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
1
1
0
Sp4 Byron Skinner. Although I'm a died in the wool liberal, the answer here is rather simple. The last time the US Congress declared a state of war was on December 8, 1941, it was against Japan. This same Congress neglected to declare war on Nazi Germany, to many people of German decent living basically in voter rich midwestern states. Hitler had to declare war on the United States. The reason is rather simple Capt. Members of the House face election every two years. War have a nasty tendency to become unpopular even WW II that was approved by the House and Senate with only a single defending vote. The same US Senator that was the lone vote against war in 1917. Wars are always popular at the start until those letters start coming to parents that tells you a son or daughter will be coming home shortly in a coffin. Nixon took care of the necessity of Congress have to make this wrenching decision when he enacted through executive order, War Powers Act that says a President in effect can go to war when ever he/she feels like it. Once the first KIA comes home no Congressman would vote to stop a war. The questions below are irrelevant. This is not a partisan issue.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I feel your poll is very polarizing and one-sided. The GOP doesn't decide the direction of the administration's foreign policy and the GOP-controlled house only has the power of the purse, not the power command the military. They can apply political pressure, but to say they want the country to fail or wants POTUS to fail at any cost or is too busy campaigning really shows a lack of understanding of the process.
In statecraft, you need to be careful about how you go about declaring war, since in this case, if we were to explicitly declare war against ISIL/Daesh, then we're also formally recognizing them as a state. There is already standing authorizations to engage terrorist organizations and if the Executive Branch was to ask for additional funds appropriated by Congress or order additional troops on the ground, the political appetite is suggestive of that request being granted. According to Doe vs. Bush, the court ruled that an authorization is sufficient for the use of military force and there is nothing in the Constitution stating a specific process for declaring war. In fact, only 5 wars in our history have been formally declared by Congress: War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican War, WWI, and WWII. Everything else has been done through Congressional authorization; or in the case of Korean War, Bosnia, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War, Haiti, Liberia, and Libya, authorized by UN Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.
If you feel that the current troop levels, the rules of engagement, the CIA programs, the DoD programs or the regional strategy are the doing of the GOP or have anything to do with Congress, you really haven't been paying attention.
As usual, POTUS stated what he wouldn't do. His AUMF request stated:
(c) LIMITATIONS.—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.
SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION.
This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.
This didn't satisfy the actual requirement to win the fight, however. One of the biggest After-Action Points from Kosovo was that you need personnel on the ground to conduct proper targeting and seize and hold terrain. Since Daesh has effectively set up a state and taxes businesses/people and seizes natural resources for revenue to continue their military operations, the fact that they're still fighting and funding operations shouldn't surprise us. Especially given the PR-based ROE which doesn't allow us to strike areas like mosques where we know they hide or hitting their industrial sectors for fear of civilian casualties or angering Muslims in the region. We're basically waiting and watching as the Kurds, Iraqis, and proxy organizations of various countries advance and hold ground rather than using American troops. The Executive Branch thinks that climate change is the biggest threat to the US according to the President. These wars and conflicts are more of an inconvenient afterthought compared to their domestic objectives.
In statecraft, you need to be careful about how you go about declaring war, since in this case, if we were to explicitly declare war against ISIL/Daesh, then we're also formally recognizing them as a state. There is already standing authorizations to engage terrorist organizations and if the Executive Branch was to ask for additional funds appropriated by Congress or order additional troops on the ground, the political appetite is suggestive of that request being granted. According to Doe vs. Bush, the court ruled that an authorization is sufficient for the use of military force and there is nothing in the Constitution stating a specific process for declaring war. In fact, only 5 wars in our history have been formally declared by Congress: War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican War, WWI, and WWII. Everything else has been done through Congressional authorization; or in the case of Korean War, Bosnia, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War, Haiti, Liberia, and Libya, authorized by UN Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.
If you feel that the current troop levels, the rules of engagement, the CIA programs, the DoD programs or the regional strategy are the doing of the GOP or have anything to do with Congress, you really haven't been paying attention.
As usual, POTUS stated what he wouldn't do. His AUMF request stated:
(c) LIMITATIONS.—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.
SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION.
This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.
