Vote to repeal 2002 Iraq war authorization coming up


 

 

GOP Hawks Warn against Repealing Iraq War Resolution ahead of Vote | National Review

So goes the headline:

In a little-noticed development on Friday, a House panel scheduled a vote to repeal the Congressional resolution that authorized the Iraq war.

National Review has learned that the House Foreign Affairs Committee will vote next Thursday on a measure to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This resolution to eliminate the Iraq War AUMF is expected to pass, likely with the support of all of the panel’s Democrats and Representative Peter Meijer (R., Mich.).

Repealing the 2002 AUMF and the 2001 AUMF that authorized force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks has gained widespread popularity in both parties, as a war-weary public and top politicians have called for an end to the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But ahead of the vote on repealing the 2002 measure, some Republicans say they aren’t convinced, warning of ongoing threats from Iran, which backs proxies and operates in Iraq.

 

Flashback:  Here is what happened when it was feared that Trump was causing a “premature withdrawal” from Afghanistan:

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell warned against a potentially “humiliating” withdrawal that threatens to undo Trump’s “tremendous” work in the region. The GOP leader said a “premature exit” would be reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975. Leaving Afghanistan now “would be broadcast around the world as a symbol of U.S. defeat and humiliation and a victory for Islamic extremism,” McConnell said.

 

 

Our man Mustang responds to the upcoming vote on the war resolution:.

The problem with open ended congressional authorizations are several.  The power to declare war is constitutionally within the purview of the Congress; we seem not to do “declarations of war” anymore – and the reason, I suppose, is to prevent “war” affecting the way citizens behave.  A declaration of war doesn’t just put our troops in a war situation, it places the entire nation in a war situation, and could even result in government imposed rationing – of petroleum products, for example.  And once “war” affects the people in a negative way, they become unhappy voters, which is a seat-threatening situation for presidents and members of congress.

I think the AUMF should expire.  We’ve been in the sandbox for far too long and beyond the horrendous expenditures, in terms of money, material, and human lives, have achieved next to nothing.  In fact, going to Iraq made Iran the regional king pin – which if nothing else, tells us what a bunch of nitwits we have running the show inside the beltway.

I’m a professional officer.  I have no objection to whacking the bad guys.  The problem is that the nitwits send us out to face dangerous enemies in pursuit of poorly contrived objectives.  No one tells us what our national interests were/are in Afghanistan or Iraq.  I suspect that’s because there are no national interests, beyond whacking Saddam Hussein, who tried to have Bush the Elder assassinated.  The US military shouldn’t be carrying out personal vendettas.

Still, a president has the authority to conduct limited military operations without a declaration of war – for up to sixty days before having to obtain congressional authority (in reality, a spending authorization).  I’m fine with that, but if congress does “authorize” operations beyond sixty days, there should be a specified “end date” and a specific, clearly defined “national interest.”  In both instances, war planners know what they are trying to accomplish, why, and they know that it has to be accomplished within a specific time frame. 

And if I could have my way, not only would the president have a specified end date to non-declared wars/conflicts, but he would also have to commit to asking congress for a formal declaration of war if the time frame was inadequate to achieving the national interests/objectives.  That way, it wouldn’t only be the troops who go to war while the rest of the country goes to the mall – it would be a national effort to win.

War is a terrible event.  We should not be involved in them unless every other possible effort has failed.  War is a “failure in diplomacy” … and there are times when diplomacy must fail (mostly on account of the fact that the US has the world’s worst-diplomats).  When that happens, the US should, as a nation, with clearly defined national objectives, go to war; the US should then be committed to beating the living crap out of everyone on the other side (men, women, children, their armies, their leaders, their infrastructure, their economy) and do that in the most conspicuous way possible.  Two clearly discernible results will present themselves: we defeat a nationally declared enemy, and we send an important message to all others – do not mess with the USA.  Fewer major wars is better that dozens of smaller ones.

I will conclude by observing that none of this matters when the purpose of the US military is social engineering.  Not sure a “Tranny Brigade” would accomplish much that make the enemy fall down laughing.  The other day, the SecDef (Austin) publicly announced to North Korea that we could go to war with them “tonight.”  I understand General Austin (who could be a moron) caused much levity in the North Korean Officer’s Club.

