6
6
0
Answer by Tim Kaine, United States senator from Virginia, @timkaine:
My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of members who believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in some sort of military action against ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus—and despite the constitutional demand that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress—there’s been a strange degree of silence on this issue for the past 16 months.
If you look back a few years to the last war vote on Iraq, we saw the political consequences of that vote. I think that may have something to do with why Congress has been unwilling and remained mostly silent when it comes to holding a debate and vote on the war against ISIL.
I believe strongly that the voice of Congress is needed. It’s needed to fulfill our Article I responsibility and to send a clear message to our troops, allies, and adversaries that we are committed to this mission. I think when it comes down to it, deciding whether to go to war and put our service members at risk is one of the toughest votes any member will make during his or her time in Congress.
But taking these votes shouldn’t be an option—it’s our constitutional responsibility, and it’s what the American people and our service members deserve.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/11/20/why_won_t_congress_vote_on_war_with_isis.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of members who believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in some sort of military action against ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus—and despite the constitutional demand that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress—there’s been a strange degree of silence on this issue for the past 16 months.
If you look back a few years to the last war vote on Iraq, we saw the political consequences of that vote. I think that may have something to do with why Congress has been unwilling and remained mostly silent when it comes to holding a debate and vote on the war against ISIL.
I believe strongly that the voice of Congress is needed. It’s needed to fulfill our Article I responsibility and to send a clear message to our troops, allies, and adversaries that we are committed to this mission. I think when it comes down to it, deciding whether to go to war and put our service members at risk is one of the toughest votes any member will make during his or her time in Congress.
But taking these votes shouldn’t be an option—it’s our constitutional responsibility, and it’s what the American people and our service members deserve.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/11/20/why_won_t_congress_vote_on_war_with_isis.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
GWOT
Election 2016
Congress
ISIS
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 23
0
0
0
I think that members on all sides in the obama administration and both congress and the senate need to be held accountable for the disasters and lack of a plan over the last 7 years
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Isn't the operative question why doesn't the President go to Congress and ask for a formal Declaration of War?
He won't, because... well...reasons.
Why should he, if he is going to do what he wants anyway?
I think that the President very much does not want his name on anything that has to do with the gong show in Syria and Iraq. A request for a DOW puts him clearly in focus.
He won't, because... well...reasons.
Why should he, if he is going to do what he wants anyway?
I think that the President very much does not want his name on anything that has to do with the gong show in Syria and Iraq. A request for a DOW puts him clearly in focus.
(0)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
He did...on February 11th. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/
Obama ISIS war authorization: Request sent to Congress - CNNPolitics.com
President Barack Obama on Wednesday made the case for Congress to formally authorize the use of military force in the war against ISIS, declaring that congressional passage of the measure makes the U.S. "strongest" in the fight, and that "ISIL is going to lose."
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
A1C Melissa Jackson, there is something at work here that to a casual observer looks like something else. Just my opinion, of course, but I will take any wager anyone wants to make.
Otto Von Bismarck called it "Realpolitik". In a nutshell, it is a pragmatic way of looking at what is realistically possible politically, and using the power of the office to drag a reluctant establishment in a direction you desire, real or imagined.
In this case, the President through his actions telegraphs that he doesn't really want to be serious with regards to Syria. Any action there has always been "unimaginably small", as Secretary of State Kerry put it. Knowing that Congress would be critical of what he does in regards to Syria regardless of his actions, the President has called on Congress to debate and authorize operations in Syria. Congress doesn't want to for myriad reasons, and the President knows this. Namely, they don't want their votes attached to a war authorization for political reasons - depending on the Congressperson's alignment, in order to (cynically) carry it as an issue into elections, or maybe they are ideologically opposed (there are a few). Others are very concerned that the President's request, such as it is, is open-ended and pretty sparse on goals and objectives (weird!). Meanwhile the President has his lawyer crew looking into using the GWOT authorization to fund operations in Syria, and if I am not mistaken, is currently doing so.
So, all that adds up to current events.