This didn't satisfy the actual requirement to win the fight, however. One of the biggest After-Action Points from Kosovo was that you need personnel on the ground to conduct proper targeting and seize and hold terrain. Since Daesh has effectively set up a state and taxes businesses/people and seizes natural resources for revenue to continue their military operations, the fact that they're still fighting and funding operations shouldn't surprise us. Especially given the PR-based ROE which doesn't allow us to strike areas like mosques where we know they hide or hitting their industrial sectors for fear of civilian casualties or angering Muslims in the region. We're basically waiting and watching as the Kurds, Iraqis, and proxy organizations of various countries advance and hold ground rather than using American troops. The Executive Branch thinks that climate change is the biggest threat to the US according to the President. These wars and conflicts are more of an inconvenient afterthought compared to their domestic objectives.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not one response worthy of checking below. Congress does not need to vote on direct action unless required. The problem is our current President is failing to take any actions. Seven sorties a day is nothing compared to the number flown against Iraq and Afghanistan. When you have a leader who thinks that our biggest threat is the weather, ISIS means nothing.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Your poll options are pretty absurd. But the problem with your whole post is this -- who are we going to declare war on? What is "ISIS"? It's not a country. It's an ideology. And it's an ideology the current government wants to pretend isn't responsible for what it has done since 600AD
(1)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
A1C Melissa Jackson -- you call out the difference between Islam and Christianity in your second sentence -- anyone who calls themselves a Christian and participates in "violent war for conversion" (which has never actually happened, but I'll get to that in a minute) is doing so contrary to every possible interpretation of the teachings of Christ.
There were certainly some people who may have claimed to go to war in the name of Christianity in the dark ages. They went to war for political reasons, not religious. There is a great misconception that the Crusades were some Christian aggression or takeover -- they weren't, they were a defense against 600+ years of Islamic aggression and *real* genocide along with cultural genocide. We all know the people who participated in those were less than honorable and probably did a whole lot of things they shouldn't have, as is the nature of war -- but they were not wars of Christian aggression, they were a cultural and political defense against the political ideology of expansionist Islam. Interestingly enough, if you study the Bible you won't find any justification for conducting a holy war.
The difference between Christianity and Islam is stark -- Islam's prophet set the example for his followers for all time -- he waged war to spread his ideology (again -- Islam is not a religion, Islam is a theocratic political system that includes a religion), and his followers continue to do that to this day, as they are commanded to do. The founder of Christianity laid down his life for his followers, and told us that the law and the prophets can be summed up in one commandment -- love your neighbor as yourself.
As far as driving R&D, universities and scientists have to have funding to do this. In some cases, that comes from the private sector -- that's great. In others, it comes from the defense sector that can support it with funding and in other ways. There's nothing wrong with either one, but the fact remains that the DOD has funded a great deal of useful research that has helped the private sector and that's not going to change.
There were certainly some people who may have claimed to go to war in the name of Christianity in the dark ages. They went to war for political reasons, not religious. There is a great misconception that the Crusades were some Christian aggression or takeover -- they weren't, they were a defense against 600+ years of Islamic aggression and *real* genocide along with cultural genocide. We all know the people who participated in those were less than honorable and probably did a whole lot of things they shouldn't have, as is the nature of war -- but they were not wars of Christian aggression, they were a cultural and political defense against the political ideology of expansionist Islam. Interestingly enough, if you study the Bible you won't find any justification for conducting a holy war.
The difference between Christianity and Islam is stark -- Islam's prophet set the example for his followers for all time -- he waged war to spread his ideology (again -- Islam is not a religion, Islam is a theocratic political system that includes a religion), and his followers continue to do that to this day, as they are commanded to do. The founder of Christianity laid down his life for his followers, and told us that the law and the prophets can be summed up in one commandment -- love your neighbor as yourself.
As far as driving R&D, universities and scientists have to have funding to do this. In some cases, that comes from the private sector -- that's great. In others, it comes from the defense sector that can support it with funding and in other ways. There's nothing wrong with either one, but the fact remains that the DOD has funded a great deal of useful research that has helped the private sector and that's not going to change.
(2)
(0)
A1C Melissa Jackson
Hi SCPO-
I DO study the bible- in depth. I have a degre in history and philosophy, and I focused these degrees on religious history- particularly Christianity. I learned Latin and Greek to enhance my understanding of ancient texts. BUT I am quite aware you have not requested my resume.
I am a Christian- and I believe you are ABSOLUTELY right about the teachings of Christ- he called on us to practice RADICAL love. He called on us to show humility, kindness in charity (til it hurts!), to offer hospitality to the stranger, food for the hungry, and healing for the sick- that is why I have a strident belief that our country's claim that we are a Christian nation while cutting food for the poor, elderly, and disabled- NOT TRUE. Ayn Rand (who many of the republican leaders claim was a hero of some variety, and the others commit acts that are reminiscent of her philosophy while howling they are devout Christians) was the anti-Christ. Not to say she was a "demon" of some sort- just that her philosophy was directly COUNTER to Christianity. Once again- I am digressing- what can I say? It is 5:00am, and the OL brain juices are not quite flowing yet.
