Why in the world would the Republican led Congress authorize this President to wage war on ISIS? This would give cover to a President with no clear foreign policy plan except to look weak in the eyes of our allies and enemies. The President is right about one thing though: ISIS is not going to overthrow the US. But what it will do is show the fecklessness of this administration. Obama is channeling Richard Nixon (paranoia) and Jimmy Carter (foreign policy incoherence & incompetence). The guy talks and talks and talks and can't carry out a comprehensive plan except to blame everyone else except himself. In his own mind he is a genius and we are all idiots. The guy never says any lesson he might have learned because he doesn't learn any. And I voted for this guy. What a serious mistake that was. Obama is in power because of Bush. Let's face it. Without Bush Obama doesn't exist. And Trump doesn't exist without Obama. Obama is giving us Trump.
9
This Congress makes just one war commitment, regardless of need or merit, regardless of American interests or cost. It's against the president and his supporters.
28
Congress is so caught up in its own shadow that it fails to see or understand what it takes to develop a significant and meaningful strategy in engaging ISIS. Could it be that they are willing to bypass the obvious in favor of their own hidden agenda which they fail to share with the American People?
6
I suppose it isn't so easy to find people who can say "Feels good!" when asked what it is like to launch a war.
3
There are two major industries fed with American tax dollars. One is the medical care industry and the other is the perpetual war industry. The latter is fought and killed with the poor population. The wealthy seek and win tax breaks from both.
Only in America does propaganda about a democratic government thrive so successfully. At the least, institute the draft.
Only in America does propaganda about a democratic government thrive so successfully. At the least, institute the draft.
20
It is most perplexing to behold this spectacle of a persistently intransigent congress well into Obama's second term when after four years of battering by Fox News and Limbaugh and the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell, he was re-elected with a higher percentage of the popular vote than John Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 or George Bush in 2000 or 2004.
The grave tragedy here is that years of concerted gerrymandering has ensured a prevailing GOP-dominated congress precipitating a deliberate paralysis of government, where a rump is holding the whole place to ransom. It doesn't really jibe with the notion of the US as a global leader with a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because their seats are safe. This is an insidious form of plutocracy. It's a sinister development where elements of a ruinous anarchy are now emerging.
The grave tragedy here is that years of concerted gerrymandering has ensured a prevailing GOP-dominated congress precipitating a deliberate paralysis of government, where a rump is holding the whole place to ransom. It doesn't really jibe with the notion of the US as a global leader with a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because their seats are safe. This is an insidious form of plutocracy. It's a sinister development where elements of a ruinous anarchy are now emerging.
34
Fourteen+ years since 9/11, America still vividly recalls the images of the Twin Towers crashing down. The 3,000 lives lost that day shook the world and galvanized our great nation. We stood as one, apolitical, wanting only to care for our wounded and bereave those lost.
Be it George Bush or Al Gore in the White House at the time, would the events and/or public response been any different?
Unfortunately, politics had to get involved... Fast-forward to where we are:
Terrorism in the Middle East is at the forefront of discussion in AMERICAN politics. What's wrong with this scenario?
ISIS is nothing more than a band of religious fanatics that LIVE TO DIE and take as many with them as possible. They're well organized, financed and recruit as well as the NCAA. YET, if Mr. Obama would agree to deploy a battalion of ground troops in Raqqa, Ramadi and several other ISIS strategic strongholds, this IS likely to be over in a short order.
Be it George Bush or Al Gore in the White House at the time, would the events and/or public response been any different?
Unfortunately, politics had to get involved... Fast-forward to where we are:
Terrorism in the Middle East is at the forefront of discussion in AMERICAN politics. What's wrong with this scenario?
ISIS is nothing more than a band of religious fanatics that LIVE TO DIE and take as many with them as possible. They're well organized, financed and recruit as well as the NCAA. YET, if Mr. Obama would agree to deploy a battalion of ground troops in Raqqa, Ramadi and several other ISIS strategic strongholds, this IS likely to be over in a short order.
2
Lincoln established the Executive's power to wage war to defend the country, not to declare the war, but to wage the war. Congress' War Powers Act may be unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers.
Congress may withdraw funding if an armed conflict is not supported by the people. But Congress is not the Commander-In-Chief, although some committee chairmen seek to take on that role. The President commands, as the Constitution makes clear. Congress does not issue orders to the field.
There is no provision for seeking authorization from Congress for armed conflict. If Congress seeks such a provision it may attempt to begin the process to amend the Constitution.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the President may defend the country against ISIS wherever ISIS is found.
Congress may withdraw funding if an armed conflict is not supported by the people. But Congress is not the Commander-In-Chief, although some committee chairmen seek to take on that role. The President commands, as the Constitution makes clear. Congress does not issue orders to the field.
There is no provision for seeking authorization from Congress for armed conflict. If Congress seeks such a provision it may attempt to begin the process to amend the Constitution.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, the President may defend the country against ISIS wherever ISIS is found.
2
Obama set a bad precedent by attacking Hillary Clinton for her yay vote to authorize use of military force in Iraq, and now, Rubio is finding himself in a precarious position what with his gang-of-8 affiliation to come up with immigration reform. As long as the current trend of freshman senators wanting to become president continues, nobody wants to participate in a vote to authorize war (so that they can be caricatured as warmongers) or against wars (so that they can be condemned as unpatriotic and weak on national security).
When the next president is a Republican, Dems should shut up about illegal wars waged by Republicans when their own leaders engaged in such illegal wars during their tenure.
Shameful dereliction of duty without consequences.
When the next president is a Republican, Dems should shut up about illegal wars waged by Republicans when their own leaders engaged in such illegal wars during their tenure.
Shameful dereliction of duty without consequences.
4
"You did it first!" leaves no doubt how juvenile US politics has gotten since that senile double-dealing phony union president Reagan got boosted into the White House.
10
Relevant to many of the comments is "The Debate" episode of West Wing (Season 7). I doubt that most readers, especially younger ones, have ever seen a debate -- not just Presidential -- where governing "philosophies" are actually debated. It is rare enough in the political realm that we even get substantive policy debates, not just slogans and competing anecdotes or cherry-picked statistics. The West Wing debate episode does a better job than current reality at presenting underlying differences that actually exist among Americans of decency and compassion. I strongly recommend it, especially to millenials and to those with young children, who are likely to know nothing but the contemporary sad spectacle.
As to the article itself and Congress punting, when it comes to ISIS: Congress has abdicated its most important -- arguably sacred -- responsibility for well over a half century. Not since World War II has it had the integrity, the courage, the decency to stand up and be counted, as it sent other people's children off to get killed, not for the Korean War, not for the Viet Nam War, not for the Iraq War, not for Afghanistan, let alone the more minor engagements.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress is willing to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
As to the article itself and Congress punting, when it comes to ISIS: Congress has abdicated its most important -- arguably sacred -- responsibility for well over a half century. Not since World War II has it had the integrity, the courage, the decency to stand up and be counted, as it sent other people's children off to get killed, not for the Korean War, not for the Viet Nam War, not for the Iraq War, not for Afghanistan, let alone the more minor engagements.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress is willing to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
11
“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.” Gibbon
11
Yes, Congress has the constitutional authorization to declare war. But, the president / executive is the one who is empowered to run foreign policy, including asking Congress for extended war powers. This president refuses to admit that ISIS is committed to war with the non-believing West and USofA and he refuses to act appropriately in our defense. This president is hell bent on nation building in Syria with his insistence that Assad must go. ISIS is also fighting for this outcome. With this goal in common, this president has decided to go easy on ISIS. Because he is so all-knowing and jealous of the powers of his office, he vows to veto anything a Republican Congress may pass to him that attempts to restore the limits of his powers. To put all the blame on Congress for this impasse is to agree that The Barry is justified in his abuses of power.
2
Somehow, our Congressional cowardice will be blamed on our President, especially by those in our Senate who are seemingly running against him for President in 2016, which they are not. When Obama does not attack the way they momentarily think he should, they scream he has no strategy. When he explains his strategy they appear to be deaf.
The man they hate more than they love America has asked them for Congressional authority, yet they fail to even respond at all. They refuse to support or even to at least to say yea or nay to the expenditure of more blood and treasure. They and their leadership say it is too politically risky.
Since when is doing your job too politically risky?
This is the stuff of cowardice.
It is a sign of a political system no longer serving the American People.
It is a confirmation of serving somebody else besides the American People.
This obscene.
This Vietnam Vet wishes we had a required Congressional physical and mental health requirement no more rigorous than military physical and also required a basic training course of all in Congress who, once elected but before being sworn in, must take and be qualified in the basics of our Constitution and its one sentence Preamble about what the Congressional Mission is all about.
If we did, I suspect half these 4F mental giants would not be misrepresenting and misgoverning this once great nation.
The man they hate more than they love America has asked them for Congressional authority, yet they fail to even respond at all. They refuse to support or even to at least to say yea or nay to the expenditure of more blood and treasure. They and their leadership say it is too politically risky.
Since when is doing your job too politically risky?
This is the stuff of cowardice.
It is a sign of a political system no longer serving the American People.
It is a confirmation of serving somebody else besides the American People.
This obscene.
This Vietnam Vet wishes we had a required Congressional physical and mental health requirement no more rigorous than military physical and also required a basic training course of all in Congress who, once elected but before being sworn in, must take and be qualified in the basics of our Constitution and its one sentence Preamble about what the Congressional Mission is all about.
If we did, I suspect half these 4F mental giants would not be misrepresenting and misgoverning this once great nation.
19
Congress will not act nor govern. President Obama has taken on Congress's responsibility. If President Obama did not act in the face of the growing problem of ISIS and other matters, what then? At least there is someone at the helm of the ship of government, even if the crew has abandoned it.
10
It's the way Republicans do business. We've seen it in the healthcare debate we've seen it with the lack of an infrastructure/jobs bill and we continue to see it with regards to fighting ISIS. The Republicans tear Obama apart on any issue and never offer an alternative plan to deal with these important issues. The Republicans are very good for example at moving us backward by taking away voters rights and women's rights. I think they need to call in AAMCO and get their transmission checked. It appears to be stuck in reverse and while driving backwards they'll never be able to look forward.
15
There is nothing to prevent Congress, as provided for in the Constitution, to 'Declare War' on the Caliphate of Isil - which meets all the criteria of an independent country - guarded borders, a capital city, armed forces, and a hostile foreign policy which has as its stated objective, the expansion of its Caliphate's reach to the entire world, and the subjugation or killing of all non-Muslim peoples.
Then it would be up to the US Commander in Chief to lay out to Congress the war objectives, how much military force is needed - to be paid for by Congress
Then it would be up to the US Commander in Chief to lay out to Congress the war objectives, how much military force is needed - to be paid for by Congress
2
A Fearful Congress Sits Out the War Against ISIS - Lawmakers are abdicating one of their most important responsibilities, and emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers.
What exactly do you at the NYT expect Congress to do? If they do nothing they are abdicating their responsibility but if they "declare war" they are capitalistic hawks enriching the Military-Industrial Complex and are only doing it because of oil.
Declare war against whom, a group of "criminals" who are raping, murdering and plundering their way through the Middle East? That's wonderful until the first "innocent" victim of America's war-mongering is displayed on your front page, again. No Congress is doing the will of the people and that is nothing.
There next act should be to remove all US troops from the area and declare peace. Let those in the ME take care of their own problems without US interference. Then the left and the right in the US will have to find something else to argue about.
What exactly do you at the NYT expect Congress to do? If they do nothing they are abdicating their responsibility but if they "declare war" they are capitalistic hawks enriching the Military-Industrial Complex and are only doing it because of oil.
Declare war against whom, a group of "criminals" who are raping, murdering and plundering their way through the Middle East? That's wonderful until the first "innocent" victim of America's war-mongering is displayed on your front page, again. No Congress is doing the will of the people and that is nothing.
There next act should be to remove all US troops from the area and declare peace. Let those in the ME take care of their own problems without US interference. Then the left and the right in the US will have to find something else to argue about.
4
Fearful Congress is redundant.
2
warmongering.
3
The McConnell strategy of preventing Obama from being reelected in 2012 by thwarting every part of his domestic agenda metasticized, such that they cannot even authorize the protection of the us from Isis.
I say throw the lousy republicans out on their bums and then proceed to the outlawing of the Republican Party.
I say throw the lousy republicans out on their bums and then proceed to the outlawing of the Republican Party.
13
A simpler, and more concise way to say this: chicken hawks.
Certain members of Congress from both parties, as well as almost all of the Presidential candidates,are all to eager to talk about war from their safe and cozy confines, and don't hesitate send our troops into harm's way, but they should at least have to courage to be held accountable, which they shrink from. And it's ironic that the Republicans go so far as to call the President a dictator, while they refuse to do what they're supposed to do. The American people deserve better, but based on the evidence, we wont be getting it.
Certain members of Congress from both parties, as well as almost all of the Presidential candidates,are all to eager to talk about war from their safe and cozy confines, and don't hesitate send our troops into harm's way, but they should at least have to courage to be held accountable, which they shrink from. And it's ironic that the Republicans go so far as to call the President a dictator, while they refuse to do what they're supposed to do. The American people deserve better, but based on the evidence, we wont be getting it.
8
If I remember correctly The President asked the Congress for authorization in Syria several years ago, and they threatened to impeach him. However they are happy to fund the military to carry out his orders. What I find particularly nauseating about this is John McCain and others shooting off their mouths about Bowe Berdahl. If they don't have the courage to debate their own position, who are they to criticize. The quote from Mitch McConnell in the article is interesting. Maybe he wants Ted Cruz to have the power to carpet bomb and light up the sand. What a bunch of losers.
16
It appears the Republicans hatred of action and Obama trumps their preference for war and military action. Once again he emerges as the only adult in the room.
What a bunch of hypocrites!
What a bunch of hypocrites!
20
The Commander in Chief is AWOL. The leader of the free world has the obligation to conduct foreign policy, and actually lead.
2
re "The Commander in Chief is AWOL"
Bush took a 879 days off in his 8 yrs. Obama has racked up not even 20% of that. And lest we forget, when Katrina hit, Bush was in Phoenix celebrating John McCain's birthday. When Sandy hit, Obama was in the situation room meeting with FEMA.
Bush took a 879 days off in his 8 yrs. Obama has racked up not even 20% of that. And lest we forget, when Katrina hit, Bush was in Phoenix celebrating John McCain's birthday. When Sandy hit, Obama was in the situation room meeting with FEMA.
5
What would you like him to do that he's not already doing? Full scale invasion of Iraq, Syria, and Libya? Obama has clearly stated that ISIS is not a serious enough threat to the US to warrant such action. I agree.
7
In fact, that's exactly what he's been doing -- though some on both the left and right dislike that. The drone campaign, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Iran nuclear deal etc.
I am struck by the incoherence of many Republicans' positions on Obama. On the one hand they say he's weak and doesn't lead; then, they turn around and accuse him of being a dictator! It should be apparent to even the moderately dumb that these positions are mutually exclusive.
I am struck by the incoherence of many Republicans' positions on Obama. On the one hand they say he's weak and doesn't lead; then, they turn around and accuse him of being a dictator! It should be apparent to even the moderately dumb that these positions are mutually exclusive.
15
The US game plan is destabilization and chaos as far as the Middle East and Russia and China are concerned. We don't need to win these wars, ruining countries that seem antithetical to US' s values and interests such as Russia and Syria are our prime goal. These broken countries are then more amenable to US interests - whether it be energy resources or being pro Israel.
Congress rubber stamps these efforts by funding them. Very few of our wars were approved by congress , the last being World War II.
The editorial does not protest enough. We need to stop our regime changing and meddling. A unipolar US run world will lead to disaster. The President and the Congress are both deluding themselves.
Congress rubber stamps these efforts by funding them. Very few of our wars were approved by congress , the last being World War II.
The editorial does not protest enough. We need to stop our regime changing and meddling. A unipolar US run world will lead to disaster. The President and the Congress are both deluding themselves.
6
Every Republican in my lifetime has taken us to war. War is much easier than diplomacy and creates significantly more profits for the Military Industrial Complex.
Let's stop taking the easy way out. No more Republican Commanders-in Chief.
Let's stop taking the easy way out. No more Republican Commanders-in Chief.
9
NYT, this editorial fails to emphasize the most important point, in my view: that Congress owes it to the American people to have this information debated and brought before we elect our next president.
