Posted on Aug 26, 2015
Will Congress ever authorize U.S. military action against the Islamic State?
10.3K
74
61
4
4
0
We hear a lot of discussion about executive power and the military these days. The Internet is flooded with discussions of whether President Obama has the authority to send troops to Texas. The true constitutional crisis, however, is not Jade Helm, it’s Inherent Resolve, the so-called war against the Islamic State.
Almost exactly two years ago, President Obama proclaimed that the national interest required intervention in Syria to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons against its own people—not only a war crime, but, Obama said, a “red line” for the international community. Shortly afterwards, though, Obama unexpectedly announced that he would first seek congressional authorization. “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said on August 31, 2013. “Having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy … And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”
It was an unusual moment in American history: a president pausing to acknowledge that Congress’s war power was not an obstacle but an asset to a democratic system. Obama knew very well that, if he sought an authorization vote, he might lose. As it happened, the need for a vote never arose; Russian diplomatic intervention produced a genuine settlement to the chemical-weapons problem.
But flash forward to today:
For the past year, the United States has been in a much wider conflict with the non-state that calls itself the Islamic State. This military operation dwarfs the proposed Syria bombing. We have put together a rickety, complex, and partly secret “alliance” with a number of seemingly incompatible players in the region, ranging from Britain and France to Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and, under cover, at least the tacit cooperation of Iran and even Syria. We are training “moderate” Syrian rebels and our troops are advising and training the Iraqi Army. The operation has spread from Iraq to Syria and perhaps now Egypt. It is taking place amidst—and arguably exacerbating—a refugee crisis that is engulfing not just the region but the Western European countries.
A spreading conflict, regional instability, pressure for deepening involvement ... and no congressional authorization for military action.
Read more at ...
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/08/one-year-war-congress-wont-declare/119369/?oref=site-defenseone-flyin-sailthru
================================================
Almost exactly two years ago, President Obama proclaimed that the national interest required intervention in Syria to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons against its own people—not only a war crime, but, Obama said, a “red line” for the international community. Shortly afterwards, though, Obama unexpectedly announced that he would first seek congressional authorization. “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said on August 31, 2013. “Having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy … And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”
It was an unusual moment in American history: a president pausing to acknowledge that Congress’s war power was not an obstacle but an asset to a democratic system. Obama knew very well that, if he sought an authorization vote, he might lose. As it happened, the need for a vote never arose; Russian diplomatic intervention produced a genuine settlement to the chemical-weapons problem.
But flash forward to today:
For the past year, the United States has been in a much wider conflict with the non-state that calls itself the Islamic State. This military operation dwarfs the proposed Syria bombing. We have put together a rickety, complex, and partly secret “alliance” with a number of seemingly incompatible players in the region, ranging from Britain and France to Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and, under cover, at least the tacit cooperation of Iran and even Syria. We are training “moderate” Syrian rebels and our troops are advising and training the Iraqi Army. The operation has spread from Iraq to Syria and perhaps now Egypt. It is taking place amidst—and arguably exacerbating—a refugee crisis that is engulfing not just the region but the Western European countries.
A spreading conflict, regional instability, pressure for deepening involvement ... and no congressional authorization for military action.
Read more at ...
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/08/one-year-war-congress-wont-declare/119369/?oref=site-defenseone-flyin-sailthru
================================================
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS)
ISIS
Warfare
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 25
5
5
0
When President Bush took us back into Iraq to finish what his father started was the beginning of a war that is not against a country but a belief system. We beat Saddam quickly and then seen him hung for his crimes. We could of packed up and left, but stuck around to teach Iraq how to stand up a democracy, and how to fight. Finishing all of that was still not enough. The war against Iraq was long over, and now we were fighting a war IN Iraq. Against a country NO, but against a belief system you bet.
My brother once asked me what I thought of the United States returning to Iraq. I simply told him that we would most likely make more enemies than friends globally, and that we would never be able to fully disengage from the region. I told him that I thought we would be fighting a belief system for the remainder of my days on this planet. I still stand by this thinking. We are fighting a war against HATE and true EVIL, and I’m not sure it’s a fire that can ever be put out.
The Crusades were great reading, and after much deliberation I came to the personal conclusion that the Crusades were more about stopping an attempted “caliphate” than anything else. The current Islamic State has stated that they are attempting and will someday have a caliphate, and so the great crusades have returned. History once again repeats itself.
Should congress authorize a full head on War with ISIS? I would have said YES before our current administration weakened our military to some of its lowest numbers in history. We need a real commander and chief to rebuild our military and we need it yesterday. World War III is already taking shape. “I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh.” Ezekiel 32:6
My brother once asked me what I thought of the United States returning to Iraq. I simply told him that we would most likely make more enemies than friends globally, and that we would never be able to fully disengage from the region. I told him that I thought we would be fighting a belief system for the remainder of my days on this planet. I still stand by this thinking. We are fighting a war against HATE and true EVIL, and I’m not sure it’s a fire that can ever be put out.
The Crusades were great reading, and after much deliberation I came to the personal conclusion that the Crusades were more about stopping an attempted “caliphate” than anything else. The current Islamic State has stated that they are attempting and will someday have a caliphate, and so the great crusades have returned. History once again repeats itself.