Anyway- all this yap is to say that I KNOW the violent and aggressive tactics used by some Christians is NOT biblical- it is not Christlike in the least- and it is absolutely WRONG.
I won't carry on about Islam any- I have read the Koran, and you are absolutely right. That text DOES call for conversion by the sword. However, it does have quite a number of things that call for (what I consider) moral injunctions about charity, kindness, and lack of violence toward other MUSLIMS. Not so much about care if the stranger. According to the text, non-Muslims ARE to be given the choice of conversion or the sword. You are quite right.
HOWEVER, I would stress again that there have been MANY examples of cruel torture and inhumanity carried out in the NAME of Christianity over the centuries. I would agree with you that when these things happened: "Christ wept."
I DO study the bible- in depth. I have a degre in history and philosophy, and I focused these degrees on religious history- particularly Christianity. I learned Latin and Greek to enhance my understanding of ancient texts. BUT I am quite aware you have not requested my resume.
I am a Christian- and I believe you are ABSOLUTELY right about the teachings of Christ- he called on us to practice RADICAL love. He called on us to show humility, kindness in charity (til it hurts!), to offer hospitality to the stranger, food for the hungry, and healing for the sick- that is why I have a strident belief that our country's claim that we are a Christian nation while cutting food for the poor, elderly, and disabled- NOT TRUE. Ayn Rand (who many of the republican leaders claim was a hero of some variety, and the others commit acts that are reminiscent of her philosophy while howling they are devout Christians) was the anti-Christ. Not to say she was a "demon" of some sort- just that her philosophy was directly COUNTER to Christianity. Once again- I am digressing- what can I say? It is 5:00am, and the OL brain juices are not quite flowing yet.
Anyway- all this yap is to say that I KNOW the violent and aggressive tactics used by some Christians is NOT biblical- it is not Christlike in the least- and it is absolutely WRONG.
I won't carry on about Islam any- I have read the Koran, and you are absolutely right. That text DOES call for conversion by the sword. However, it does have quite a number of things that call for (what I consider) moral injunctions about charity, kindness, and lack of violence toward other MUSLIMS. Not so much about care if the stranger. According to the text, non-Muslims ARE to be given the choice of conversion or the sword. You are quite right.
HOWEVER, I would stress again that there have been MANY examples of cruel torture and inhumanity carried out in the NAME of Christianity over the centuries. I would agree with you that when these things happened: "Christ wept."
(0)
(0)
A1C Melissa Jackson
By the way about violent wars not ever being waged over the idea of Christianity...
Are you aware that the swastika is an ancient cross symbol, and the adherents of the ideology of the fascists in the 1920s-1940s (some still are!) was at least on the surface based on being super-Christians? This was part of the ideology (mixed liberally with eugenics and other forms of social Darwinism) is largely down-played due to the efforts to keep the Godless-ness of those person's idea in the center of the discussion. But THEY viewed their movement and ideology as steeped in the fine traditions of Christianity mixed with some mythology associated with other theological systems.
I just wanted to point out another GLARING instance of the word of Christ, and the apostles after him, and even further forward- the church fathers, and desert fathers. These things are not necessarily based on the WORDS and ACTIONS of Christ himself- but thought that developed a good long time after Christ died by ordinary men.
Ok, that is all of my carrying on for this morning!
I hope you have a good day, SCPO! I am enjoying our lively and good-natured debate!!!
Are you aware that the swastika is an ancient cross symbol, and the adherents of the ideology of the fascists in the 1920s-1940s (some still are!) was at least on the surface based on being super-Christians? This was part of the ideology (mixed liberally with eugenics and other forms of social Darwinism) is largely down-played due to the efforts to keep the Godless-ness of those person's idea in the center of the discussion. But THEY viewed their movement and ideology as steeped in the fine traditions of Christianity mixed with some mythology associated with other theological systems.
I just wanted to point out another GLARING instance of the word of Christ, and the apostles after him, and even further forward- the church fathers, and desert fathers. These things are not necessarily based on the WORDS and ACTIONS of Christ himself- but thought that developed a good long time after Christ died by ordinary men.
Ok, that is all of my carrying on for this morning!