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

13 Responses to “Vote to repeal 2002 Iraq war authorization coming up”

  1. Humberto Cotty Says:

    Great blog post.💥 🤑 2021-06-21 03h 14min

    Like

  2. Steve Dennis Says:

    They really cannot keep their stories straight any more! The whole time Bush was President weren’t they claiming they did not give him the authority to go to war in Iraq. Weren’t they saying he acted unilaterally?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. peter3nj Says:

    The Harris Biden Axis has broadcast around the world the defeat and humiliation of a once vibrant republic and a victory for bad actors everywhere as well as fake phony frauds the likes of McConnell et al.
    (recognize the borrowed, not plagiarized phrases)

    P.S.- As always, thanks Mustang for once again hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. nrringlee Says:

    Every public policy must have a Sunset Clause, and end date and a specific requirement to objectively report the results of public policy decisions to the Congress and directly to the People. That applies as much to transgendered peanut plant grafting subsidies in Georgia as it does to any authorization to go to war. Every ‘program’ must have an end date and every ‘program’ must have an objective review. Do this and you smash the crux of progressive public policy. That crux is perpetual bureaucracy unencumbered by reason dictating every aspect of life in America (and in the field of view of your Norton bomb sight)

    Liked by 4 people

  5. markone1blog Says:

    You know, it’s weird. While we are not posting on the same topic today, we are pretty much posting on the same subject (yours, Bunker, is on how politicians lie to keep us in war — mine is titled “Truth is lies and lies are the truth in Joe Biden’s America.”). Go figure.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. markone1blog Says:

    What? Do you mean to say our politicians send soldiers into harm’s way without the clearest of objectives other than “get my sorry @$$ re-elected?”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      There were nineteen hijackers involved in the attacks on 9/11. Fifteen of these were from Saudi Arabia; two came from the UAE, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. So which countries did Bush the Younger decide to attack and invade? Afghanistan and Iraq. Why Afghanistan? Because that was where Al Qaeda had a “training base.” Why Iraq? Because Bush the Younger had a hard-on for Saddam Hussein. Within just a short period of time, all aircraft in the US were grounded. There were no flights anywhere inside the Continental US, and all flights arriving from foreign destinations were diverted to alternate landing sites.

      Well, all aircraft were grounded except one.

      The wealthy family of Osama bin Laden was allowed to fly out of the US to Saudi Arabia. So, several questions should result from these facts — questions that have never been satisfactorily answered … because none of the answers are politically viable.

      But wait — there are even more questions that suggest disturbing answers. Which radical Moslem country fomented the civil war in Syria? If your answer is Saudi Arabia, then you get an apple. Twenty years later, US servicemen are still dying or are at risk of hostile injury in Afghanistan. Why? To what end? Can anyone blame the average Afghani for fighting against us for their own country?

      Why are there any US troops or airmen operating in Syria? What hostile actions did Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ever take against the United States? And given the damage done to the entire Middle East by the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, why aren’t we dropping MOABs on every city on the Arabian Peninsula — including Mecca during Ramadan?

      No, rather than responding directly to the guilty bastards, we decided to send our young men to die in places that had nothing to do with the 9/11 assault. I guess it’s because we had too many healthy young people with bright futures ahead of them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        A son of Osama bin Laden said about 20 members of his family stranded in Iran are seeking sanctuary in a third country and that the U.S. may agree to accept them.

        Omar bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader’s fourth son, said in an interview with Al Arabiya television that Iran is refusing to allow his relatives to go to Saudi Arabia. Shiite Muslim- dominated Iran is a regional rival of Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, is hostile to Iran.
        “The Americans offered to help them out of Iran and even hinted at the possibility of receiving them in the U.S.,” he said in the interview, which was aired late yesterday and posted on the Dubai-based channel’s website. Omar bin Laden said none of his brothers has been accused of terrorism by the U.S. or any other country.

        Bin Laden Son Says U.S. May Agree to Let in Family

        Keeps getting better Mustang…

        Liked by 3 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: