It has been reported that the president is going to request that the authority limit the use of ground troops. However it would not affect the troops already engaged in Syria and Iraq to the tune of many thousands. This new authority will acknowledge that more advisors will be sent. Most importantly it will appear to have given moral sanction to the wars that have already been going for years.
Interestingly it actually expands the ability of the president to wage war although the president publicly indicates he would like to restrain it. The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.
The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.
We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.
Even if our policies led to no boots on the ground, the unintended consequences of blowback and the enemy obtaining more American weapons will continue. The CIA has said that 20,000 foreigners are on their way to Iraq and Syria to join the ISIS. Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams. Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.
It’s my opinion that giving additional authority to wage war in the Middle East is a serious mistake. Instead, the authority granted in 2001 and 2002 should be repealed. A simple and correct solution would be for our elected officials to follow the rules regarding war laid out in the Constitution.
Ironically there may well be some Republicans in the Congress who will oppose this resolution because of their desire to have an all-out war and not be limited in any way by the number of troops that we should be sending to this region. The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it’s in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.
There is no doubt that ISIS represents a monstrous problem – a problem that should be dealt with by the many millions of Arabs and Muslims in the region. ISIS cannot exist without the support of the people in the region. Currently it is estimated that their numbers are in a range of 30,000. This is not the responsibility of American soldiers or the American taxpayer.
Declaring war against ISIS is like declaring war against communism or fascism. The enemy cannot be identified or limited. Both are ideological and armies are incapable of stopping an idea, good or bad, that the people do not resist or that they support. Besides, the strength of ISIS has been enhanced by our efforts. Our involvement in the Middle East is being used as a very successful recruitment tool to expand the number of radical jihadists willing to fight and die for what they believe in. And sadly our efforts have further backfired with the weapons that we send ending up in the hands of our enemies and used against our allies and Americans caught in the crossfire. Good intentions are not enough. Wise policies and common sense would go a long way toward working for peace and prosperity instead of escalating violence and motivating the enemy.
The New York Times Admits – Despite Going to Congress, Obama is Still Defending Unlimited War Powers
Michael Krieger
President Obama is going before Congress to request authorization for the limited use of military force in a battle of up to three years against the Islamic State. On the surface, this looks like a welcome recognition of Congress’s ultimate authority in matters of war and peace. But unless the resolution put forward by the White House is amended, it will have the opposite effect. Congressional support will amount to the ringing endorsement of unlimited presidential war making.
People who take the Constitution seriously, on both sides of the aisle, must not allow this to happen. They should insist on the repeal of the 2001 resolution and an explicit repudiation of the “associated forces” doctrine. Only then will the next president be required to return to Congress to gain its consent if he or she wants to continue the war past the 2018 deadline. If it fails to take a stand now, its sham debate will generate another destructive cycle of distrust that will further alienate Americans from their representatives.
– From Bruce Ackerman’s New York Times op-ed: Congress, Don’t Be Fooled; Obama Still Believes in Unlimited War
First off, I want to thank Bruce Ackerman for writing this op-ed in the New York Times yesterday. Although the Obama administration already claims unlimited war powers in practice, this claim is illegitimate, which is why he is going to Congress to solidify his ability to declare worldwide warfare against a terrorist group that is a direct result of U.S. foreign policy: ISIS.
I previously covered the shadiness with which Obama was justifying his clearly illegal and unconstitutional war against ISIS last year in the post: Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar. Here’s an excerpt:
While critics have been questioning the legality of U.S. military campaigns consistently since the end of World War II, one trend has become increasingly clear. With each new President and each new war, we have witnessed those who hold the office act more and more like dictators, and less and less like constitutional executives.
To fight ISIS, Barack Obama is using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allowed for military action against “nations and organizations that planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks.” ISIS wasn’t even a twinkle in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s eye back in September 2001. Even more stunning, ISIS and al-Qaeda more closely resemble enemies than allies. Yet this doesn’t seem to affect Nobel Peace Prize winning Barry Obama’s war planning. You can’t get much more insane and Orwellian than that.
As Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, and author of “The Decline and Fall of the American Republic” notes, Obama is now looking for political cover from Congress. However, he may actually get a lot more than that. He may help pave the way for future Dictators in Chief to wage worldwide endless war against pretty much any enemy that can be conjured up.
Don’t take it from me though. From the New York Times:
PRESIDENT OBAMA is going before Congress to request authorization for the limited use of military force in a battle of up to three years against the Islamic State. On the surface, this looks like a welcome recognition of Congress’s ultimate authority in matters of war and peace. But unless the resolution put forward by the White House is amended, it will have the opposite effect. Congressional support will amount to the ringing endorsement of unlimited presidential war making.
The problem is the double-barreled position advanced by Mr. Obama. He asserts that he already has sufficient congressional authority for an open-ended war with the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS. He bases this claim on an expansive reading of Congress’s 2001 resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to make war on Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. As long as this resolution remains on the books, Mr. Obama claims, he can continue fighting, even if Congress never agrees to a new resolution.
For political cover, Mr. Obama now wants Congress to grant him new authority, and yet he opposes repeal of the 2001 authorization in exchange for that new authority. Although he has pledged to refine, and ultimately repeal, the old resolution, he has failed to follow through on similar commitments in the past. If Congress contents itself with another empty promise, it is highly likely that the old act will remain on the books when the new resolution runs out in 2018. This will allow Mr. Obama’s successor to reassert his current position and continue fighting on the basis of the authority he inherited from the Bush era.
In short, “Heads I win; tails you lose.” Whether or not Congress passes Obama’s new resolution, the next president can continue making war indefinitely.
This is especially true since Mr. Obama’s current proposal endorses the very formula his lawyers used to transform the 2001 resolution into an open-ended grant of power. To see this point, it’s important to recall a bit of history. When Mr. Bush went to Congress in 2001, he initially demanded authority to make war “to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.” But Congress refused to grant him this carte blanche, restricting his war-making authority to groups and countries “associated” with the 9/11 attacks.
Nevertheless, both the Bush and Obama administrations have used the wiggle word “associated” to transform the resolution’s limited grant into the wide-ranging war-making authority that Congress explicitly denied the president in 2001. White House lawyers have accomplished this power grab by claiming that a host of groups are somehow “associated” with Al Qaeda by virtue of increasingly distant connections to the surviving remnants of Osama bin Laden’s organization.
People who take the Constitution seriously, on both sides of the aisle, must not allow this to happen. They should insist on the repeal of the 2001 resolution and an explicit repudiation of the “associated forces” doctrine. Only then will the next president be required to return to Congress to gain its consent if he or she wants to continue the war past the 2018 deadline. If it fails to take a stand now, its sham debate will generate another destructive cycle of distrust that will further alienate Americans from their representatives.
This is very serious stuff. Please pass this post along to everyone you know.
Maybe it’s true, after all?
“And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”
“And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.”
“And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.”
“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.”
[img?w=434[/img]
[img[/img]
[img[/img]
[img[/img]
Poor Obama he never gets it right!!
There are several huge oil deposits in that area. Behind all of this is the battle for resources.Especially the oil rights in the Caspian Sea.
ISIS Breaches US Military Advisers’ Iraqi Base
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/13/2015 13:39 -0500
Just as we warned hours ago, it appears the capture of a nearby town was not the endgame and, as The Wall Street Journal reports, A group of Islamic State militants penetrated an Iraqi air base where U.S. military advisers are training Iraqi forces, the first time attackers have gotten beyond the outer perimeter of an Iraqi base being used by American trainers.
As The Wall Street Journal reports,
U.S. officials said eight Islamic State militants struck a small building at the edge of the huge al-Asad Air Base before being repelled by Iraqi forces. All eight were killed.
Military officials said American and other coalition trainers were “several kilometers” away from the attack and under no direct threat. There are 400 U.S. Marines and other service members at the base.
An Iraqi security-force official said that at the time of the attack, Islamic State militants also were firing rockets and mortars at the base.
The attacks on the base came after Islamic State fighters moved against the nearby Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi earlier on Thursday. The militants, according to an Iraqi official, took control of a number of government buildings after the local police fled following a pair of suicide bombings. It isn’t clear how much of the town the militants control.
…
Friday’s assault was the first in which Islamic State forces sent an armed team to attack the base. U.S. military officials said Iraqi forces repelled the attack, which occurred at 7:20 a.m. Iraqi time on Friday, killing all eight attackers. The U.S. provided overhead surveillance for the Iraqi force.
“Eight guys going after al-Asad—that is a suicide mission. They have no chance,” said a U.S. defense official. “But they have an interest in al-Asad and I would venture to say they will have an interest anywhere we have people.”
The defense official said Islamic State fighters have been targeting the base because of the propaganda value of the attacks. Even ineffective attacks in the vicinity of the base have generated widespread newspaper and television headlines.
* * *
We leave it to Ron Paul to conlude on where this goes next…
Declaring war against ISIS is like declaring war against communism or fascism. The enemy cannot be identified or limited. Both are ideological and armies are incapable of stopping an idea, good or bad, that the people do not resist or that they support. Besides, the strength of ISIS has been enhanced by our efforts.
Our involvement in the Middle East is being used as a very successful recruitment tool to expand the number of radical jihadists willing to fight and die for what they believe in. And sadly our efforts have further backfired with the weapons that we send ending up in the hands of our enemies and used against our allies and Americans caught in the crossfire.
Good intentions are not enough. Wise policies and common sense would go a long way toward working for peace and prosperity instead of escalating violence and motivating the enemy.
Isn’t “ISIS” the bunch we were backing to overthrow Assad in Syria who then turned around and bit us in the ass? How ’bout a NEW strategy….”less is more”. Let the sandbox players fight it out amongst themselves. The U.S. hasn’t a clue about these people and their culture, maybe it’s time we back off and let them find their own solutions.
Is Obama is is.Who is really asking for blank check?Who does Obama bow lowest too hold key to petro dollar?Saudi
Once more into the breach….another sacrifice prepared for the alter of Mammon.
Fort Carson brigade headed to Kuwait for possible showdown with ISIS
As Congress mulls America’s war with the Islamic State terror group, more than 4,000 Fort Carson soldiers prepared Thursday to leave for Kuwait, where they will take over as America’s largest ground force in the troubled region.
http://gazette.com/fort-carson-brigade-headed-to-kuwait-for-possible-showdown-with-isis/article
/1546240#AG1FmAYWzx2LP2EQ.99
[img?w=1024[/img]