4
The GOP continues to level a torrent of insults, disrespect, and paralyzing antipathy that eclipses what any president in living memory has had to put up with. Indeed not since the 19th century has a president met with a less cooperative, less civilized, less mature opposition.
The result of course is that since 2010, the 112th, 113th, and now 114th congress’s that have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history. The GOP comes out of this with not enough shreds of moral or intellectual respectability to hide the putrid pimples on its rear-end.
The result of course is that since 2010, the 112th, 113th, and now 114th congress’s that have endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history. The GOP comes out of this with not enough shreds of moral or intellectual respectability to hide the putrid pimples on its rear-end.
9
Most members of Congress enough aren't smart enough and grown-up enough to run a town with a population of 100, and you expect them to understand the details of foreign policy or the military? Besides, how much time is left over when you are out to lunch and dinner with corporate lobbyists every day and still have to squeeze-in a few hours per month passing legislation to re-name everything in America after Ronald Reagan and voting-down Obamacare?
8
A very misleading piece by the Times.
The reason why the GOP opposes this authorization is because it sharply restricts American freedom of action compared with the original AUMF of Sep 2001, specifically in the areas of neutrality and detatinees.
This new authorization would make our current efforts vs ISIS and Al Queda more difficult, not less.
The reason why the GOP opposes this authorization is because it sharply restricts American freedom of action compared with the original AUMF of Sep 2001, specifically in the areas of neutrality and detatinees.
This new authorization would make our current efforts vs ISIS and Al Queda more difficult, not less.
2
The Editors sound like hold-outs from the Bush administration: "you're either with us or against us." And the editorial surely sounds like a veiled threat to representatives and senators: when the next programmatic "terror" event lands in a town near you, it will further intimidate the country's elected officials, followed by a "we told you so." Even causally observant readers generally understand that "ISIS" is a western-backed mercenary gang, made up mostly of young adults dressed up as "insurgents" and with little idea of what they're doing or who they work for. One could argue that Congress is wise to sit this one out, and let State, the Agency and the White House remain liable. Moreover, foreign special interests in the Middle East have authored the concept of a global war on terror and this is as much their baby as the administration's. Congress should not only "sit out" but "suit up" for hearings and subpoenas that include the media who in this case and many others, appear to act as special interest assets. The NYTime's relationships, agency and cooperation with the CIA, State and splinter Pentagon interests goes back 70 years and is all in the public domain. A little disclosure might be appropriate.
4
"ISIS is a western backed mercenary gang"? I keep up with international news via, not just the NYT, but a host of French, British and German papers and I have yet to see so much as a scintilla of evidence to substantiate this assertion. I have however, seen this suggested by conspiracy theorizing and deeply uninformed commenters on articles written by people who DO actually know something.
1
@jfoley has called for a return of the the draft. I agree, and better still would be a universal public service requirement of all citizens of which the draft is only a part. But all, not just able-bodied, persons would be subject to conscription into the military. A physical handicap would not necessarily excuse one from service. If a person is able to live a productive civilian life despite a handicap, there is probably a comparable position or job in the military. For non-military service, a start would be to require government contractors to give priority to hiring the young adults who are ineligible for the military or who, due to lack of need for additional personnel, need to complete their 2-year stint in another fashion.
The draft as it existed during Vietnam was riddled with exceptions, exemptions, and political favors at all levels, from the local draft boards to the halls of Congress. As the editorial board has pointed out, the current occupants of those halls have been feckless at best over the past two decades or so. The primary goal of each member of Congress should and must be the welfare of the nation and complete equality for every citizen, not, as it has in fact become, re-election.
The draft as it existed during Vietnam was riddled with exceptions, exemptions, and political favors at all levels, from the local draft boards to the halls of Congress. As the editorial board has pointed out, the current occupants of those halls have been feckless at best over the past two decades or so. The primary goal of each member of Congress should and must be the welfare of the nation and complete equality for every citizen, not, as it has in fact become, re-election.
4
Our "so-called" Congress is always "fateful". It is surprising that they would draft new authorization for any kind of conflict, anywhere. Congress are not "doers". Congress is only good at sending other peoples' children to die in foreign lands. Look how good they have become at it.
4
A key reason Congress should have a debate and vote on the Syrian war (the Iraq War part II) is to fully inform the American people about what is going on over there in an election year. This will also help to explain other issues more holistically that the media is treating in a disconnected way: the difference between Islam and radical jihadism/Salifism/Wahabbism, and the reason there are so many refugees, It would also force the Obama administration to come up with a coherent policy vis a vis Russia and Assad. Congress, do your job. Debate and discuss and inform.
2
NO, NO, NO. Not one more time, we dont need their oil. We have large challanges to face at home, like modernizing our infrastructure, building a non oil energy system nation wide, and building more mass transit systems. Then there is our public school system which is woefully behind many first world country's public school systems.
The middle eastern countries now need to step up to their plate of problems and solve them their way. We clearly have a history there, Afganistan, Iraq, of very small often temporary successes but overall failure all made at great cost trillions of our dollars. We made, the George Bush cabal, a huge mistake going into Iraq and staying in Afganistan. Hubris. God spoke to George, he said!! And look at the metastases of the problem now.
We are not a tribal society. Our system our way will not work for them.
The middle eastern countries now need to step up to their plate of problems and solve them their way. We clearly have a history there, Afganistan, Iraq, of very small often temporary successes but overall failure all made at great cost trillions of our dollars. We made, the George Bush cabal, a huge mistake going into Iraq and staying in Afganistan. Hubris. God spoke to George, he said!! And look at the metastases of the problem now.
We are not a tribal society. Our system our way will not work for them.
10
In order to have a war resolution, you need a war leader. Obviously Obama doesn't qualify.
4
A war leader OR a war backer...
@ed
And your Republican chickenhawks are leaders? WoW! Warmongers found a nice escape from reality and are pushing for their neighbors to serve as target practice. Go find yourself a war, go fight it and leave everybody else out of it.
And your Republican chickenhawks are leaders? WoW! Warmongers found a nice escape from reality and are pushing for their neighbors to serve as target practice. Go find yourself a war, go fight it and leave everybody else out of it.
3
Thank you President Obama for not being a war mongering fool. Some of us appreciate your character, and your willingness not to react to provocation. You take the time to think your way through the global maze of unrest, financial threats, and war, and this is both recognized and appreciated.
5
A fearful congress, is a perfect example why Trump seems to be a breath of fresh air in a smelly political system.The Republicans want to put Obama's back against the wall & demonstrate to the country, his seemingly, lack of resolve, & leadership.The problem is their ploy is backfiring on them as Obama is not taking the bait.The result of this political trickery will result in Trumps nomination, as Trump keeps fanning the fames of fear. He will lose to Hillary as the country will come out in record numbers to vote against this potential disaster.
3
Traditionally, war authorizations are requested by the president, not initiated by the Congress. As related in my book Twelve American Wars, in 1898 the Congress was eager to go to war but did not initiate a declaration. Instead, leading members browbeat President Mckinley into requesting one.
1
We should cooperate with Putin and go after ISIS. Leave Assad to his own people once that is done.
4
We need to get back to "nation building". We didn't leave Germany or Japan after WW2 and they became the number 2 and number 3 economies in the world - and our allies. If we become involved in a conflict it should only be in concert with our allies and only if we are willing to go the distance.
We should not have gone into Iraq... but, having gone in we should not have left. You cannot create a "democracy" out of ruins. You cannot bomb until the sand glows and claim victory. If you don't create a friend (and ally) you have left an enemy.
We should not have gone into Iraq... but, having gone in we should not have left. You cannot create a "democracy" out of ruins. You cannot bomb until the sand glows and claim victory. If you don't create a friend (and ally) you have left an enemy.
4
Yes, T.T. Cleveland, how about "nation building" in our own country. Where I live the roads are very bad and Congress is looking to cut Social Security when it should be looking to raise it. A family I know has so large a deductible in their health care insurance, it costs around $400 out of pocket just for one of their children to see a pediatrician for a strep test. For those that may be pushing for war and taxpayer dollars for the benefit of foreign allies rather than supporting the needs in our own country I would like to ask if you may be on the receiving end of tax cuts or increased tax shelters or some way benefit from increased war?
3
T.T. you are comparing apples and oranges. Germany and Japan had educated, 20th century populations. Iraq, and the entire mid-east are stuck somewhere in the 6th to 7th century. Communication is not possible.
2
We' re still nation building in Afghanistan. It's still not working. Germany and Japan were nations to start with. The Mideast is just a gaggle of sectarian tribes.
2
Congress barely eked-out a spending bill and the anger over its contents has infuriated many on the right. Killing Obamacare, de-funding Planned Parenthood and decreasing taxes even more are what the congressional majority is concentrating on. ISIL, drone killings and Guantanamo seem to be far down the list. I fear what a Republican president and congress could do in the Middle East in 2017.
2
Our present governmental system had failed and broken beyond repair. We cannot trust Congress to do anything -- much less declare war. Members of Congress declare war on one another. The present president, Barack Hussein Obama, is so far removed from military leadership experience, that he has never really been "Commander-in-Chief."
America, since one can no longer seriously term it, the United States, has endured about 40 to 50 years of foolish incompetence in all phases of the government and increasingly the military. We have no statesmen or stateswomen. Our generals would rather stay abed. Those generals who have called out Obama have been given the boot.
It is unfortunate that we have to endure another eleven (11) months of lack of any leadership in America. Our national elections are coming at least a year too late to do us any good at this point. The best we can hope to do in November 2016, is vote out every member of the House and at least the one third of the incumbent Senate that is up for re-election. As a side benefit we get rid of Obama in the process. The quagmire is no longer in Vietnam or any other country. The quagmire is in Congress and all along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and generally extends over the whole swamp that is Washington, D. C. Until we totally drain this swamp of all its poisonous inhabitants, toxins, cancers and pollutions, America will have not have a rational, logical, healthy capitol city.
America, since one can no longer seriously term it, the United States, has endured about 40 to 50 years of foolish incompetence in all phases of the government and increasingly the military. We have no statesmen or stateswomen. Our generals would rather stay abed. Those generals who have called out Obama have been given the boot.
It is unfortunate that we have to endure another eleven (11) months of lack of any leadership in America. Our national elections are coming at least a year too late to do us any good at this point. The best we can hope to do in November 2016, is vote out every member of the House and at least the one third of the incumbent Senate that is up for re-election. As a side benefit we get rid of Obama in the process. The quagmire is no longer in Vietnam or any other country. The quagmire is in Congress and all along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House and generally extends over the whole swamp that is Washington, D. C. Until we totally drain this swamp of all its poisonous inhabitants, toxins, cancers and pollutions, America will have not have a rational, logical, healthy capitol city.
2
What does it take to be Commander in Chief? The ability to lie us into war? Drop the ball in the war on terrorism? Destabilize the Mideast?
3
Say what you want about the Iraq war, but when W. Bush wanted to fight it he took his case directly to the American people, directly to Congress. Meanwhile, Obama hides, abdicates, refuses to lead and hacks like this NYT editorial board have the audacity to blame Congress for not doing Obama's job for him.
This lack of leadership is endemic to the Obama administration. They sit around and do nothing and then complain about what other people are or are not doing.
Mr. JV President - Leadership is YOUR job. We didn't elect Congress to be commander in chief. If YOU think this is a war worth fighting, then act like it.
This lack of leadership is endemic to the Obama administration. They sit around and do nothing and then complain about what other people are or are not doing.
Mr. JV President - Leadership is YOUR job. We didn't elect Congress to be commander in chief. If YOU think this is a war worth fighting, then act like it.
2
And how did that decision by George Bush and a Congress too cowardly to debate and defy him work out for you?
3
For Americans who voted for Obama...the majority...twice...he's showing the exact kind of grown-up leadership we were hoping for.
6
Oh, please. Hypocrisy, thy name is Times Editorial Board.
If the Democrats were in control of Congress, any reticence to engage ISIS with more boots on the ground would likely be deemed as prudent, and praiseworthy by the Times.
Which reticence, by the way, has been spearheaded by this President.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/politics/obama-isis/index.html
In any case, it can only be salubrious for the health and well being of the Republic to limit any President's authority to wage. "boots on the ground" warfare without a legal declaration of war by the Congress under Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.
What rational person could disagree with the idea that full scale war should be the rarest of human endeavors?
And that once engaged in, and engaged in only formally and legally, all out war should be pursued by any means necessary to total victory. That war is not a part time game to be played with other people's families, bankrupting the nation, while enriching a few, with no end in sight.
That is, until the nation tires of pointless, and politically compromised bloodshed, and waste.
And then moves on to a period of unresolved uncertainty, until another undeclared conflict flares up.
We should all be more than done with that kind of warfare.
If the Democrats were in control of Congress, any reticence to engage ISIS with more boots on the ground would likely be deemed as prudent, and praiseworthy by the Times.
Which reticence, by the way, has been spearheaded by this President.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/politics/obama-isis/index.html
In any case, it can only be salubrious for the health and well being of the Republic to limit any President's authority to wage. "boots on the ground" warfare without a legal declaration of war by the Congress under Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.
What rational person could disagree with the idea that full scale war should be the rarest of human endeavors?
And that once engaged in, and engaged in only formally and legally, all out war should be pursued by any means necessary to total victory. That war is not a part time game to be played with other people's families, bankrupting the nation, while enriching a few, with no end in sight.
That is, until the nation tires of pointless, and politically compromised bloodshed, and waste.
And then moves on to a period of unresolved uncertainty, until another undeclared conflict flares up.
We should all be more than done with that kind of warfare.
2
Since September 11, 2001 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military uniform of any American armed forces. They have been ground into emotional, mental and physical dust by multiple military deployments in a forever war with ill-defined tactics and strategies in foreign ethnic sectarian civil wars without any socioeconomic political diplomatic solutions. Veterans are disproportionately homeless, mentally ill and suicidal.
But outside of these veterans and their families who else has an immediate interest and motivation to push Congress to fulfill it's Constitutional authority and obligation to declare war and authorize military action? None of the current candidates for President of either party have ever served in the military. Congress will not act any more honorably and bravely than the American people who elected them.
But outside of these veterans and their families who else has an immediate interest and motivation to push Congress to fulfill it's Constitutional authority and obligation to declare war and authorize military action? None of the current candidates for President of either party have ever served in the military. Congress will not act any more honorably and bravely than the American people who elected them.
4
The Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8) quite explicitly places the power to wage war in Congress; not the executive branch. The historical and political bases for this provision would require a lengthy history lesson; yet it is honored only in the breech. Since WWII Congress has consistently abdicated its responsibility to take up the issuance of declarations of War and the executive (President) has filled the power vacuum; each president with his own reasons, motivation and explanations. This is a pattern that will not reverse itself particularly when our "wars" are devices for corporate profit (e.g. the very "military industrial complex which our last military executive/political executive - Eisenhower- warned us against), and all manner of political shenanigans. Little will change unless we both desire it to change and take action to effect change. Talk is cheap. One practical measure would be to reinstitute the draft. When everyone has a chip and a child in the game Congress will have fewer corners in which to hide and everyone will have motivation to fix the political abdication of Congress. It seems counter-intuitive; to institute a measure (the draft) that is associated with war. But those who take up arms know the real cost - I emphasize "real". Eisenhower knew it - take his advice; heed his warning.
5
your idea of reinstituting the draft is valid, but does not go far enough to give Congress and the Administration a stake in the game. I propose that a special intervention brigade be formed, and the nearest relative of all Congresscritters, all Cabinet members, and the President and Vice President be drafted into it, This brigade would be the first sent into any overseas non-declared war, and the last to pull out.
Lets see how hawkish these people are when it is their sons and daughters who will pay the price.
Lets see how hawkish these people are when it is their sons and daughters who will pay the price.
3
Not only bring back the Draft...also automatically conscript all those who vote for war and assign them "boots on the ground" duties. If they are too old, then conscript their first born.
3
I would also suggest a surtax of 5% on Americans who have not served in the regular military or National Guard to help defray the costs of the defense budget. This would be on gross income from all sources before any deductions and would also help all citizens feel they were contributing to the cause/fight. Families of active duty military would pay no taxes during time of war, and all active military and veterans would receive a significant extra tax reduction/exemption for life.
1
Recently, Sen. JOhn McCain expressed his disgust with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who, testifying before the Senate, advised against troops on the ground. They said this is how they were advising the president. Sen. McCain has criticized the president for not listening to his military leadership. Well, is he or isn't he?
