most important feature Policy or Personality?". Then ask yourself "Is this what the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent?".
PS - If you actually believe that Congress has "a complete picture of events in each foreign country" I have a really nice bridge that I'll sell you cheap. Now if you had said that you believed that Congress had "a complete picture of events in the US" I'd be willing to sell you the Grand Canyon for a real bargain price. What you have to remember is that the majority of the Senators and Representatives HAVE NOT READ the legislation which they vote for (or against) and that the vast majority DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the legislation is going to do [except, of course, for the 'rider' which they have attached so that taxpayers' money is spent in their electoral district in order to help with their re-election bid].
I'd be the last person to accuse Senators and/or Representatives of being crass, venal, and grasping after personal aggrandizement - mainly because I don't believe that they have either the intelligence or the personal fortitude to aspire that high.
Take a good look at the American political system as it ACTUALLY operates and ask yourself "Is the system's most important feature Policy or Personality?". Then ask yourself "Is this what the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent?".
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Mission Creep?
I think so. This mission is not likely to get smaller with the incoming Congress in January. My biggest concern is the level of involvement our Military gets to.
I think so. This mission is not likely to get smaller with the incoming Congress in January. My biggest concern is the level of involvement our Military gets to.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google