I hope you have a good day, SCPO! I am enjoying our lively and good-natured debate!!!
(0)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
There are different types of swastikas, and none of them have anything to do with Christianity or the Cross. The origin of the symbol far pre-dates Christianity, and the origin of its use in Nazi Germany had to do with archaeological work that they hypothesized tied the German people to ancient Aryans and that symbol was used to show racial purity and solidarity with their past.
There are two types of swastika, one can find one type in use to represent happiness, life, etc, and the other means magick and the like -- this one, of course, was the one chosen by Hitler and the National Socialists, as Hitler was fascinated by the occult -- not Christianity.
The National Socialist party was not a Christian organization, it was a fascist version of socialism -- i.e. more like the modern left than the right. There was never anything Christian about it. The Nazis did attempt to create their own church, for the purpose of unifying those who practiced religion into a force that would recognize Hitler as the new Messiah and stop all dissemination of the Bible -- hardly Christian, and these efforts failed, and the next step was the attempted eradication of all religion throughout Germany. Hitler did at times claim to be a Christian and claim that the Nazi party was a Christian party, but his actions clearly belied his words and no one, least of all the priests imprisoned or executed throughout his tenure (six thousand or so estimated) believed him.
There is some evidence that perhaps some early Christians may have used the symbol, most likely in a similar way as the Buddhists did -- and not the same symbol the Nazis chose, and the Nazis did not choose it for any association with Christianity.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453
http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/symbol-swastika-and-its-12000-year-old-history-001312
http://www.religionfacts.com/swastika/hinduism
http://mentalfloss.com/article/57165/why-did-nazis-hijack-swastika
Anyway -- my point about Christianity is that it while you may find people who have committed heinous acts in the name of Christ, you can't find that in his teaching. Islam, on the other hand commands its followers to conquer by the sword, and many of them (over a hundred million world wide by many estimates) follow those commands religiously to this day. People who do evil things and claim to follow Christ are simply not doing so. People who do the things these guys did in San Bernadino yesterday in the name of Islam are merely doing as they are commanded to do -- the imams who claim otherwise are lying and *not* following their doctrine as it is written.
There are two types of swastika, one can find one type in use to represent happiness, life, etc, and the other means magick and the like -- this one, of course, was the one chosen by Hitler and the National Socialists, as Hitler was fascinated by the occult -- not Christianity.
The National Socialist party was not a Christian organization, it was a fascist version of socialism -- i.e. more like the modern left than the right. There was never anything Christian about it. The Nazis did attempt to create their own church, for the purpose of unifying those who practiced religion into a force that would recognize Hitler as the new Messiah and stop all dissemination of the Bible -- hardly Christian, and these efforts failed, and the next step was the attempted eradication of all religion throughout Germany. Hitler did at times claim to be a Christian and claim that the Nazi party was a Christian party, but his actions clearly belied his words and no one, least of all the priests imprisoned or executed throughout his tenure (six thousand or so estimated) believed him.
There is some evidence that perhaps some early Christians may have used the symbol, most likely in a similar way as the Buddhists did -- and not the same symbol the Nazis chose, and the Nazis did not choose it for any association with Christianity.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453
http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/symbol-swastika-and-its-12000-year-old-history-001312
http://www.religionfacts.com/swastika/hinduism
http://mentalfloss.com/article/57165/why-did-nazis-hijack-swastika
Anyway -- my point about Christianity is that it while you may find people who have committed heinous acts in the name of Christ, you can't find that in his teaching. Islam, on the other hand commands its followers to conquer by the sword, and many of them (over a hundred million world wide by many estimates) follow those commands religiously to this day. People who do evil things and claim to follow Christ are simply not doing so. People who do the things these guys did in San Bernadino yesterday in the name of Islam are merely doing as they are commanded to do -- the imams who claim otherwise are lying and *not* following their doctrine as it is written.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
who want problem solved? if problem solved, what can each politician campaign about?? This go same with Dem.
Personally, I really don't want a full scale war ... i would rather let the Kurd fight for us. We just bomb the hell out of them.
Personally, I really don't want a full scale war ... i would rather let the Kurd fight for us. We just bomb the hell out of them.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I believe you are confused. Turkey is bombing both the Kurds and Daesh. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=turkry+bombing+daesh&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004 They are also allowing us to bomb Daesh from their country. They are clearly enemies of Daesh, notwithstanding the fact that they are enemies of the Kurds as well. It's the same as us bombing Al Assad and Daesh at the same time. Every bomb we drop on Daesh helps Al Assad, every bomb we drop on Al Assad helps Daesh.