What we have seen since the war in Vietnam is a military leadership at the top of the command ladder seemingly unable to understand the enemy, understand the cultures of the people in the war zones, understand the American People, or understand their own soldiers. Winning a war has become a lost strategy. Is this what is taught in our top military academies? It nearly resembles our business schools where student major in cooking the books and gaming Wall Street.
Since January 2009, the Republicans have vowed to oppose any ideas Obama comes up with, whether it is about saving the economy, creating jobs, national security or, ....
With that mindset expanded by the Teapublicans within the GOP, nothing gets done. Most members of that party sound more and more like The Donald. They do most of their "news" interviews at Fox because, as the official GOP PR machine, they are safe and coddled by the team of non-journalists.
If you want to remove any semblance of "presidential over-reach," you remove the obstructionist Congress in Nov. 2016.
What we have seen since the war in Vietnam is a military leadership at the top of the command ladder seemingly unable to understand the enemy, understand the cultures of the people in the war zones, understand the American People, or understand their own soldiers. Winning a war has become a lost strategy. Is this what is taught in our top military academies? It nearly resembles our business schools where student major in cooking the books and gaming Wall Street.
Since January 2009, the Republicans have vowed to oppose any ideas Obama comes up with, whether it is about saving the economy, creating jobs, national security or, ....
With that mindset expanded by the Teapublicans within the GOP, nothing gets done. Most members of that party sound more and more like The Donald. They do most of their "news" interviews at Fox because, as the official GOP PR machine, they are safe and coddled by the team of non-journalists.
If you want to remove any semblance of "presidential over-reach," you remove the obstructionist Congress in Nov. 2016.
4
Congress is run by special interests and ‘we the people’ do not have a lobby to protect our interest/values. These special interests run our country.
Whether it was the ill-advised messages/euphemism from GWB such as "you with us or against us" etc. Calling the post 9-11 actions as crusades against evil and so on.
US congress was irresponsible not to monitor/advise the Executive branch, provide them with guidance etc. in conducting War on terror. They again fell off the cliff when an ill-conceived mission to topple Saddam was being hatched by Dick Cheney et al.
In 1949 we (CIA) did this in Syria by toppling a secular democratic government at the behest of the US Oil company and for Brits we did it again in 1953 .Congress did nothing to stop removal of the democratically elected governments.
Just imagine if these two democratically elected secular governments in ME would have been nurtured by us instead of putting dictators in place.
But that was then and now we work for the Military Industrial Complex and for them to make money and rule the world, our forces are used to create uncertainty in the world. War is a very profitable business regardless of who gets killed or who started it; MIC makes the money. US Congress is in the pocket of these elites who fill the election coffers of these members of the Congress. Your Editorial should focus more on bringing the truth out than to just blame the US Congress for their inaction re ISIS. ISIS is a result look for the cause.
Whether it was the ill-advised messages/euphemism from GWB such as "you with us or against us" etc. Calling the post 9-11 actions as crusades against evil and so on.
US congress was irresponsible not to monitor/advise the Executive branch, provide them with guidance etc. in conducting War on terror. They again fell off the cliff when an ill-conceived mission to topple Saddam was being hatched by Dick Cheney et al.
In 1949 we (CIA) did this in Syria by toppling a secular democratic government at the behest of the US Oil company and for Brits we did it again in 1953 .Congress did nothing to stop removal of the democratically elected governments.
Just imagine if these two democratically elected secular governments in ME would have been nurtured by us instead of putting dictators in place.
But that was then and now we work for the Military Industrial Complex and for them to make money and rule the world, our forces are used to create uncertainty in the world. War is a very profitable business regardless of who gets killed or who started it; MIC makes the money. US Congress is in the pocket of these elites who fill the election coffers of these members of the Congress. Your Editorial should focus more on bringing the truth out than to just blame the US Congress for their inaction re ISIS. ISIS is a result look for the cause.
5
Lots of factors at work here. Some don't want their votes coming back to bite them, as the vote on Iraq did (and still does, for Hillary). Others rightly question whether you can shoot or bomb an idea, particularly an idea in which the opposing soldiers are literally seeking to die; if you don't kill them first they'll kill themselves. So making 'martyrs' is playing into their hands. Still others are not antiwar in principle but would point out that historically, conflicts between conventional uniformed armies and guerrilla forces, especially if fought on the latter's home turf, are at best costly for the conventional force (e.g., Vietnam, the Boer War), often forcing atrocities against civilians so even if you win the conflict you lose any moral high ground (same examples). That's assuming you don't lose outright (the American Revolution). Radical Islam is the ultimate guerrilla force - any individual can join simply by deciding he's a member, get himself a gun, and shoot up the local shopping mall. I'm not necessarily against military action against the Islamic State - but let's not kid ourselves that even if you were to reduce the entire region to a smoking hole in the ground, it would solve the problem. When Hitler shot himself, Naziism didn't die. You can't kill an idea, and we are rightly reluctant to hesitate at throwing yet more blood and treasure into an effort in that direction.
19
If we are going to fight ISIS, a question I am not fully convinced on, we should formally recognize them as a nation controlling the territory they currently hold, then declare war on the nation. American troops have been fighting and dying in overseas adventures since 1950, yet not once has Congress exercised its power to declare war.
America, the last decade or little more, has at times been forced to act out of its indebtedness; on domestic and foreign affairs, e.g., printing money and covert foolishness.
Contrary to nationalist hype, the Constitution hasn't served us very well. It has been and is continually exploited by the class of people it empowers. A class of people that are neither disposed to or consequently groomed for leadership; our history is littered with mistaken notions directed from. We are currently mired in a (< '08) bankruptcy, for which the overwhelming collective solution is to print; for fear a path of honoring debt will expose inept professional-ancestry.
The class of people that have the authority for justice, should not be trusted with the responsibility of the purse or leadership. The interests of purse and leadership become synonymous, administered by the authority that imposes justice; essentially supplanting the three branches with one. It's time to back up the philosophical-truck, with a Communal Convention.
Contrary to nationalist hype, the Constitution hasn't served us very well. It has been and is continually exploited by the class of people it empowers. A class of people that are neither disposed to or consequently groomed for leadership; our history is littered with mistaken notions directed from. We are currently mired in a (< '08) bankruptcy, for which the overwhelming collective solution is to print; for fear a path of honoring debt will expose inept professional-ancestry.
The class of people that have the authority for justice, should not be trusted with the responsibility of the purse or leadership. The interests of purse and leadership become synonymous, administered by the authority that imposes justice; essentially supplanting the three branches with one. It's time to back up the philosophical-truck, with a Communal Convention.
At least the "strategy" is "working"! ISIS will take a breather until after inauguration day 2017. At that point the show may
start over again with a mostly new cast (or not)!
start over again with a mostly new cast (or not)!
Since Congress has drafted no authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State, the president should stop using military force against the Islamic State. The view that congressional inaction authorizes the executive branch to act is more dangerous than ISIS. It imperils the constitutional balance of power.
3
By not acting or better said, taking a stand congress resembles the Obama administration. This creates the impression that ignorance is the best policy. The US has gone through isolationist times in the past and none kept the US out of foreign entanglements. In today's era there is no difference between what occurs abroad or only at home. At some point ignorance in both will bite you.
I don't recall the Times running a story on Mr. Obama's fear and his sitting out the war against Isis (The "coalition of 60 countries" is a fraud, as are his so called 15 sorties per day). Yet Mr. Obama's talk, time after time, reflects such a fear, at best. (Isis is not the "JV team," and we have not "contained" Isis) I don't recall Mr. Obama appealing to Congress to vote on a declaration of war against Isis. And when was the last time he appealed to the public on this, thereby pushing Congress to vote? What I fear most is that this paper is no longer pursuing the truth.
3
I applaud the Times for calling attention to the timidity of Congress on this issue, but I sympathize as well to the caution of Members of both Houses, particularly in a Presidential election year, to take a position that might conflict with the need of the next President for unfettered authority and discretion to wage war against terror.
And, pray tell us, why can't the US simply stop "fighting" until a congressional consensus emerges about the situation manifested by a roll call vote...
3
It's not so much that Congress doesn't want to go on record as voting for war, it's that the Republicans quite simply refuse to do anything President Obama requests. They yell and scream that he isn't doing enough against ISIS, but when he asks them for congressional authority to do more, they won't even hold a vote. Their childish and spiteful obstructionism for its own sake has gotten to the point where they simply don't care what the consequences are.
1
It seems the only way they legislate these days is thru "slipped in provisions" and secret holds. Need to take a stand on something as important as "war", they go AWOL.
1
Has the NYT's Editorial Board still not recovered from it's ill-fated beating of the war drums supporting the Iraq War? Just when a U.N. brokered peace conference to end the Syrian civil war starts is most definitely not the time to urge Congress to support a new AUMF to fight ISIS. It's time as an earlier, Bernie Sanders, generation said, "Let's give peace a chance!"
1
The "both parties do it" meme doesn't apply here. The GOP leadership is solely responsible for the lack of an AUMF. The president has been criticized for acting on his own and has asked congress for an AUMF to clarify what they expect him to do and they refuse to put forward any ideas or plans. So the president authors his own legislation and presents it to the congress where the GOP leadership declares it DOA, (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/238619-gop-obama-war-request-is-dead then continues to criticize the president for acting without congressional approval. They can't have it both ways.
Can the GOP do anything positive? I'm still waiting for them to show they know how to do something other than say "no".
Can the GOP do anything positive? I'm still waiting for them to show they know how to do something other than say "no".
2
Congress won't authorize a war - how is this a bad thing? The problem is that Obama won't stop meddling in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. Haven't we had enough war?
2
It is not just a fearful Congress. It is also a fearful, hesitant and Chamberlain-like president.
Mr. Obama is sitting out the remaining days of his presidency hoping that Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Iraq and Afghanistan will quietly go away. American are hoping that Mr. Obama will quietly go away.
The Congress has left Washington and gone away.
There will be another attack on our homeland. The wars of the Mid-East and North Africa will continue. China will continue its expansion and Mr. Putin will continue his militaristic adventurism. North Korea will advance the push for nuclear weapons and better delivery systems and Iran will seek every way possible to build and deploy nuclear weapons too.
Congress does nothing. Mr. Obama does nothing.
The American people will vote in November 2016. That is the only certainty.
Mr. Obama is sitting out the remaining days of his presidency hoping that Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Iraq and Afghanistan will quietly go away. American are hoping that Mr. Obama will quietly go away.
The Congress has left Washington and gone away.
There will be another attack on our homeland. The wars of the Mid-East and North Africa will continue. China will continue its expansion and Mr. Putin will continue his militaristic adventurism. North Korea will advance the push for nuclear weapons and better delivery systems and Iran will seek every way possible to build and deploy nuclear weapons too.
Congress does nothing. Mr. Obama does nothing.
The American people will vote in November 2016. That is the only certainty.
1
Radical Islamic jihadists have twisted the teachings to effectively justify whatever they want to do. They kill Muslim's who are radical enough and kill Christians who refuse to convert. You cannot negotiate with them because to do so would force any president to recognize their sovereignty and no one will do that
My point is that ISIS is like a fast growing tumor. It can be removed but once it infects the lymphatic system it has the potential to spread anywhere. Once it reaches that stage it can only be managed; it cannot be cured. The cancer does not kill in many cases. An infection due to a weakened immune system or organ shutdown, a by product does
They murder Muslims who are not radical and refuse to do so. They murder Christians who refuse to convert. Theyviolate what the Koran says about how to treat children
We can talk about whose to blame so have an easy target but I believe every day that passes that we don't go all out sends a clear message that their will to destroy us far outweighs are willingness to fight. And the psychological battle will have won
My point is that ISIS is like a fast growing tumor. It can be removed but once it infects the lymphatic system it has the potential to spread anywhere. Once it reaches that stage it can only be managed; it cannot be cured. The cancer does not kill in many cases. An infection due to a weakened immune system or organ shutdown, a by product does
They murder Muslims who are not radical and refuse to do so. They murder Christians who refuse to convert. Theyviolate what the Koran says about how to treat children
We can talk about whose to blame so have an easy target but I believe every day that passes that we don't go all out sends a clear message that their will to destroy us far outweighs are willingness to fight. And the psychological battle will have won
War is not something that we should go into lightly. Especially in this era of gorilla tactics. Much like Viet Nam our soldiers will not know if that child coming to them is curious, hungry or carrying a bomb. For survival they will take or shooting entire villages or employing other tactics that will sacrifice their western values and understanding of how we view civilians and push thier sanity to thei limits if not break it. We should tread lightly when deciding to go to war in the Middle East. Why did Irqq fail? We without much effort destroyed military objects and armies but that brought about a new non standard war which we lost. Europe has more in this than we do. They will need to deal with the war refuges and since they are connected by land to this mess they will bare the burden of the continued terror produced by this upheaval. In order to end ISiS someone will need to put soldiers in combat, but we should be a supporting country and not lead be the lead or sole country in this effort,
Now it's Congress that is fearful. Everyone is fearful except the NYT and Hillary Clinton I guess or her followers.
In fact, there is nothing fearful or preposterous about Mitch McConnell's well-reasoned argument. What is preposterous is thinking you will get consensus to micromanage a war with unique features in a Congressional process. Your requirement for a "time line" shows how bootless the argument is: one doesn't fight wars (successfully) by announcing their end date. Congress didn't authorize war on Japan until December 31, 1944, for example.
Congress has sufficient power by voting the money to support the President - he is called Commander in Chief for a reason - or not.
Finally, it is noteworthy how one of your few references to ISIS is phrased in the descriptive mode. You say there is international consensus to fight against it. When did a NYT editorial call, prescriptively and with motivating arguments, for a fight to destroy this cancer? I can't recall it. All of a sudden there is international consensus...
In fact, there is nothing fearful or preposterous about Mitch McConnell's well-reasoned argument. What is preposterous is thinking you will get consensus to micromanage a war with unique features in a Congressional process. Your requirement for a "time line" shows how bootless the argument is: one doesn't fight wars (successfully) by announcing their end date. Congress didn't authorize war on Japan until December 31, 1944, for example.
Congress has sufficient power by voting the money to support the President - he is called Commander in Chief for a reason - or not.
Finally, it is noteworthy how one of your few references to ISIS is phrased in the descriptive mode. You say there is international consensus to fight against it. When did a NYT editorial call, prescriptively and with motivating arguments, for a fight to destroy this cancer? I can't recall it. All of a sudden there is international consensus...
This piece by the NYT Editorial Board would be more powerful, thoughtful, and balanced if the Board considered, even briefly, the success of American foreign military engagements since the Korean conflict. The piece needs context.
What have we gained? What have we learned? How successful were they in relation to the threat, the American lives lost, the taxpayers money spent (or borrowed from the future), the hate toward America generated?
And given this analysis, why should we enter another war or military conflict?
These are the questions the NYT Editorial Board and the US Congress should be debating—continuously when considering another foreign military engagement. These questions would anchor the debate over time and give the debate a framework for successful decision-making in terms of policy direction, money spent, and American lives risked.
We need to be constantly aware, and carry around, a sense of the full impact, the successes, and the failures of our foreign military efforts in order to make solid, non-reactionary decisions about future ones.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
What have we gained? What have we learned? How successful were they in relation to the threat, the American lives lost, the taxpayers money spent (or borrowed from the future), the hate toward America generated?
And given this analysis, why should we enter another war or military conflict?
These are the questions the NYT Editorial Board and the US Congress should be debating—continuously when considering another foreign military engagement. These questions would anchor the debate over time and give the debate a framework for successful decision-making in terms of policy direction, money spent, and American lives risked.
We need to be constantly aware, and carry around, a sense of the full impact, the successes, and the failures of our foreign military efforts in order to make solid, non-reactionary decisions about future ones.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
2
We don't have a draft in this country. The political capital needed for the US to wage war on foreign soil is almost nothing. It was barely a debate topic in the last Presidential election.
Congress men and women, like the President are basically career politicians. Why would any politician put him or herself at risk when the public isn't invested one way or another.
We live in a world of increasing technology and the use of less and less manpower to wage destruction around the globe. It's likely that our leadership will continue to divorce itself from putting political capital at risk to explain actions that has virtually no impact on the American public other then wasted tax dollars and more debt that may impact the cost of living at some point in the future. Congress isn't fearful they are simply doing what any astute career politician would do. You don't waste political capital on something the public really doesn't care about.
Congress men and women, like the President are basically career politicians. Why would any politician put him or herself at risk when the public isn't invested one way or another.