If the President's allies REALLY wanted to vote on the issue, they could introduce the bill themselves. But they won't - and the oddball that does sees it tabled or referred to committee to die, because nobody wants to actually go there.
If the Congressional Republicans REALLY wanted to go whole hog into Syria, they could introduce the bill themselves, too. But they won't, because they want to assert some leverage on the President and maintain it as a campaign issue. Plus they get to have the President own that it was his policies that got us here, and his decisions that continue to have that problem perpetuate. On this, they are absolutely correct. There is no chance they are going to vote this President open-ended funding to prosecute what is clearly a failed policy, nor give him the funds to maybe (gasp!) make some progress. OPP.
If the President REALLY wanted to go for it, he could ask for a Declaration of War. Setting aside the problem that the Islamic State is not in fact a recognized state upon which to declare war, which is an issue. The President would run a real (and unnecessary, in his mind) risk that for the first time in history, Congress votes "no". This would be an enormous embarrassment to the President and anyone who voted yes, and would turn upcoming elections on it's ear, making this a dominant issue. No one wants that. Besides, the President figures he can do it anyway.
So here we are, bumping along doing a couple of strikes a day, hand-wringing over Russian and Iranian operations there, sending in 50(!) SF guys - like that'll matter, and making vague announcements about "degrade and destroy".
What a gong show.
Did I miss anything, Capt Walter Miller? I know we don't see eye to eye on much, but I'd invite any input you have on this one.
Otto Von Bismarck called it "Realpolitik". In a nutshell, it is a pragmatic way of looking at what is realistically possible politically, and using the power of the office to drag a reluctant establishment in a direction you desire, real or imagined.
In this case, the President through his actions telegraphs that he doesn't really want to be serious with regards to Syria. Any action there has always been "unimaginably small", as Secretary of State Kerry put it. Knowing that Congress would be critical of what he does in regards to Syria regardless of his actions, the President has called on Congress to debate and authorize operations in Syria. Congress doesn't want to for myriad reasons, and the President knows this. Namely, they don't want their votes attached to a war authorization for political reasons - depending on the Congressperson's alignment, in order to (cynically) carry it as an issue into elections, or maybe they are ideologically opposed (there are a few). Others are very concerned that the President's request, such as it is, is open-ended and pretty sparse on goals and objectives (weird!). Meanwhile the President has his lawyer crew looking into using the GWOT authorization to fund operations in Syria, and if I am not mistaken, is currently doing so.
So, all that adds up to current events.
If the President's allies REALLY wanted to vote on the issue, they could introduce the bill themselves. But they won't - and the oddball that does sees it tabled or referred to committee to die, because nobody wants to actually go there.
If the Congressional Republicans REALLY wanted to go whole hog into Syria, they could introduce the bill themselves, too. But they won't, because they want to assert some leverage on the President and maintain it as a campaign issue. Plus they get to have the President own that it was his policies that got us here, and his decisions that continue to have that problem perpetuate. On this, they are absolutely correct. There is no chance they are going to vote this President open-ended funding to prosecute what is clearly a failed policy, nor give him the funds to maybe (gasp!) make some progress. OPP.
If the President REALLY wanted to go for it, he could ask for a Declaration of War. Setting aside the problem that the Islamic State is not in fact a recognized state upon which to declare war, which is an issue. The President would run a real (and unnecessary, in his mind) risk that for the first time in history, Congress votes "no". This would be an enormous embarrassment to the President and anyone who voted yes, and would turn upcoming elections on it's ear, making this a dominant issue. No one wants that. Besides, the President figures he can do it anyway.
So here we are, bumping along doing a couple of strikes a day, hand-wringing over Russian and Iranian operations there, sending in 50(!) SF guys - like that'll matter, and making vague announcements about "degrade and destroy".
What a gong show.
Did I miss anything, Capt Walter Miller? I know we don't see eye to eye on much, but I'd invite any input you have on this one.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
That thing with the "when are you really a veteran?" It has blown up my feed. I have about 300 'ups' over that.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google