Should congress authorize a full head on War with ISIS? I would have said YES before our current administration weakened our military to some of its lowest numbers in history. We need a real commander and chief to rebuild our military and we need it yesterday. World War III is already taking shape. “I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh.” Ezekiel 32:6
(5)
(0)
MSgt Steve Miller
GySgt Michael Lange: You are entitled to your opinion, and for the record I never used the word "Botch", nor did imply that a "botch" was the end result. I think we all know the difference in the two conflicts. My comments are directed post 9/11, or the second conflict. Most of my other readers seemed to figure that out and actually liked my post. Sorry for your struggle!
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
The US created ISIS by destabilizing and destroying Iraq. In my opinion, our country has an absolute moral obligation to go in with FULL FORCE and destroy ISIS before WW 3 happens. If ISIS is able to move into Europe with any amount of strength, it WILL be WW 3. Bombing campaigns and secret alliances are useless.
I know our country is war weary, and we are strapped for cash, and the military has been decimated by poor fiscal conditions. Nonetheless, if we don't act now, we will need to later, only it will be worse.
People are up in arms about the Iran treaty. I consider ISIS a much bigger threat, given the amount of the Middle East and Africa they have under their thumbs already. We need to crush this group NOW!
I know our country is war weary, and we are strapped for cash, and the military has been decimated by poor fiscal conditions. Nonetheless, if we don't act now, we will need to later, only it will be worse.
People are up in arms about the Iran treaty. I consider ISIS a much bigger threat, given the amount of the Middle East and Africa they have under their thumbs already. We need to crush this group NOW!
MCPO Roger Collins
Not that I see so far, the strategy is now to talk more and let the Russians take care of it. That will change too.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
The real risk now that Russia is bombing Syria is that it will truly blow up into WW 3, especially with Iran getting bombed accidentally. ISIS is getting bigger, and at some point, Israel will get involved in the mess. Then it will really blow up, so to speak...
PV2 Scott Goodpasture
Too late Putin beat us to it while Obama was busy trying justify no gun zones by blaming the NRA and law abiding citizens for a whack job going postal on christian students in Oregon.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Not until the next administration takes power. Congress is willing but the POTUS is not.
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; I can quite understand why the Republicans want to make a big deal out of their internecine baby-eating contest when (roughly) 81% of the American public DISAPPROVES of the Republican's Congressional behavior/agenda.
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
Pew Research Center. May 12-18, 2015. N=2,002 adults nationwide. Margin of error 2.5. RV = registered voters.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Ted Mc, sir, clearly in order to get to an 81% disapproval level it is necessary to include a lot of Republicans in the list. The Dems are not far behind with a 66% disapproval rating.
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
Most conservatives disapprove of the job the GOP establishment leadership is doing, and I have been disgusted with the spineless wimps for several years now. The lesser of the evils is evil none-the-less.
The GOP needs to be replaced with a Party that has conservative principles and lives up to them.
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
Most conservatives disapprove of the job the GOP establishment leadership is doing, and I have been disgusted with the spineless wimps for several years now. The lesser of the evils is evil none-the-less.
The GOP needs to be replaced with a Party that has conservative principles and lives up to them.
Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. June 6-9, 2014. N=1,005 adults nationwide. Margin of error 3.1.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; I think that what is keeping the Republican's hopes so high is their ingrained belief that most of their "supporters" would vote for Josef Stalin PROVIDED that the ballot said "STALIN, Josef (Joe) [R]".
Now I'm not saying that the RNC is acting on the assumption that their "supporters" are INCAPABLE of thinking - that would be going too far. On the other hand the assumption that their "supporters" SIMPLY WON'T think isn't completely outside the realm of probability.
The DNC seems to work on much the same premises.
When you say "The GOP needs to be replaced with a Party that has conservative principles and lives up to them." I can't disagree with you - ESPECIALLY the "... and lives up to them." bit. We might disagree on exactly what "conservative principles" actually are since I don't believe that "narrow-minded, hidebound, reactionary and nonprogressive revanchism" is quite the same as "conservative" the way that some people appear to.
Now I'm not saying that the RNC is acting on the assumption that their "supporters" are INCAPABLE of thinking - that would be going too far. On the other hand the assumption that their "supporters" SIMPLY WON'T think isn't completely outside the realm of probability.
The DNC seems to work on much the same premises.
When you say "The GOP needs to be replaced with a Party that has conservative principles and lives up to them." I can't disagree with you - ESPECIALLY the "... and lives up to them." bit. We might disagree on exactly what "conservative principles" actually are since I don't believe that "narrow-minded, hidebound, reactionary and nonprogressive revanchism" is quite the same as "conservative" the way that some people appear to.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Ted Mc, sir, I agree with your assessment of the Dems voting strictly based upon Party, but we disagree that the GOP does so as well. I think that the GOP hopes are so high because they have a deep bench to choose from this time and the Dems have been caught flat-footed with Hillary's campaign cratering and no solid replacement in sight.
And clearly we do disagree on the nature of conservatism.
And clearly we do disagree on the nature of conservatism.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google