We live in a world of increasing technology and the use of less and less manpower to wage destruction around the globe. It's likely that our leadership will continue to divorce itself from putting political capital at risk to explain actions that has virtually no impact on the American public other then wasted tax dollars and more debt that may impact the cost of living at some point in the future. Congress isn't fearful they are simply doing what any astute career politician would do. You don't waste political capital on something the public really doesn't care about.
1
Congress is reduced to only one activity, accusing others, winning by innuendo, scandal, scapegoating and bullying. Under such circumstances, the only safe thing to do is nothing. This is the new conservatism. Even the left is held captive fearing any misstep will be one more seat lost to extremists who form the forward edge of accusation.
The front page story this morning is of a woman killed by a mob intentionally stirred to bloodlust with false allegations. It's far off in a distant land where we can comfortably sit back to distance ourselves from savagery.
But is a congress so in thrall of the bloodlust present just off camera of republican politics and big money have made of government, any better?
And yes, it IS republican driven. When dark money is in a ratio of 158:20 or whatever, this is overwhelmingly republican.
Lord of the Flies, anyone?
The front page story this morning is of a woman killed by a mob intentionally stirred to bloodlust with false allegations. It's far off in a distant land where we can comfortably sit back to distance ourselves from savagery.
But is a congress so in thrall of the bloodlust present just off camera of republican politics and big money have made of government, any better?
And yes, it IS republican driven. When dark money is in a ratio of 158:20 or whatever, this is overwhelmingly republican.
Lord of the Flies, anyone?
1
We have a moral responsibility to the people of the region and to the world at large to suppress ISIS. ISIS grew directly out of the US mismanagement of Iraq after our misguided and illegal war on that country. We oversaw the dismissal of 30,000 of Hussein's well trained guards and told these Sunni's to accept humiliating domination under a Shia government. They formed the core of what is now ISIS and wrapped themselves in a modified Sunni Wahhabism promising a new Caliphate to attract more recruits and justify their extreme brutality- which even al Qaeda protested. We have an obligation to cooperate fully and vigorously in the cessation of this madness.
This is, however, not the time for another major US invasion of the Middle East which is exactly the ISIS objective , witness the recent radio speech of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi This is now the time for a clearly thought out international plan to prevent these murderers from mercilessly killing more innocent people. Yes, we have to cut off their financial support, yes we have to we have to use the best available intelligence methods to track them down, yes we must use combined international military force where military force can be effective. And yes, Muslim countries including the Saudis must be an active visible major contributor to this effort. Countries of the region who refuse to join in the fight are either with us or against us. There is no middle ground.
This is, however, not the time for another major US invasion of the Middle East which is exactly the ISIS objective , witness the recent radio speech of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi This is now the time for a clearly thought out international plan to prevent these murderers from mercilessly killing more innocent people. Yes, we have to cut off their financial support, yes we have to we have to use the best available intelligence methods to track them down, yes we must use combined international military force where military force can be effective. And yes, Muslim countries including the Saudis must be an active visible major contributor to this effort. Countries of the region who refuse to join in the fight are either with us or against us. There is no middle ground.
1
NYT is concerned about form rather than substance: Congress should authorize war, asserting its constitutional prerogative, thereby beating the president to the punch. But what if neither should act? What if this is not a horserace? In the case of ISIS, an argument could be made for joint, prompt, decisive action, provided, however, this does not merely further US unilateral global ambitions, using counterterrorism as a pretext for America's expansion of power.
To date, since the aftermath of World War II the Constitution has been disgraced by first one than the other branch acting improperly, using the issue of authorization to hide myriad interventions, covert actions, and regime changes. In recent years, Clinton, Bush, Obama have expanded Executive power in bipartisan fashion, with Congress knowingly going along. Whether one branch or the other seizes the initiative, the result is the same: unjustified, immoral war propped up by elaborate justifications and, at each step, still greater power for the military.
In your editorial, you do not comment on the growing consensus--tantamount to making the military the fourth branch of government--on war seemingly as a permanent national policy for its own sake. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is most militaristic of them all, Executive, Congress, Pentagon itself? Difficult to determine, given the symbiotic relationship.
To date, since the aftermath of World War II the Constitution has been disgraced by first one than the other branch acting improperly, using the issue of authorization to hide myriad interventions, covert actions, and regime changes. In recent years, Clinton, Bush, Obama have expanded Executive power in bipartisan fashion, with Congress knowingly going along. Whether one branch or the other seizes the initiative, the result is the same: unjustified, immoral war propped up by elaborate justifications and, at each step, still greater power for the military.
In your editorial, you do not comment on the growing consensus--tantamount to making the military the fourth branch of government--on war seemingly as a permanent national policy for its own sake. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is most militaristic of them all, Executive, Congress, Pentagon itself? Difficult to determine, given the symbiotic relationship.
1
Hard to tell if Douthat hopes for "liberalism's" collapse or fears it. This col. is symptomatic of the large and growing divide in the conservative movement. Which way should it jump? Should it embrace Trumpism or a European brand of nationalism? Trumpism is irrational and opportunistic but supports plutocratic "values". Nationalism is anti-Islamic and anti-central govt., both attractive to the conservative mind, but nationalism has a strong tendency to destroy itself. It's a dilemma.
Sorry, this has happened before -- a comment on one art. gets attached to another art. or col. Obviously, the comment should have been attached to Douthat's col. today.
“Not just President Obama, but other presidents have become very liberal in interpreting their power as commander in chief ... ”
President Polk invented a Mexican "invasion" of Texas, so that he could (unconstitutionally) repel it. Lincoln emancipated slaves pursuant to his war powers. McKinley invaded Cuba to retaliate against an imaginary attack on the Maine, and Bush 43 invaded Iraq because he had an old grudge. All of these were Republican (or their Whig predecessors), and all of them got exactly the level of congressional acquiescence that they wanted.
How any one could claim that presidents "have become" very liberal baffles me, as open-ended militarism, with or without congressional support, goes back 200 years. Obama is operating under the same, very non-liberal, never-ending authorization for use of force that the compliant Congress granted Bush 43 for his military adventures.
Seeking a new authorization is a pointless political argument.
President Polk invented a Mexican "invasion" of Texas, so that he could (unconstitutionally) repel it. Lincoln emancipated slaves pursuant to his war powers. McKinley invaded Cuba to retaliate against an imaginary attack on the Maine, and Bush 43 invaded Iraq because he had an old grudge. All of these were Republican (or their Whig predecessors), and all of them got exactly the level of congressional acquiescence that they wanted.
How any one could claim that presidents "have become" very liberal baffles me, as open-ended militarism, with or without congressional support, goes back 200 years. Obama is operating under the same, very non-liberal, never-ending authorization for use of force that the compliant Congress granted Bush 43 for his military adventures.
Seeking a new authorization is a pointless political argument.
1
Isn't this what we should expect. The system for electing people is rigged, SCOTUS won't straighten it out, so the Executive and Legislative Branches end up with unqualified individuals who don't know how to govern properly. I wish I could win the big lottery and then sue to force the hand of both parties. The parties like this working the way it is now.
So Obama abdicates leadership for 7 years, and then mumbles a few words about an authorisation for a war he clearly doesn't want to fight, and now it Republican's fault for not voting for a plan Obama never articulated? This is beyond the point of parody. Apparently the JV team is now writing the editorials for NYT.
8
At no time is the president's position on war more disingenuous than when he's campaigning. He only seeks Congressional input when has gone too far out on a limb and will be held accountable. Then he goes to Congress to cover himself.
4
If Washington can't win hearts and minds at home, they surely can't do it in the Levant.
ISIS is a distraction and a soon-to-be-forgotten footnote. It will fall apart without our lifting a finger. At their core, they are pirates and cutthroats, nothing more -- not a particularly sustainable model for a state.
Our money is better spent improving our national infrastructure, perhaps even increasing subsidies for our transcontinental passenger rail service. Why is Congress so hesitant to upgrade roads, bridges, and tunnels?
Our money is better spent improving our national infrastructure, perhaps even increasing subsidies for our transcontinental passenger rail service. Why is Congress so hesitant to upgrade roads, bridges, and tunnels?
6
JV Pirates that created 4 million refugees.
1
The world will not soon forget ISIS, especially if cowards like so many on this board are too feckless to realise that this is a group that needs to be confronted militarily at every turn.
1
Political cowardice at its worst.
4
It is bad enough how corrupt Congress is - passing bills at the end of the year, full of giveaways for their wealthy donors, and half-written by lobbyists.
But Congress is also cowardly, as illuminated by this editorial.
Corrupt and cowardly. What a great bunch of leaders we have.
Let's make a New Year's resolution to throw all of them out, come November.
Congress should debate whether to authorize a new war, a war against the Islamic State. If it were up to me, I would vote against that. We have wasted tens of Trillions of dollars, and tens of thousands of American lives, in foreign military interventions in the civil wars of other countries, all for less than nothing, in the decades since World War II. Where does our Constitution say anything about the United States being the World Cop?
If the rest of the world demands a World Cop, let other nations volunteer. As for me, I nominate Switzerland, the land of the bankers of tyrants and drug lords, the land of people who have never fought a war, and did not even fight in the world wars in its own backyard. Talk about free riders!
But Congress is also cowardly, as illuminated by this editorial.
Corrupt and cowardly. What a great bunch of leaders we have.
Let's make a New Year's resolution to throw all of them out, come November.
Congress should debate whether to authorize a new war, a war against the Islamic State. If it were up to me, I would vote against that. We have wasted tens of Trillions of dollars, and tens of thousands of American lives, in foreign military interventions in the civil wars of other countries, all for less than nothing, in the decades since World War II. Where does our Constitution say anything about the United States being the World Cop?
If the rest of the world demands a World Cop, let other nations volunteer. As for me, I nominate Switzerland, the land of the bankers of tyrants and drug lords, the land of people who have never fought a war, and did not even fight in the world wars in its own backyard. Talk about free riders!
3
America has not formally declared war since WW-II, during which there were 6 separate declarations, the last on 3 on June 4, 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania.
Of the 11 Declarations of War by the U.S., the first against Great Britain in 1812, all have been set forth on a single page with no caveats or restrictions regarding the authority of the Commander in Chief to conduct hostilities.
The conclusion of the Declaration of War given on Dec 8 1941 against Imperial Japan reads thusly: “ ...to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.” A terse, one page double spaced document: PDF Link
The notion of the Congress micro-managing never appears in any of the declarations. Where specified, their roll is that of providing all necessary support to the President in prosecuting unconditional war.
Given a 73 year hiatus since the last formal declaration of war, and the significant number of prolonged conflicts since WW-II (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) it is rather vapid to assert that:
“...by abdicating one of their most important responsibilities under the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war, lawmakers are unwisely emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers.”
What is lacking is not a Declaration of War. it is rather clarity about the threat and certainly regarding the appropriate action against it.
Of the 11 Declarations of War by the U.S., the first against Great Britain in 1812, all have been set forth on a single page with no caveats or restrictions regarding the authority of the Commander in Chief to conduct hostilities.
The conclusion of the Declaration of War given on Dec 8 1941 against Imperial Japan reads thusly: “ ...to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.” A terse, one page double spaced document: PDF Link
The notion of the Congress micro-managing never appears in any of the declarations. Where specified, their roll is that of providing all necessary support to the President in prosecuting unconditional war.
Given a 73 year hiatus since the last formal declaration of war, and the significant number of prolonged conflicts since WW-II (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) it is rather vapid to assert that:
“...by abdicating one of their most important responsibilities under the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war, lawmakers are unwisely emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers.”
What is lacking is not a Declaration of War. it is rather clarity about the threat and certainly regarding the appropriate action against it.
4
Finally the abyss between the fearmongering presidential wannabes and the failure of the real republican party to bring the ISIS problem to the floor in either house is being examined.
Trump , Cruz, and now Christie , the Garden State thug , would have you believe that jihad is at our doorstep. Accordingly , they now lead the pack in New Hampshire.
Christie , in particular , touts his derring-do as a state attorney general and claims that he alone , can save the country from certain death. Not a one of these blowhards has an hour of military training and experience.
The President, in the meantime , has implored Congress to authorize AUMFs and military action since August of 2014. Mr.McConnell emphatically refuses and says he will wait thirteen months for a new chief executive. Mr. Ryan would rather attack the ACA for the zillionth time , and on the tax payer dollar, than address the country's defense needs. Or , go after Planned Parenthood in an the ongoing republican attack on women's Constitutional rights.
So , according to Congress , there's no problem. What do the candidates from the republican Ministry of Fear have to say about that ?
Trump , Cruz, and now Christie , the Garden State thug , would have you believe that jihad is at our doorstep. Accordingly , they now lead the pack in New Hampshire.
Christie , in particular , touts his derring-do as a state attorney general and claims that he alone , can save the country from certain death. Not a one of these blowhards has an hour of military training and experience.
The President, in the meantime , has implored Congress to authorize AUMFs and military action since August of 2014. Mr.McConnell emphatically refuses and says he will wait thirteen months for a new chief executive. Mr. Ryan would rather attack the ACA for the zillionth time , and on the tax payer dollar, than address the country's defense needs. Or , go after Planned Parenthood in an the ongoing republican attack on women's Constitutional rights.
So , according to Congress , there's no problem. What do the candidates from the republican Ministry of Fear have to say about that ?
4
It is amazing. We have learned nothing from history. All of our interventions in the Middle East have been disastrous failures. The war against ISIS will be no different.
Money that could provide real domestic security is being wasted by bombing adobe huts into dust. The conflicts in the Middle east are tribal, religious, and cultural. Our presence there give the combatants a proxy villain, the Great Satan. If we are absent, they will continue to fight each other, as their appetite for conflict is unending.
The current approach, of measured intervention is correct.
Congress is full of cowards who do not grasp the complexity of global affairs. They never take long view, or consider the potential unintended consequences of their actions. There are no adults in Wahington.
Money that could provide real domestic security is being wasted by bombing adobe huts into dust. The conflicts in the Middle east are tribal, religious, and cultural. Our presence there give the combatants a proxy villain, the Great Satan. If we are absent, they will continue to fight each other, as their appetite for conflict is unending.
The current approach, of measured intervention is correct.
Congress is full of cowards who do not grasp the complexity of global affairs. They never take long view, or consider the potential unintended consequences of their actions. There are no adults in Wahington.
1
The editorial is correct in pointing the finger at the Congress. It has to be one of the most cowardly and short sighted group of elected (which points the finger back at us) officials to date. Yet, the editorial loses credibility by letting Mr, Obama off the hook. A preposterous position that Congress' inaction forces Mr Oabama to overreach in the use of his executive powers is absurd on two levels: 1) It tacitly admits his overreach and somehow makes it sound inevitable 2) it makes such claim against the background of 7 years of irresponsible, premature withdrawals, trampled "red lines", and wilful inaction in the face of ISIS growth of influence. This is not a president who is seriously looking at confronting ISIS. This is the President who is counting weeks to exit office without having to make the hard decisions. At a great cost to the international stability and our security.
3
The President is just trying to spread the responsibility for poor decisions in asking congress to declare war.
Endless political posturing from both sides.
Endless political posturing from both sides.
The problem with Congress is not cowardice, ambition, greed or ignorance or the usual reasons for a corrupt public servants, it is the oath of office. Clearly no one take the present one seriously, which they would if the Constitution had provided for recall elections. What we need is a new oath of office which a congressperson will follow without perjury or breach of oath suitable new normal of the 21st century. I suggest the one below:
“I, __________(name), hereby solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by voting for no law or supporting anything that might impinge on my ability to obtain reelection and shall I at all times place my political interests in the forefront of my tenure in office, along with the interests of those whose financial support made my election possible.”
Right now we have the best politicians that money can buy and since far too many of us don’t bother to vote we should have those politicians in office that we truly deserve.
“I, __________(name), hereby solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by voting for no law or supporting anything that might impinge on my ability to obtain reelection and shall I at all times place my political interests in the forefront of my tenure in office, along with the interests of those whose financial support made my election possible.”
Right now we have the best politicians that money can buy and since far too many of us don’t bother to vote we should have those politicians in office that we truly deserve.
3
Yes, Sheldon, as P. J. O'Rourke wrote of the U.S. government in 1991 in his "Parliament of Whores", he could also have written of the Roman Senate in the era/error of Empire.
But while O'Rourke's book was interpreted as fingering 'government', the author failed to recognize that what he was critiquing was not any normal government --- but the process of government captured and perverted by a deeper cancer of Empire control (which is the exact inverse of government).
The political puppets are, after all, just purchasable puppets.