I would agree that short of atrocities such as genocide, we should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. The problem here is that monsters like Saddam and Al Assad were using chemical agents against their own people. There is no good solution.
I would agree that short of atrocities such as genocide, we should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. The problem here is that monsters like Saddam and Al Assad were using chemical agents against their own people. There is no good solution.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - I maybe confused. but it is still very clear. Kurd fight to win, no other forces out there have that kind of wills, and they protected Yazidi and Christian historically. That is the "half" of the solution.
the other half of the solution, is strong man politic ... which we had overthrown them and chaos raised.
If not the Paris attack ... ISIS still don't feel anything from the air strike at all. Face it, Turkey wanted ISIS there, so does our administration.
the other half of the solution, is strong man politic ... which we had overthrown them and chaos raised.
If not the Paris attack ... ISIS still don't feel anything from the air strike at all. Face it, Turkey wanted ISIS there, so does our administration.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The idea of a righteous Islamic State (IS) rising up to fight Western supported dictators who murder their own people, is extremely powerful. Were it not for our bombing they might already control the whole of Syria and Iraq. Have you forgotten how rapidly they grew before we started the bombing campaign? I don't see them making any progress theses days despite the fact that hundreds of foreigners continue to pour into Syria to support Daesh.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - We slow Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) down? I guess if you think that is right thing to do. the plan is to make sure they remain there to weaken Asaad. That is why we didn't destroy them, we just slow them down. It is a wrong to arm them at first and it is wrong again to keep them "around" because they are fighting Assad, and you said that is the right move? It is still wrong move all the way from the start.
They are never a threat when a strong man is in place. We take the strong man out. Then now we suffer. but this time even worse ... we are trying to use them to take the strongman out by "feeding" them "carefully" so that they don't get too strong??? what is wrong with us??
They are never a threat when a strong man is in place. We take the strong man out. Then now we suffer. but this time even worse ... we are trying to use them to take the strongman out by "feeding" them "carefully" so that they don't get too strong??? what is wrong with us??
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Are you saying that the whitehouse wants to do something but the GOP is stonewalling? How can that be when the whitehouse isn't committed to it anyway while asking other countries to step up. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/11/23/white-house-asks-allies-step-campaign-against-isis/A7P2oMHV5J6PFoWWCBAI4M/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/11/23/white-house-asks-allies-step-campaign-against-isis/A7P2oMHV5J6PFoWWCBAI4M/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=
White House asks allies to step up in campaign against ISIS - The Boston Globe
The White House urged allies on Monday to do more in the campaign against the Islamic State, while President Obama faced pressure to show the US-led coalition will intensify its own efforts.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller - But the President controls the military, its in his job description and he has failed to order any substantial attacks against ISIL or even ask Congress to vote on anything related to them. Stop with all of the biased hatred you have towards the GOP and do some simple research, Sir.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
The president deploys and commands the Armed Forces the Congress provides. Congress - clearly - under the intent of the Framers, holds the War Power.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
MSgt (Join to see) - Obama has done a lot that is not really obvious or newsworthy. As Gen. Dunford testified the other day, ISIS is tactically contained, but not strategically contained. They have adapted, now we must also adapt.
Gen. Dunford also said that the right parts of the strategy are in place.
Walt
Gen. Dunford also said that the right parts of the strategy are in place.
Walt
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller - That means that they are no longer capable of mounting any significant attack in Syria and Iraq only. That is no longer their goal and it took five years for us as a super power to accomplish that. Maybe if we had not considered them JV it could have been done quicker.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
It would be tough for Congress or any Government to declare war on a non-entity. ISIS/ISIL is not a country, they do not own a country (against their own beliefs obviously) and therefore it goes against an official declaration of war. I do think that we need a better strategy to follow in regards to ISIS/ISIL but declaring war should not be on the table.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII. And since Da'esh isn't a legitimate state, I don't think we'll see a change in congressional behavior now. Besides, custom and president have granted the president powers to use the military that didn't exist in the 40s.
(0)
(0)
LTC Richard Cassem
That is just a way to justify action taken. It isn't required and doesn't constitute a declaration of war. If a president has the support of Congress, he will justify his actions through the AUMF. It is an event that occurs after the fact that lends credence to his course of action.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I cannot understand a veteran wanting to go to war, especially if he have been there. It is best to negotiate first, then after all fails, consider other avenues. I have served in many MOSs, and do not want to back to war in any of them, but will support my country when called.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google