Behind these humorous and annoying twits is the Empire.
But while O'Rourke's book was interpreted as fingering 'government', the author failed to recognize that what he was critiquing was not any normal government --- but the process of government captured and perverted by a deeper cancer of Empire control (which is the exact inverse of government).
The political puppets are, after all, just purchasable puppets.
Behind these humorous and annoying twits is the Empire.
1
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy
Per JFK's logic, Bernie is peaceful Revolution, while ISIS is violent Revolution ---- but both are against the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.
Fortunately, a Second American Revolution against Empire can be both successful again and peaceful in starting with a "Shout heard round the world" against Empire ---- while a violent and suicidal revolution has already been started by mistaken ISIS with a cut seen round the world, which will only endanger Muslims around the world.
We can all be peaceful global citizens, or global 'subjects' of Empire --- the choice is ours to make.
Liberty, democracy, equality, and justice
Over
Violent (and Vichy disguised)
Empire
Per JFK's logic, Bernie is peaceful Revolution, while ISIS is violent Revolution ---- but both are against the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.
Fortunately, a Second American Revolution against Empire can be both successful again and peaceful in starting with a "Shout heard round the world" against Empire ---- while a violent and suicidal revolution has already been started by mistaken ISIS with a cut seen round the world, which will only endanger Muslims around the world.
We can all be peaceful global citizens, or global 'subjects' of Empire --- the choice is ours to make.
Liberty, democracy, equality, and justice
Over
Violent (and Vichy disguised)
Empire
1
Congress denies authorization for the president to go to war against ISIS. Meanwhile Republican presidential candidates pummel Obama mercilessly for not going to war against ISIS. Faux news and right wing radio repeat the refrain until it becomes truth to their misguided minions. We are witnessing the creation of a self fulfilling prophecy perpetrated by a bunch of right wing seditionists.
We have flown hundreds of sorties and dropped thousands of bombs on ISIS targets. We have killed 10,000 ISIS fighters including infamous ISIS murderer Jihadi John. All without approval from the Republican Congress. Yet according to them Obama has done nothing. These hypocrites would rather undermine the interests of the United States than give the leader of the free world one iota of credit or work with him to solve the problem. When Obama is finally forced to act without Congressional approval to take the fight to the enemy, they accuse him of being an imperial dictator. Come on Republican Congress! Which is it going to be? You can't have it both ways!
Welcome to Congress where rational thought goes to die. Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This is what you get when you vote Republican.
We have flown hundreds of sorties and dropped thousands of bombs on ISIS targets. We have killed 10,000 ISIS fighters including infamous ISIS murderer Jihadi John. All without approval from the Republican Congress. Yet according to them Obama has done nothing. These hypocrites would rather undermine the interests of the United States than give the leader of the free world one iota of credit or work with him to solve the problem. When Obama is finally forced to act without Congressional approval to take the fight to the enemy, they accuse him of being an imperial dictator. Come on Republican Congress! Which is it going to be? You can't have it both ways!
Welcome to Congress where rational thought goes to die. Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This is what you get when you vote Republican.
5
So it appears according to this commentary, it is now about war against ISIS and the question seems to be whether the President or Congress authorizes it.
The question should be how ISIS got so powerful right under our nose in the first place. Surely we know most everything that is going on in Syria or it seems likely Israel sure does. If we can read license plates easily with our satellites and listen in to phone conversations how did we not know about all those Toyotas and buildup of arms and fighters? Dare I ask the question, was ISIS our ticket into Syria? So it may not be all about war on ISIS but the ultimate agenda of overthrowing Syria's president, Assad. This complicates matters now that Russia is supporting the government in Syria.
And further, according to news reports, ISIS is in several countries now, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq to name a few. Is this war resolution going to encompass all?
The question should be how ISIS got so powerful right under our nose in the first place. Surely we know most everything that is going on in Syria or it seems likely Israel sure does. If we can read license plates easily with our satellites and listen in to phone conversations how did we not know about all those Toyotas and buildup of arms and fighters? Dare I ask the question, was ISIS our ticket into Syria? So it may not be all about war on ISIS but the ultimate agenda of overthrowing Syria's president, Assad. This complicates matters now that Russia is supporting the government in Syria.
And further, according to news reports, ISIS is in several countries now, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq to name a few. Is this war resolution going to encompass all?
3
Republicans in Congress, including several presidential candidates, should not criticize President Obama's unwillingness to make a greater military commitment to fight ISIS when they purposely neglect to authorize and define such commitment under the 1973 war powers resolution.
If I were President Obama at this point I would make very public the fact that any further expansion of military action requires the approval of the Republican Congress and ask for such approval. Why should he risk Congressional legal action in going forward with such actions when the Congress refuses to take responsibility for their constitutionally required acts (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.).
If I were President Obama at this point I would make very public the fact that any further expansion of military action requires the approval of the Republican Congress and ask for such approval. Why should he risk Congressional legal action in going forward with such actions when the Congress refuses to take responsibility for their constitutionally required acts (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.).
1
Senator Mitch McConnell needs to exit stage left. In fact most of our illustrious members of Congress needs to exit silently and steal away in dead of night. Let's face it folks our Forefathers never intended that we have a bunch of professional lawmakers seated permanently in the legislative halls. Cooler heads and more conciliatory members are needed to conduct the business of Government - not a bunch of self-servicing lawyers intent on grandstanding. War is never the best option for nay solution, however when it is necessary we need to bite the bullet and get on with it. United We Stand and surely we are no longer a united nation. Please put aside your pettiness and do the honorable thing. Stop grousing over the GOP's failure to capture the White House in 2008. Concentrate on the welfare of our democratic society.
6
There has been a Corporate coup of our Government.
The Republican Party is the subversive arm of this takeover.
They believe that by turning traitors to this counties citizens they will enjoy the wealth from insider trading scams,free healthcare and egotistical hype that serving as a Congressman or Senator has become.
There is no honor in these people.
Future generations will look back at these names in history with shame and distaste.
Stand up or get on your knees. Sanders 2016
The Republican Party is the subversive arm of this takeover.
They believe that by turning traitors to this counties citizens they will enjoy the wealth from insider trading scams,free healthcare and egotistical hype that serving as a Congressman or Senator has become.
There is no honor in these people.
Future generations will look back at these names in history with shame and distaste.
Stand up or get on your knees. Sanders 2016
2
No democratic candidate can get anywhere near office if he/she supports war. The vendetta against a vote for the Iraqi invasion is still very strong.
3
Rand Paul is one legislator who places value (and promotes) a return to a constitutional treatment of war. Most Republicrats have embraced nation-building as a legitimate application of military force.
1
This abdication of responsibility is even worse than this editorial depicts. The constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war. The founders knew that acts of war might occur and require the defense of the nation without a formal declaration. They were after all repeatedly engaged with wars against Native Americans, supposedly in defense and knew that expediency required some latitude, but only for actual defense such as the war of 1812.
But more formal acts of war, such as invading a foreign state and occupying its territory required a formal declaration so that a president could not act as a king once did.
Yet the executive branch has been acting exactly like the historical monarchy that we separated ourselves from. Ever since Vietnam we have invaded countries, such as Grenada and Iraq and waged war against others such as Libya and Syria and others, all on presidential authority alone. None of these wars were waged in defense of the nation. Instead, the vague "national interests rationale" was given and appears nowhere in the constitution.
Congress authorized the funds for these wars, but the obvious purpose of a congressional declaration is that this serious commitment needed the approval of the people of the nation through their representatives. They would fight and die in these wars and they and their children would have to pay for them.
The press should do more than question theses acts. They should as our voice condemn them, loudly and repeatedly.
But more formal acts of war, such as invading a foreign state and occupying its territory required a formal declaration so that a president could not act as a king once did.
Yet the executive branch has been acting exactly like the historical monarchy that we separated ourselves from. Ever since Vietnam we have invaded countries, such as Grenada and Iraq and waged war against others such as Libya and Syria and others, all on presidential authority alone. None of these wars were waged in defense of the nation. Instead, the vague "national interests rationale" was given and appears nowhere in the constitution.
Congress authorized the funds for these wars, but the obvious purpose of a congressional declaration is that this serious commitment needed the approval of the people of the nation through their representatives. They would fight and die in these wars and they and their children would have to pay for them.
The press should do more than question theses acts. They should as our voice condemn them, loudly and repeatedly.
3
Does this surprise anyone? This do-nothing congress has no desire to accomplish anything other than getting re-elected, and of course repaying their benefactors for the lavish money thrown at them. Taking a risk?...no way. Upholding their beloved Constitution?...only when expedient. Doing the right thing for the American people?...only coincidentally when it benefits them.
3
It appears that members of Congress and candidates for office would rather criticize Obama's every move, rather then do their job. It's akin to hiding behind mama's apron while blaming her for everything that goes wrong in one's life.
Our Congress and too many candidates for office are nothing more than whining toddlers.
Our Congress and too many candidates for office are nothing more than whining toddlers.
2
Cowards.
5
Classic Republican hypocrisy. They rail (falsely) against the president for being weak and vacillating in dealing with terrorism, and then sit back and do nothing about it themselves ... oh no, wait ... the did allow people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns.
GOP 216: Party first.
GOP 216: Party first.
3
Only fools send their young to be butchered in foreign countries awash with savagery; the USA being a top fool since the early 1900's.
3
To the NYT Editorial Board:
How about we discuss this issue once your sons and daughters are in the military, rather than the children of the working class and poor? Easy for you to ask for this when you are cocooned on the Upper West Side and The Hamptons.
How about we discuss this issue once your sons and daughters are in the military, rather than the children of the working class and poor? Easy for you to ask for this when you are cocooned on the Upper West Side and The Hamptons.
5
right now theyre too busy opening their cash bonuses from th lobbyists they work for
oh, you thought they worked for you ?
how quaint
oh, you thought they worked for you ?
how quaint
5
The Republican leaders in Congress are not worthy of contempt. They are willing to authorize funds that will enable the sending of our military to war, to die, for their families to suffer but not willing to argue the mission and the goals for which the funds are authorized. The funds are "borrowed". No war should be engaged without specific taxes on the citizens who "support" the costs of war. These costs are born not just by the dead warriors but by their families and by the wounded who need care. If the citizens are not willing to at least bear the cost of a war we should not send our military to die for a war. Welcoming returning veterans is poor recompense from citizens whose congress refuses to debate whether a war should be engaged or to define the end goals and limits of the war.
Clearly the threat, as several of the commenters have noted, is traceable to the Saudi support for ISIS and for the world wide funding of Madrasas spreading the Wahab sect of Islam any "war" on ISIS must address the Saudi source.
Clearly the threat, as several of the commenters have noted, is traceable to the Saudi support for ISIS and for the world wide funding of Madrasas spreading the Wahab sect of Islam any "war" on ISIS must address the Saudi source.
2
This Republican led(?) congress seems to continue to perpetuate the transformation of Iraqi into the newest long lasting quagmire.
There was no Al-qaeda in Iraq until Bush-Cheney blundered into the destruction of almost all institutions of Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually became ISIS in the most desolate areas of Iraq (and Syria).
It is best if the Republicans stay out of foreign affairs and military adventurism.
There was no Al-qaeda in Iraq until Bush-Cheney blundered into the destruction of almost all institutions of Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually became ISIS in the most desolate areas of Iraq (and Syria).
It is best if the Republicans stay out of foreign affairs and military adventurism.
Congress has abdicated its most important -- arguably sacred -- responsibility for well over a half century. Not since World War II has it had the integrity, the courage, the decency to stand up and be counted, as it sent other people's children off to get killed, not for the Korean War, not for the Viet Nam War, not for the Iraq War, not for Afghanistan, let alone the more minor engagements.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress has suggested that they have to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress has suggested that they have to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
2
My fear is that the separation of powers is not an adequate bulwark against political power. Sueing the president in court and hoping the case gets taken up in time, or at all, isn't a reliable redress. Hoping Congress will censure and sue the President when he over-reaches hasn't worked very well, either. The media and direct action by the populace are two forces that have been slow and insufficient to stop the dogs of war from being unleashed. It took four smart widows with resources and motivation a year to compel Congress to open a 9/11 investigation. We need more people like them. Of course, we still invaded the wrong country and got a tragically flawed investigation! Your move.
1
What Congress must understand is that failing to "Stand Up And Be Counted" today will not give them a free pass in the future. Future voters will look upon their failure to stand up now as a conscious decision and they will be held accountable for their failure to stand anyways. While the specifics may not be clear now, in the future there will be consequences for their failure to act. Indecisiveness is in fact a decision in itself. What happens if some wing nut ends up in the White House and decides to start indiscriminately "Carpet Bombing" another sovereign nation? It will be on your hands Congress.
1
The whole idea of going to war has been proved faulty for ever. How many millions died in WWII? Was it worth it? The Allies won that war and now the allies and axis have joined forces and are confronting new enemy. And if this one starts and ends, new alliances will form to confront a new enemy. And on and on and on…It seems that humans just like to kill each other and the reasons will fluctuate with the change of generations. The big picture is war. The smaller picture is the reasons or excuses for it. The humans need some new approaches to existence.
1
I wonder if the fact that smart bombs and high-tech aircraft and drones are a whole lot more profitable than bullets and boots plays any role in congress' avoidance of decision making. Indeed, why divert bullets overseas when there is a huge need for bullets in this country?
Our fearful congress better pray along with the rest of the world, the American people don't elect a lunatic for our next president, who needs checks and balance?
1
A sorry irresponsible lot, this Congress.
They side step, skirt, ignore, and undermine everything that could possibly make us safer, healthier, better educated and more productive -- support for our twice elected commander-in-chief, sensible gun laws, universal health care, college affordability and re-building our failing infrastructure.
Bill Moyers called the recent spending bill "the latest triumph in the plutocratic management of politics that has accelerated since 9/11" -- doling out favors to the wealthy donors who finance our politicians' campaigns while forgetting the rest of us.
But they will all wear the flag on their label and speak patriotically about how they are upholding the American way. As H.L. Mencken has noted: “Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.”
They side step, skirt, ignore, and undermine everything that could possibly make us safer, healthier, better educated and more productive -- support for our twice elected commander-in-chief, sensible gun laws, universal health care, college affordability and re-building our failing infrastructure.
Bill Moyers called the recent spending bill "the latest triumph in the plutocratic management of politics that has accelerated since 9/11" -- doling out favors to the wealthy donors who finance our politicians' campaigns while forgetting the rest of us.
But they will all wear the flag on their label and speak patriotically about how they are upholding the American way. As H.L. Mencken has noted: “Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.”
1
Are these yahoos going to sit on their hands when the next president is elected? Especially if it's a Democrat?
These people talk so tough and convince voters to keep them in office yet they're so scared of their own shadow nothing ever happens except that they're all going to get rid of Obamacare for the umpteenth time or complain how the government doesn't work and they want to get rid of THAT!
It's no wonder Congress and the Senate have such low approval ratings. Nobody wants to work. Get off your duffs and earn your keep!
These people talk so tough and convince voters to keep them in office yet they're so scared of their own shadow nothing ever happens except that they're all going to get rid of Obamacare for the umpteenth time or complain how the government doesn't work and they want to get rid of THAT!
It's no wonder Congress and the Senate have such low approval ratings. Nobody wants to work. Get off your duffs and earn your keep!
Each sector of society must do it's role in fighting terrorism without flinching due to internal calculations.
Another segment which provides a valuable societal service, in terms of free flowing information, (and is awarded special societal privileges because of that) is a free press.
When the very same authors of this article refused to publish the cover of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon after the murders, despite it clearly being newsworthy and relevant, they too were guilty of shirking their public responsibilities for internal calculations. Don't give me the "offensive material" lamo excuses. A simple solution would have been to publish it with a warning. You were clearly scared silly and quivering under your desks, afraid of becoming the next target.
A "Fearful Press," is no better than a "Fearful Congress."
Another segment which provides a valuable societal service, in terms of free flowing information, (and is awarded special societal privileges because of that) is a free press.
When the very same authors of this article refused to publish the cover of the Charlie Hebdo cartoon after the murders, despite it clearly being newsworthy and relevant, they too were guilty of shirking their public responsibilities for internal calculations. Don't give me the "offensive material" lamo excuses. A simple solution would have been to publish it with a warning. You were clearly scared silly and quivering under your desks, afraid of becoming the next target.
A "Fearful Press," is no better than a "Fearful Congress."
2
I'm no lover of this Congress, but Muslim Asia is another planet or galaxy, about which we have 0% expertise. The assorted rogues over there will just have to wear themselves out.
1
I didn't hear the president call for Congress to declare war, did you? Quite the opposite. Why is NYT castigating Republicans when Obama says ISIS is "contained" and not a serious threat? More Editorial politics, not fit to print.
1
And republicans loudly proclaim that ISIS is not contained, and the President's policies are a failure. If that is a republican belief, then I would think it their duty to present serious alternate options.
The primary responsibility for national security lies both with the President and Congress.
But, since we can't sue or prosecute either for inaction or incompetence Mr. Obama should call Congress to account by adopting a specific strategy calculated to defending the country, and implementing it under the rationale that by funding the war against ISIS Congress has implicitly approved it.
But, since we can't sue or prosecute either for inaction or incompetence Mr. Obama should call Congress to account by adopting a specific strategy calculated to defending the country, and implementing it under the rationale that by funding the war against ISIS Congress has implicitly approved it.
$58 billion to drop a bunch of bombs on the Middle East and get the locals to hate us even more. According to a recent article in the NY Times, that is more money than Russia spends in total for its military. Do you think this is a wise use of our money?
2
This issue is fraught with legal complexities that belie political and personal dynamics. The editorial's second paragraph clearly, and wrongly, conflates a declaration of war with a resolution authorizing use of military force (AUMF). Is a declaration equivalent to a resolution? Did the 1973 War Powers Resolution effectively amend Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Consitution? Would a declaration of war, as the editorial implies (and loosely quoted hereafter) legitimately permit Congress to address critical questions (stated as a "duty" in this editorial) including precise campaign goals and strategy, and set clear geographic and time limits on the use of military force? An AUMF resolution seems to do so. We've not had a formal declaration of war since WWII. Has that absence helped or hindered the effective use of military force?
A declaration of war is not a resolution authorizing use of military force. This distinction is the source of the tension between the Executive and Congressional branches. Absent a federal court ruling or a Constitutional amendment, this tension, will continue to be freighted with political baggage which disadvantages both branches and our nation. As it is, we have neither clarity of policy and purpose, nor of strategy and tactics. Congress should deal only with the former.
A declaration of war is not a resolution authorizing use of military force. This distinction is the source of the tension between the Executive and Congressional branches. Absent a federal court ruling or a Constitutional amendment, this tension, will continue to be freighted with political baggage which disadvantages both branches and our nation. As it is, we have neither clarity of policy and purpose, nor of strategy and tactics. Congress should deal only with the former.
1
What we did right the first time we went to war in Iraq was that the Congress had a thorough debate, voted (by a fairly narrow margin, I think), and decided to go to war. Once the decision was made everyone supported it. What we did wrong in the second Iraq war was the debate was held but under false pretenses and guided by misinformation. Congress is wrong and shirking it's duty not to have an open debate and establish the parameters the American people are willing to sign up for. Bottom line is the Congress can't handle hard questions, and is unwilling to stand up and be counted. Chickenhawks who are content to criticize the President's actions but won't state their opinion when it counts, on record.
“The president can take the nation to war, and once U.S. forces are in harm’s way, what congressional leader will say, ‘Let’s cut off their funding’?”
Wouldn't this be the perfect case scenario for a righteous, warmongering Republican controlled congress?
Wouldn't this be the perfect case scenario for a righteous, warmongering Republican controlled congress?
The USA should avoid the Syrian conflict, and let it play out until the shooting stops. There is zero reason to bomb, shoot, drone, or advise anyone in Syria. Let them kill themselves, as they've been doing for hundreds of years.
POTUS has abused the office with Executive Orders, just like previous ones. So long as POTUS believes he has authority, he will ignore the Constitution. Send a message - Make him stop.
Save American lives, save American cash. Stop the support of anyone in Syria. Go not forth in search of monsters to destroy.
Under a Republican POTUS, bombing Muslims creates Jihadists. Under a Democrat POTUS, NOT bombing Muslims creates Jihadists. That's Liberal Logic.
POTUS has abused the office with Executive Orders, just like previous ones. So long as POTUS believes he has authority, he will ignore the Constitution. Send a message - Make him stop.
Save American lives, save American cash. Stop the support of anyone in Syria. Go not forth in search of monsters to destroy.
Under a Republican POTUS, bombing Muslims creates Jihadists. Under a Democrat POTUS, NOT bombing Muslims creates Jihadists. That's Liberal Logic.
1
Congress is de facto acknowledging the truth: that nobody can fight a "war" against unknown individuals all over the world who are willing to commit suicide for religious reasons -- and who, our own government admits, are not necessarily connected with ISIS at all.
It bespeaks a verey sad state of affairs when people who are elected to lead the nation are more deeply concerned with being r-elected than with anything related to 'leading the Nation'. These people should be ousted quickly and permanently.
It's not that I want to make excuses for Congress but I often wonder what I would do if in Congress. Do all congressmen/women receive full security briefs? Do they all hear the same information from our military? As an ex-elected official in a small town I found even there that finding reliable and accurate information about nearly any issue could be difficult but so important in order to make good decisions. Eventually, we had to make a decision and Congress must find a way to do the same. It's their job!
This editorial is notably lacking in detail as to what this war resolution would consist of and what its purpose would be. If Obama really wants one, he can go before the people and directly make his case. But he doesn't really want a resolution, knows he cannot get one anyway, and doesn't even have a clue what he would do with it. So all this talk of one is just a diversion and a lame and transparent political tactic designed to give him cover which I believe is the real purpose of this disingenuous editorial.
1
An perfect example of how republicans operate.
> Don't do anything
> Complain about Obama not doing anything
> When Obama does something, no matter what, say it's wrong
> If it doesn't work, complain about Obama
> If it does work, move on to another topic
> Don't do anything
> Complain about Obama not doing anything
> When Obama does something, no matter what, say it's wrong
> If it doesn't work, complain about Obama
> If it does work, move on to another topic
1
Mitch McConnell's statement that he wouldn't want to pass anything that might constrain a future president is the way of Congress -- eating your cake and having it too. In the present, a Democrat sits in the White House and McConnell is free to criticize and blame President Obama for any failure or perceived failure. If a Republican is elected in 2016, McConnell can declare his support for the president and declare every presidential action a success. If a Democrat is elected in 2016, McConnell can continue to criticize and blame the new president.
Congress can declare war at any time. It can wait until the outcome in Syria is certain, declare war and claim that Congress stood behind the president with a declaration of war.
Congress can declare war at any time. It can wait until the outcome in Syria is certain, declare war and claim that Congress stood behind the president with a declaration of war.
A Congress made up of 90+% "safe" seats need not bother with issues. Huffing and puffing has been raised to an art form inside the I-95 beltway. Just collect the paychecks, dial for dollars every day, and when you get tired of that, book a trip to Scotland for some golf—on some corporation's nickel.
What a racket!
What a racket!
Reinstitute the draft. Then we all have to fight the war. That might put some spine in the discussion...
82
No point really. Congress is adept at writing loopholes. I assure you even with a draft, the children of the rich and powerful will still not be going off to fight a war.
You're correct. Added, reinstituting the draft would solve tuition problem for many.
1
Maybe the military has back channels to CnC and Congress that the hawks at the NYT Editorial Board haven't spoken with.
Saddam's old guard is rearing a generation of fighters who lost their parents in the Iraq War. This is a protracted engagement, which will last decades.
There is no way to occupy or bomb our way to whatever undeclared goal you have.
Lead by example. Fix America First.
Saddam's old guard is rearing a generation of fighters who lost their parents in the Iraq War. This is a protracted engagement, which will last decades.
There is no way to occupy or bomb our way to whatever undeclared goal you have.
Lead by example. Fix America First.
For all the bluster about war from the GOP presidential candidates, the failure of Congress to legitimately support the efforts that Obama has to shoulder the entire load for represents the GOP in a microcosm - true cowards, all. Similarly, the GOP used the same tactic on the Affordable Care Act, branding it "Obamacare" and licking their chops when the system encountered the problems that all knew it would without the true answer, universal health care. Of course, the GOP had to destroy an honest attempt at decreasing the vast amount of capital that goes towards health care every year as their "defeat Obama" plan for 2012.
It's perplexing that so many Americans can go for so long without understanding the true cause of their problems. But the spineless actions of the GOP, when taken together over the past 15 years, have ruined millions of lives. Through its callous actions with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, an injurious housing bubble (remember W's "buy a house" schtick), and cutting of social services (even Food Stamps for 4 Million people), it's always the same.
The fact that they can't own up to the endless war THEY created on false premises now is just another tactic right out of their "it's not our fault" playbook.
It's perplexing that so many Americans can go for so long without understanding the true cause of their problems. But the spineless actions of the GOP, when taken together over the past 15 years, have ruined millions of lives. Through its callous actions with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, an injurious housing bubble (remember W's "buy a house" schtick), and cutting of social services (even Food Stamps for 4 Million people), it's always the same.
The fact that they can't own up to the endless war THEY created on false premises now is just another tactic right out of their "it's not our fault" playbook.
1
We keep discussing the "checks and balances" of our democracy, debate the skirmishes between Congress and the office of the President in regard to "authorization", "war powers" etc, without giving much thought to the process, in which we rush (or abstain) to treat the effects while causes of war become an after thought. Questions such as "did we need a Vietnam War?", or, wasn't Saddam or Kadhafi going to die of natural causes? are thin and weak, as opposed to getting hasty and rush trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives (not to mention millions of others) to waste... If only our elected leaders would understand that seeding the hell of war is going to reap the sin of democracy, and that enforcing the will upon others by military means is the most non democratic way to act..., they might, perhaps, also understand such riddles as the causes that led to American independence from the British Empire, and/or that getting credits by ridding the world of fascism and taming the USSR was not to be squandered just because they could not make distinctions between right and wrong, and go to war, as they did, on false premises.
1
Congress seems to be choosing what and when to exercise their duties. Could cowardice and hypocrisy be part of the deal? If ambiguity and procrastination and political calculations, are the hallmarks of the current 'body', can anything worthwhile be expected, trust restored?
For Pete's sake. The Islamic state is a world problem that should be handled by the UN. The president should do everything he can to support a worldwide coalition towards the end of militant forces with plans of world domination. This would end declarations of war as we know them. When we go around the UN we basically are giving the rest of the world the finger and this makes us not much better than those we purport to fight against. In a truly advanced society there are no longer wars.
29
Obviously then, we are not a truly advanced society.
There is certainly good reason for Obama and the Congress to be cautious. The first of which is that they could make the situation much worse. With so many unpredictable self serving characters involved, including King Salmon, Netanyahu, Erdogan and Putin to name a few, there are too many moving parts. In fact the ISIS is not the primary enemy of several of the competing players. It seems the Congress and Obama would do more good passing an assault weapons ban to keep terrorists and crazies from committing mayhem on the streets of the US.
1
Members of Congress increasingly see their 'job' as getting reelected so that they can represent the powers that got them there... Anything that jeopardizes that, like taking a real stand instead of a rhetorical one, is 'radical'.
So we have the ironic result of a simultaneously strengthened and weakened executive. An interestingly, Presidents have term limits. This empowers them to make tough decisions, especially during their lame-duck term.
Is this a compelling argument for term-limits for Congress ? Maybe it is...
So we have the ironic result of a simultaneously strengthened and weakened executive. An interestingly, Presidents have term limits. This empowers them to make tough decisions, especially during their lame-duck term.
Is this a compelling argument for term-limits for Congress ? Maybe it is...
1
America and its politicians in positions of power that have the decisions to make on fighting a war or not has to be defined very clearly. On one hand you need flexibility so that the President is not constrained in a time of having no time or dire emergency.
War and terrorism can be very unpredictably and the situations will always be fluid so this is where the flexibility is most important.
On the other hand the possible problem facing America could be the elected Commander in Chief as one like Donald Trump where congress cannot let a person like him that would 'go to Iraq, steal their oil and make them pay for it' [Trumps words or the like]. The US has had a demonstration of cowboys in the President's chair through one G W Bush who knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan but chose to attack Iraq instead. Now look at the mess that created.
So you have one coin that has to have restraint on one side and flexibility on the other.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
War and terrorism can be very unpredictably and the situations will always be fluid so this is where the flexibility is most important.
On the other hand the possible problem facing America could be the elected Commander in Chief as one like Donald Trump where congress cannot let a person like him that would 'go to Iraq, steal their oil and make them pay for it' [Trumps words or the like]. The US has had a demonstration of cowboys in the President's chair through one G W Bush who knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan but chose to attack Iraq instead. Now look at the mess that created.
So you have one coin that has to have restraint on one side and flexibility on the other.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
Ol' blood 'n' gutless! Shriek and point fingers! That doing something, isn't it? That's taking a stand! Thank GOD we have a Republican-led Congress led by a Boy Scout with a cute beard that looks great on TV. A budget wonk to lead us ever deeper into the mire that another Bush from another decade dragged us into! Wave that Flag! Yes, another bird-in-hand that'll fetch us yet still another Bush (best two out of three? what are we smoking'?) with whom we'll grope through the thick fog of jingoistic patriotism for four or eight years...
what exactly is your point melvyn? who are you referring too - excatly, thanks.
pointlessness itself
Congress hasn't voted to support this war and I assume their constituents aren't clamoring for them to do so. I'm certainly not. Perhaps that means it is illegal and without any support at all. Perhaps that means President Obama is a criminal on this point.
Of course, no one cares. Not really. I rather like that he is acting illegally... it highlights the fact that there is no law to restrain a president from doing any thing he pleases.
"A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I think we lost it. We now have a monarchy again.
Of course, no one cares. Not really. I rather like that he is acting illegally... it highlights the fact that there is no law to restrain a president from doing any thing he pleases.
"A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I think we lost it. We now have a monarchy again.
1
Don't fuzz this up. It's not about an imperial president. Republicants aren't suggesting Obama is acting illegally. They're content to allow him to take military action against ISIS using the authority that was given to Bush to fight al Qaeda. As in other matters, Republicans won't cooperate with Obama. In the matter of national security, this is traitorous.
Obama has blamed congress for all of his failures and shortcomings. "They made me do it, I didn't want to do it" is hardly presidential. The liberal press and die hard Obamanots have encouraged this belief that it is congress' duty to give the president everything he wants and that the president shouldn't have to demean himself but cutting deals.
3
The New York Times just proved that the US has done exactly what Eisenhower feared when he expressed concern about the military-industrial complex. Americans have decided that since we have a hammer, everything is a nail. We need Congress to hold hearings not to declare war but to explore all options.
This is a way for hearts and minds; why not call some historians and ask how military actions has worked in previous conflicts for hearts and minds?
And how about calling anthropologists, several experts in each country where ISIS is active or spreading, to discuss their research on the impact of military action in creating ISIS? We need foreign policy experts, particularly on current Russian and historical Soviet policy.
Computer and network specialists have a lot to teach us about shutting down military action and cultural recruiting with technology.
And how about calling in military strategists to discuss what war could look like in a conflict where you don't know who you're fighting? How many Americans will need to fight, and how many could die?
Military budget experts and budget experts for all of the other alternatives to war can calculate the costs of all options in the long run.
Don't get me wrong; I think that what is happening in ISIS-controlled territories is horrific, and the US's failure to ameliorate the situation is shameful, but I can tell you as an historian that we have good reasons to consider every alternative and every cost first.
This is a way for hearts and minds; why not call some historians and ask how military actions has worked in previous conflicts for hearts and minds?
And how about calling anthropologists, several experts in each country where ISIS is active or spreading, to discuss their research on the impact of military action in creating ISIS? We need foreign policy experts, particularly on current Russian and historical Soviet policy.
Computer and network specialists have a lot to teach us about shutting down military action and cultural recruiting with technology.
And how about calling in military strategists to discuss what war could look like in a conflict where you don't know who you're fighting? How many Americans will need to fight, and how many could die?
Military budget experts and budget experts for all of the other alternatives to war can calculate the costs of all options in the long run.
Don't get me wrong; I think that what is happening in ISIS-controlled territories is horrific, and the US's failure to ameliorate the situation is shameful, but I can tell you as an historian that we have good reasons to consider every alternative and every cost first.
5
When you have in the great chair in the Oval Office, Ozark, one who refuses to entertain the views of others far more qualified to expound on the subject, do you really think that a coherent policy can even be tabled, let alone, chosen?
And now that we are on the subject, what are your recommendations as to how to proceed? Or is this just something that others need to deal with while you write cogent comments to the NY Times Editorial Board's offerings?
Please be specific.
And now that we are on the subject, what are your recommendations as to how to proceed? Or is this just something that others need to deal with while you write cogent comments to the NY Times Editorial Board's offerings?
Please be specific.
2
The root problem is the definition and conduct of war has changed. ISIS/ISIL are not a standing army but rather a more diffuse group of terrorists. We can bloviate all we want about the "war on terrorism" and "war on Al Queda" (or for that matter, the "war on poverty") but both the methods and objectives are not and will not be the same as defeat of a standing military force (e.g. Saddam Hussein's army) with our standing military force. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam?
3
No problem. Just elect Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as President and they will throw out he Constitution and all laws because those things are just for little people and we all know that DT or TC can fix everything. Could there be a more frightening scenario than picturing them in charge of America? Our worst nightmare - along withe one I get with the idea of any republican/libertarian/tea partier in charge of anything including dog catcher.
12
What would be different than today?
Hasn't Obama thrown away the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when it has been convenient for him to do so?
Are you suggesting a rule of law for one when your chosen leader has selected "the rule of himself" just for the expediency of it? That seems somewhat self-serving if you ask me.
Hasn't Obama thrown away the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when it has been convenient for him to do so?
Are you suggesting a rule of law for one when your chosen leader has selected "the rule of himself" just for the expediency of it? That seems somewhat self-serving if you ask me.
3
"Could there be a more frightening scenario than picturing them in charge of America?"
Sure! Picturing Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders as President.
It is the Congress (and the people and the Republican States) that prevent disaster. At heart they are Peronists. Obama most certain has tried
to ignore the Constitution.
Sure! Picturing Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders as President.
It is the Congress (and the people and the Republican States) that prevent disaster. At heart they are Peronists. Obama most certain has tried
to ignore the Constitution.
2
To paraphrase Colin Powell's advice prior to our disastrous entry into Iraq - "You broke it - you bought it." All the pro-war crowd (GOP and Democratic) that wanted to go into Iraq with insufficient forces, having been advised that this would lead to disaster, should now show that they are capable of more than charging wars on credit cards and sending the children of the poor and lower-middle class off to war. Thrash out a plan with achievable objectives, put in place a special tax to fund it, and end this stupidity that you started.
73
Shifting the blame, and ignoring the obvious. We have a weak President that wants nothing to do with foreign conflict. From Gitmo to Benghazi to Bergdahl. Obama has clearly demonstrated a distain for military intervention on foreign lands. Are we safer now than we were under GW? The answer is no.
6
Good grief. I would hope every president would very clearly demonstrate "a distain for military intervention on foreign lands."
Attacking Obama for this is ridiculous. Not condemning Congress for doing their job, even more so.
Attacking Obama for this is ridiculous. Not condemning Congress for doing their job, even more so.
2
The goal is protection when attacked, not so much "safety", or we'd all move to Canada for safety from crime, pollution, accidents, health problems, etc. Our economic security took two huge hits from Bush et als unfunded war in Iraq and the Crash of 2008. Obama's adminstration did it's best to stem the bleeding from both those crises. What does Beau Bergdhal or Bengazi have to do with my safety???
1
This is way more than just the current crowd in Washington. Democrats and Republicans, the President and Congress, have been guilty of spinelessness since after World War II.
Again, Republicans play the political chickenhawk game. Tough talk, muscle flexing and so affraid to say yes or no to a simple resolution. And these minis say they want to rule. What a joke they are. Uneducated know nothing individuals like their base.
5
The "power to declare war" against Daesh is not at issue because, as a "non-state actor" it cannot enter the relation between states known as "war." What is it? A piratical band subject to the customary international law on piracy, according to which they are "hostis genera humanae" ("enemies of the human race") whose suppression is the duty of every state (though not by means of unilateral intervention across a recognized frontier). The Constitutional authorization which the government needs from Congress is not a "Declaration of War" but a "Letter of Marque."
3
Except for limited military action when President Obama has already stated clearly that he would avoid an all out war against the Islamic State to spare the US of another devastating war legacy left by the previous two wars, where's the need for a new Congressional authorisation and build up yet another war scenario for a nation still suffering from the last such military misadventures? Whether deliberate or otherwise the current ambiguity on war against the Islamic State to be seen at the Capitol Hill seems rather beneficial for the country.
1
Senator Mitch McConnell tends to have a very creative way of interpreting the funtions of the branches of government. How would he be constraining a future president by doing his job? Or is his position is taylor made because he thinks he knows who the next president is? The Congress is not only fearfull. It also seems lazy.
5
The chicken hawks in Congress are too chicken to vote for the war they claim to want.
137
After Mr. Obama has stated repeatedly he will NOT deploy a large contingent of ground troops, just what purpose would it serve for these "chicken hawks" in Congress to draft a resolution authorizing the use of force ("declaring war") against ISIS and then voting to send in ground forces only to have it vetoed?
Honestly, aside from taking long breaks, chairing committee meetings on Benghazi, and passing bills that further eliminate the middle class, what do our representatives do. They owe the public, even if it only appears on C-Span, open hearings on the pro's and con's of placing boots on the ground in the middle east. I have read a number of articles and books on the middle east conflict and believe that some of these authors/experts should have a public venue to air their viewpoints and have those viewpoints questioned by knowledgeable lawmakers---that is how a democracy should work. And, if they were truly acting as representatives, they would issue a report that both summarizes these perspectives, and yes, takes a position on future strategies in that region.
80
This article is all huffing and puffing and bluster. The NY Times should move into the 21st century. First of all as far as I can tell this military action is part of an already declared "war on terror" that congress has already approved. This is not a conventional war against another nation with fixed borders as the Constitution envisions, but rather a war across borders against a dangerous and lethal ideology that must be fought on many fronts and in many ways. Secondly this is NOT the type of war that can be fought in any kind of defined predetermined manner for again, it is not a conventional war. The United States response MUST be far more fluid and nimble than any debate/vote in Congress would allow.
2
Even the "war on terror" should be formally declared.
McConnell, the leader of the United States Senate, doesn't want to "...constrain the next President".
Think about those words coming from the man that has stopped our President in every conceivable way over the course of the past seven years!
The first step in defeating the enemy is to have a majority in Congress authorize and give the President their support to defeat the enemy today.
Think about those words coming from the man that has stopped our President in every conceivable way over the course of the past seven years!
The first step in defeating the enemy is to have a majority in Congress authorize and give the President their support to defeat the enemy today.
5
Only one word needed: COWARDS
13
If the United States is serious about fighting ISIS then it must start the war right here in the United States. there are an estimated 3 million Muslims in the USA and of these 15% or 450,000 either actively support terrorism of the type ISIS practices or support it morally or with money. 5% are ready to actively engage in terrorism. 20,000 have already pledged support. This is not the time for political correctness.
3
That is nothing. I have heard that there are FIFTY-SEVEN CARD-CARRYING COMMUNISTS in our State Department.
1
Sources?
While this article fairly highlights the need for collective action and shared responsibility from each branch of our govt, in this case, with major issues such as foreign wars and military engagements, I believe it unfairly favors the need of American military action, by putting pressure on congress to act, especially when it involves meddling in chaos, civil wars, which are often misunderstood and the consequences of which unknown today, to be borne by its citizens in future, without a clear strategy and set of goals.
Can America lead without a military action and still bring a positive change, especially when it is other peoples' conflict. This will be a true test. Can it make an attempt and try something different this time?
Can America lead without a military action and still bring a positive change, especially when it is other peoples' conflict. This will be a true test. Can it make an attempt and try something different this time?
1
In the almost 240 years of existence of the US, the Congress has rarely displayed a warrior spirit and usually acted reactively, rather than proactively in the4 events concerning national security.
It is dangerous to leave the fate of the nation in the hands of such elected softies who apparently lack a strong backbone.
It is dangerous to leave the fate of the nation in the hands of such elected softies who apparently lack a strong backbone.
1
I believe the President has asked Congress to send him a new war powers bill, they have done nothing. They are afraid to vote yes or no on this issue so they can be on the winning side no matter who that might be. And these people call themselves leaders?
4
A "war powers bill" is not the same as a formal declaration of war.
When are our leaders going to learn that there is always blow back from the foreign entanglements? Who recalls the 'promise' the Iraq War in total would run about $50 Billion? We need a new plan that does not involve the US spending more $Billions over the republican disaster that was Iraq.
1
"We need a new plan that does not involve the US spending more $Billions over the republican disaster that was Iraq."
Let's not forget Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War, and the Democrats and Republicans alike who got us into those wars.
Let's not forget Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War, and the Democrats and Republicans alike who got us into those wars.
I agree with those who say the problems in the Middle East began decades ago. The actions taken by those who intervened to protect oil money, and who would let nothing stand in the way of corporate wealth-building may have taken a long time to produce the present day mess, but the consequences were inevitable from the beginning. Our leaders are still caught in that same male-dominant, war-mongering attitude. Look at the GOP -- what could be a better example of "old age" thinking? Beat up your enemies, be frightened of those who are not like you (rich, white males -- who profess to be either Christians or Jews), and really worship extreme wealth and all the power that goes with having it.
Asking individuals in the present Congress who think this way (and most do) to vote for anything that takes moral courage is a joke. Declaring war requires taking responsibility for causing a great deal of suffering and death. Talk is cheap, so keep talking.
The USA would have to bomb entire countries out of existence to try to get rid of ISIL, ISIS, Al Quaeda, The Taliban, Bokal Harum, etc., and even then, we wouldn't be "safe", since there are disciples of these disciplines all over the world. Throwing money at these problems has not made them go away. Our leaders are all stumped and stymied. A war declared by Congress or mandated by a President isn't going to do any more good now than it has in the past. Spend more money on war and take more lives -- can't they think of anything else?
Asking individuals in the present Congress who think this way (and most do) to vote for anything that takes moral courage is a joke. Declaring war requires taking responsibility for causing a great deal of suffering and death. Talk is cheap, so keep talking.
The USA would have to bomb entire countries out of existence to try to get rid of ISIL, ISIS, Al Quaeda, The Taliban, Bokal Harum, etc., and even then, we wouldn't be "safe", since there are disciples of these disciplines all over the world. Throwing money at these problems has not made them go away. Our leaders are all stumped and stymied. A war declared by Congress or mandated by a President isn't going to do any more good now than it has in the past. Spend more money on war and take more lives -- can't they think of anything else?
5
"Look at the GOP -- what could be a better example of "old age" thinking?"
Indeed - like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson?
Indeed - like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson?
Of particular note, at least in my mind, is the "$58.7 billion budget line that will allow the Pentagon to continue fighting the terrorist group (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria ........"
Now that we know, by way of the Supreme Court, that money talks why not allocate $250 million to Assad to step down from his egotistical position in Syria and to emigrate to some place of his choosing. (Is Elba available.)
Congress could then debate, with no fear of political consequences, a suitable place to which Assad could emigrate as a refugee - by plane rather than conventional boat, given his new found wealth.
Assad's abandoned military forces could then be encouraged, after debate in Congress, to join the rebel forces with the goal in mind to defeat ISIS, end the war, and restore peace to their country.
Congress could debate, with no future political consequences, the magnitude of funds to be provided to the united Syrians to ensure the success of their fight against ISIS and to bring about peace to their troubled land.
Further debate could then ensue, with input from all the impacted countries in Europe, regarding the return of all Syrian refugees to Syria.
The monies to be allotted to this effort could be debated in the Congress - with the hopes that the monies would fall within a range of $3 to $4 billion.
My napkin shows that total funding, determined by debate, will be far below the Syrian share of the allocated sum of $58.7 billion.
And Congress loves to talk money.
Now that we know, by way of the Supreme Court, that money talks why not allocate $250 million to Assad to step down from his egotistical position in Syria and to emigrate to some place of his choosing. (Is Elba available.)
Congress could then debate, with no fear of political consequences, a suitable place to which Assad could emigrate as a refugee - by plane rather than conventional boat, given his new found wealth.
Assad's abandoned military forces could then be encouraged, after debate in Congress, to join the rebel forces with the goal in mind to defeat ISIS, end the war, and restore peace to their country.
Congress could debate, with no future political consequences, the magnitude of funds to be provided to the united Syrians to ensure the success of their fight against ISIS and to bring about peace to their troubled land.
Further debate could then ensue, with input from all the impacted countries in Europe, regarding the return of all Syrian refugees to Syria.
The monies to be allotted to this effort could be debated in the Congress - with the hopes that the monies would fall within a range of $3 to $4 billion.
My napkin shows that total funding, determined by debate, will be far below the Syrian share of the allocated sum of $58.7 billion.
And Congress loves to talk money.
Too many Congressional leaders want it both ways -- they wish to see executive overreach when the president takes action yet Congress refuses to even debate the new authorization of force which at least holds out the prospect of restoring the balance they rhetorically claim is lost. They must either put up or shut up.
2
In a more perfect world, you would think that throughout this vast country we would have been able to find and produce 535 people capable of leadership.
1
Unfortunately, we Americans have found it better for ourselves to vote in people who will provide goodies for us out of the piggy bank known as the Treasury.
You know you're a politician when you won't do your job for fear it might cost you your job.
6
Isn't it Obama who is supposed to go to Congress and request a declaration of war against ISIS? Or are they on his "do not call" list?
Another example of GOP hypocrisy.
2
Congress has not declared war. That is an action. So the NYTs wishes Congress to declare war on ISIS. Did I read that right.
1
That's how I read it, and I am horrified. It would be good for Congress to debate options. Hold hearings on specialists from military to cultural experts and historians to determine the best path.
4
Lets rename it all "War on Taxpayers" as that is what it really is. Send us to Congress so we can represent vast corporation(s) with a vested interests in selling conflict to the fools paying for it.
2
When the fear-filled Republican losers like Boehner & McConnell surrender their only real power - control of spending - to the premier ruling from the White House, the New York Times is full of happiness and glee.
But when they let that same freshman trainee mess up international relations, the Times decides to get picky. How odd.
But when they let that same freshman trainee mess up international relations, the Times decides to get picky. How odd.
3
The founding fathers put the responsibility for declaring and funding war on Congress and the responsibility for running the war on the President. This division of powers would mean we did not go to war without the backing of the citizenry. That Congress has not voted is not a problem for our system but rather a feature of it.
It is a problem if our elected leaders keep trying to find ways of engaging our men and women in combat without actually going through the very process specified in the Constitution. Committing our blood and treasure should be the hardest thing our nation does. Yet looking at the non-committal, cowardly fashion in which we put our folks in harm's way, I am ashamed of our nation's leaders, regardless of party affiliation.
The GOP in Congress doesn't care about ISIS. It's afraid that if it doesn't deliver on its promises to corporations they will take their own bloody revenge. This fear is also present in the many corporatists who claim to be Democrats including the one in the WH. Corporations who make money out of war, want more war and they don't care if it is a war thst is in the interests of the US or not. Corporations who make money our of spying on Americans don't care if it's unconstitutional or if it even works, they just want the money. Oil companies and others don't care that they are turning the US into a colony of China, they want that money now. And our government leaders don't care either because they see their future in the eyes of the corporations not the humans who live in this country. We need to turf them out...GO BERMIE,
1
Based on previous actions, Mr. Obama's play book runs on a finite timetable with announced dates of completion, overtime considerations be damned. Unless, by some wild stroke of the imagination, Senators Sanders or Paul were to be elected, there is no doubt the next POTUS would be more hawkish and gain more visible support from our international coalition of partners in combating not only ISIS but, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda.
3
Congress seems to consist of chicken-hawks and just plain chickens.
There certainly is a major disconnect between Congressional Republicans and their own candidates who, like Sen. Ted Cruz, castigate President Obama with calls for "carpet bombing" and other jingoistic rhetoric. As a progressive Democrat, however, I'm thankful that Congress has failed to act even if it's for all the wrong reasons you describe. With the recent opening of U.N.-sponsored peace talks aiming to end the Syrian civil war, now is not the time for a new AUMF. The U.S. has been stymied in formulating a political vision for Syria as well as finding enough "boots on the ground" to defeat ISIS. Now is the time to let Secretary of State John Kerry try to work his magic to produce a multilateral agreement for a post-civil war Syria before more military intervention like a "no-fly zone" causes an escalation that could easily spiral out of control.
3
Why didn't you ask Bernie Sanders this at your editorial meeting with him? I think he would have hit it out of the park. There is no resolution to discuss matters of war when it helped elect a Black president who voted against a very popular war that turned sour. The South could never allow that to happen again. Its about elections, not foreign policy or whether its right to send someone else's son or daughter into the grinding maw of war.
2
As long as the electorate does not hold them accountable things like actions and facts are meaningless - they will just spin their way out of or adeptly change the subject - I believe 2016 will be the most important election of recent history. Lets hope the voters get it right.
Jerry
Jerry
3
Around the time when The President was drawing his "red line" in Syria, I attended a town hall meeting sponsored by my representative Justin Amash. He was puffed up about the responsibility (ne requirement) for Congress to authorize such action as he stood on top of his "responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution" tub. Of course that was during a period when anything the President was trying to get done was attached the antecedent of "Obama" and held up for ridicule by the Republicans (how many votes on the ACA?). Well I haven't heard a peep out of Mr. Amash on the subject since The President has actually invited Congress to vote on the action against ISIS.
Voting on an "action" is not the same as the President asking for, and Congress declaring, war as put forth in the Constitution. I would hope Mr. Amash would continue to stand on his "responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution" tub.
So just keep calling it an "action" (like in Korea) and any president can just carry on forever. The Republican reverence for the constitution appears to extended no farther than a political tactic.
Congress has abdicated its authority on many issues of concern to the American people. Gun safety, health care, the economy. I'm not sure why they're being paid. As Donald Trump would say, and the American people should say, "You're fired!"
While you're at it, fire the President for not not asking for the declaration of war.
Republicans are incapable of acting. They can only cut taxes. Raising taxes to pay for war is not possible for Republicans. They voted over 50 times to repeal the ACA without concern for Presidential vetoes yet express fear that Obama will veto authorization for military action. They call Obama weak.....while they are cowards incapable of action.
This "congress" is an embarrassment to the institution and to our country. Is this really the best we can do? Let's vote them ALL out and try again.
Sometimes one has to do for the whole rather than for self. That was the choice set before Abraham Lincoln, who was shot for his bravery in maintaining the union—prolong the war one more year at the expense of more deaths. Today he is one of our most highly respected presidents.
Congress did its part when it rubber-stamped Obama’s destabilization of Syria and helped the Sunni Gulf Arab autocrats setup ISIS.
How many times did Congressman McCain fly in there to organize the jihadists? Parenthetically, the man is like an angel of doom: Anywhere he shows up death and destruction inevitably follow.
The Obama Administration hasn't done a single blessed constructive thing abroad since it came to power in 2008. It's been an uninterrupted series of disasters — Libya, Ukraine, Syria just to name a few.
How many times did Congressman McCain fly in there to organize the jihadists? Parenthetically, the man is like an angel of doom: Anywhere he shows up death and destruction inevitably follow.
The Obama Administration hasn't done a single blessed constructive thing abroad since it came to power in 2008. It's been an uninterrupted series of disasters — Libya, Ukraine, Syria just to name a few.
1
The appalling lack of spine by these legislators is equally apparent in their impotence on gun regulation. Let's call them what they really are: COWARDS.
2
In debate after debate. both sides, the emperor wears no clothes. We have never had a threat like this. Studying how it developed will help. However, shouldn't we recognize this is a new generation of warfare. No major general could have predicted this. Widely publicized congressional hearings would tip off the enemy, except when it makes clear were are not going anyway anymore than Trump.
>>
This would be news if the GOP did weigh in on the War against ISIS.
Right now the GOP is more concerned with creating their version of a caliphate in this country.
This would be news if the GOP did weigh in on the War against ISIS.
Right now the GOP is more concerned with creating their version of a caliphate in this country.
2
Since the United States, Russia and Nato are at varying stages of war against ISIS, I have to conclude that it is a war, in which the most powerful nations on earth, can't beat a low tech conventional mercenary army numbered in the tens of thousands.
This army of ISIS is concentrated in areas known to all of the participants, and I doubt that it can move without being observed in the desert by all of the combatants, if they are interested in finding or interdicting ISIS. This situation is of course too absurd to be true, if there is actually a war in progress against ISIS...so it seems reasonable to assume that none of the forces arrayed against ISIS care to defeat ISIS at this time including the US Congress, which is in a deep state of studied non observance.
To compound the ridiculousness of the Mexican standoff in the Syrian Desert, we are all supposed to be both afraid of the threat, which is not specific, and be aware of our surroundings, while politicians run about shouting, "The sky is falling," although it clearly never does, and it doesn't seem to be about to. Maybe we need another Pearl Harbor or at least another 9/11 to be put in the proper mind to demand action from our Congress..but most people seem to be working so hard to maintain their standard of living, that they can't be bothered to take the time out to be sufficiently afraid.
I kind of doubt that there is a war in progress against ISIS, but something is going on, and none of us are sure exactly what.
This army of ISIS is concentrated in areas known to all of the participants, and I doubt that it can move without being observed in the desert by all of the combatants, if they are interested in finding or interdicting ISIS. This situation is of course too absurd to be true, if there is actually a war in progress against ISIS...so it seems reasonable to assume that none of the forces arrayed against ISIS care to defeat ISIS at this time including the US Congress, which is in a deep state of studied non observance.
To compound the ridiculousness of the Mexican standoff in the Syrian Desert, we are all supposed to be both afraid of the threat, which is not specific, and be aware of our surroundings, while politicians run about shouting, "The sky is falling," although it clearly never does, and it doesn't seem to be about to. Maybe we need another Pearl Harbor or at least another 9/11 to be put in the proper mind to demand action from our Congress..but most people seem to be working so hard to maintain their standard of living, that they can't be bothered to take the time out to be sufficiently afraid.
I kind of doubt that there is a war in progress against ISIS, but something is going on, and none of us are sure exactly what.
Congress made be fearful, but President Obama's leadership has to be
criticized. This failure of leadership and complete understanding
goes to President Obama's comment that ISIS was the "JV" team.
Congress maybe fearful but the U.S, is seen as weak and indecisive. and
this is the wrong message. The buck stops at President Obama's
desk.
criticized. This failure of leadership and complete understanding
goes to President Obama's comment that ISIS was the "JV" team.
Congress maybe fearful but the U.S, is seen as weak and indecisive. and
this is the wrong message. The buck stops at President Obama's
desk.
2
The waging of wars is the responsibility of the Executive branch, with concurrence of Congress. It is the role and responsibility of the President to come up with a coherent plan of action and objectives and to present it to the Congress, who can modify the plan or objectives. If the President goes too far off the plan or objectives, the Congress can rein him in through legislation.
It is NOT the responsibility of a 535 person committee to put together a war plan. It is incredible that the NYT editorial board, in response to the fact that the President has flitted off to his holiday vacation, is attempting to foist responsibility off on Congress to excuse Obama's blatant inability to effectively execute the responsibilities of his position. There is a reason why the President of the United States used to be known of as the leader of the free world. We have replaced that with the leader from behind of the free world because we have a President who, according to the NYT, is waiting for Congress to tell him what to do. If past history is any indication, he will then proceed to do whatever he wishes and blame the Republicans for their failure of leadership.
Shame on you.
It is NOT the responsibility of a 535 person committee to put together a war plan. It is incredible that the NYT editorial board, in response to the fact that the President has flitted off to his holiday vacation, is attempting to foist responsibility off on Congress to excuse Obama's blatant inability to effectively execute the responsibilities of his position. There is a reason why the President of the United States used to be known of as the leader of the free world. We have replaced that with the leader from behind of the free world because we have a President who, according to the NYT, is waiting for Congress to tell him what to do. If past history is any indication, he will then proceed to do whatever he wishes and blame the Republicans for their failure of leadership.
Shame on you.
1
The business of the US is the war business. If it weren't so, there'd be no ISIS. We've created a Milo Minderbinder country, and the only candidate running for president opposing this catastrophe is Sen. Bernie Sanders. If perpetual war waged round the world isn't what you think should be the US raison d'être, then vote for Bernie. HRC has proven herself to be a shoot first aim later believer in war, and the GOP mob stumbles over each other proclaiming who's more militaristic. Time at long last be rational, while the NYT beats the war drums again, propagandizing instead of reporting.
1
Congressional inaction is a trend. Recently they sat out the economic crisis.
Mitch McConnell is truly a contemptible human being. A politician first and foremost, he is emblematic of the plague that is the contemporary GOP. Of course, they all have their flag pins in their lapels.
That proves they're patriots, right?
That proves they're patriots, right?
First of all, only the upper House of Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “advise and consent” the president in the conduct of foreign affairs. The border between the president’s powers as Commander-in Chief and the Senate’s role in the conduct of military actions has been debated for 200 years and never been legally settled.
War was not declared by the Senate in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. The exigencies of confronting terror have imposed a new urgency for affirmative, immediate action without extensive public debate. The fuzziness of the role of the Senate may be the best solution under the present circumstances. Mistakes have been made, but when weighed against inaction is preferable
War was not declared by the Senate in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. The exigencies of confronting terror have imposed a new urgency for affirmative, immediate action without extensive public debate. The fuzziness of the role of the Senate may be the best solution under the present circumstances. Mistakes have been made, but when weighed against inaction is preferable
1
Why, when coming into an election year, would we suspect that Congress would make a move to define how the nation should respond ti ISIS?
Without a vote, the Republican establishment can simultaneously accuse the President of doing too much and too little to resolve the crisis, while arguing for both sides of total involvement, and a hands-off approach. There is no political gain in actually directing how we go forward, only political loss.
Oh, you thought that Congress was supposed to govern, not just shill for election ads? Huh. Novel concept.
Without a vote, the Republican establishment can simultaneously accuse the President of doing too much and too little to resolve the crisis, while arguing for both sides of total involvement, and a hands-off approach. There is no political gain in actually directing how we go forward, only political loss.
Oh, you thought that Congress was supposed to govern, not just shill for election ads? Huh. Novel concept.
2
"While there is broad political consensus in the West that a forceful military response is needed to fight the depravity of the Islamic State..."
Same old, same old.
Same old, same old.
To no one's surprise, courage is in short supply.
Give the Tea Party conservatives more votes than the Surrender Caucus and you'll see more courage than any liberal could stand.
2
The ONLY thing members of congress and the senate care about currently is their maintenance of power in their districts, Their bloated pay checks, Their cost-of-living increases, their lavish pensions and Conciere healthcare. These narcissists could care less about the country and its future. The founders of this country would be disgraced at the leadership or more importantly lack thereof in this country.
A do-nothing Congress comprised of the politically expedient and idealistically deranged is a much bigger threat to the future of America than ISIS or Al Qaeda. In another time we would call these men traitors.
10
Congress has become irrelevant to decisions about war. When some challenged GW Bush's right to wage war in Iraq, he countered by telling Congress to cut appropriations for the war if they really didn't like it. Congress did nothing. Especially in the post-Citizens United era, it's much more important for Congress members to fulfill their most critical function -- raising campaign money -- than their constitutional obligation to declare war (or not).
3
Obama's heart isn't in it. They know it. This isn't hard.
4
The responsibility for this "war" is a hot potato which the NYT and Obama would love to be able to foist on Congress and the Republicans. Obama still has no clear strategy, doesn't know what he's doing, finds the enemy recruiting our own citizens, and metastasizing into domestic terrorism within our own borders, so he now wants a "resolution" but what would be the point other than to get Obama off the hook for his own failure and ineptitude? No thanks. He can keep this "war." or excuse for one. It's all his.
1
As long as Congress' main concern is getting reelected, they won't do any constitutionally mandated job is that negatively affects that goal. Endless war, with or without congressional approval, helps the bottom line of weapons manufacturers, and subsequently, campaign donations.
2
Sits out war, you meant to say terror bombing and the slaughter of civilian populations all for our sacred cow, Israel. Count me out too. Everyone should sit this one out.
4
Debate going to war?
Hey, Congress has more important things to vote on like defunding Planned Parenthood, and revoking the Affordable Care Act (PPACA),- a.k.a. Obamacare.
Hey, Congress has more important things to vote on like defunding Planned Parenthood, and revoking the Affordable Care Act (PPACA),- a.k.a. Obamacare.
179
Just wrote our end of year donation checks. Big increase to Planned Parenthood. Piece of coal to our congressperson.
2
I don't ever recall hearing of the "Congress in Chief." The President is Commander in Chief, and it lies upon him to provide the leadership and determine the direction of war. Congress did as it was Constitutionally limited in providing funding to execute the President's goals.
9
You should read the constitution
1
Our politicians only act when it benefits those who control them. Though, the allocations, for military expenditures, indicate that they are still minions of the military industrial complex. Also, they show their true colors; yellow, fro cowards. Next year, it is an election year, and they do not want to jeopardize control over Congress. Unless people been hiding in a cave fro the past 14 years, they know untold billions were spent on what amounts to two failed wars. Meanwhile, the country deteriorates.
Congress, Clinton, Bush and Obama, created ISIS. US "special interests" created ISIS. Israel created ISIS. European leaders created ISIS. Greed for oil created ISIS. And ignorance of the American voter created ISIS.
Mean while, our political continue to use fear as a way to hide this nation's problems. Fear to persecute, fear to condemn, fear so people arm, fear to spy on fellow citizens, fear of voter fraud, fear of immigrants, and fear to create mob violence.
It is an election year, and our coward politicians will use fear to get votes. The nation of "can do", the nation of "strengths" has become a nation of "jelly". A nation of cowards' led by cowards.
Congress, Clinton, Bush and Obama, created ISIS. US "special interests" created ISIS. Israel created ISIS. European leaders created ISIS. Greed for oil created ISIS. And ignorance of the American voter created ISIS.
Mean while, our political continue to use fear as a way to hide this nation's problems. Fear to persecute, fear to condemn, fear so people arm, fear to spy on fellow citizens, fear of voter fraud, fear of immigrants, and fear to create mob violence.
It is an election year, and our coward politicians will use fear to get votes. The nation of "can do", the nation of "strengths" has become a nation of "jelly". A nation of cowards' led by cowards.
6
It is no surprise that Congress fails again. Perhaps we just expect too much from people who are always thinking about their own political hides and whether or not they might displease their corporate masters. And here I was hoping Santa would bring them some spines.
1
A phrase in the last sentence - '... wouldn't want to pass anything ...' kind of sums up this Congress. That way one side is free to criticize the President for taking too many 'executive action(s)'. But isn't taking action the very definition of an an executive - managing the affairs of something; in this case the USofA. The checks and balance part of the Constitution is being abdicated by the legislative branch.
I would not categorize the Congress as 'fearful' I think disingenuous and cowardly better describes many of our duly elected representatives.
I would not categorize the Congress as 'fearful' I think disingenuous and cowardly better describes many of our duly elected representatives.
3
Maybe Congress is aware of the hypocrisy of fighting against ISIS while at the same time having a regime change policy that has made Syria a magnet for Muslim extremists worldwide.
If the war party wants more war profits then they should also reinstitute the draft - with NO exemptions. Let Iran, Russia and other countries handle this..Most Americans don't want more killed and maimed kids sacrificed for profits to our owners. Enough! I don't trust Clinton to keep us out of perpetual war. I trust Bernie.
1
No, this is not a condition for going to war.
"Two authorizations — for the 1983 deployment of Marines to Lebanon and the 1991 Persian Gulf war — followed vigorous political debate about the use of military force."
There was no "vigorous" debate. Both deals were rubber stamped by our flag waving congress.
There was no "vigorous" debate. Both deals were rubber stamped by our flag waving congress.
1
The decision by Congress to not authorize the use of military force is a political one, of course, made not out of fear that it will come back to bite the representatives that voted for it, but out of hope that it will come back to bite the President--this one--and the Democrats running for that office.
I don't know how I feel about authorizing military force, but I do know that Congress is not willing to fight ISIS, but is very willing to fight Obama.
I don't know how I feel about authorizing military force, but I do know that Congress is not willing to fight ISIS, but is very willing to fight Obama.
1
I'd push back gently against the idea that the 2003 Iraq war did not get vigorous debate. It was debated in the House, Senate, and the UN. Passions ran high, as one might recall Monsieur Velapin of France screaming at the U.N, or the anti-war march in Washington DC sponsored by International ANSWER (a hard left holdover).
Heck, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden were among those who authorized the invasion of Iraq. It was hardly a rush to judgment.
Heck, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden were among those who authorized the invasion of Iraq. It was hardly a rush to judgment.
1
23.5 % of the federal budget last year was spent on the military and 4% on education OUTRAGEOUS. We can not afford to be the world's policemen at the expense of the american taxpayer How about using thi money to build up our manufacturing base and create jobs or subsidize reeducation for the unemployed as we move to the digital economy The military complex still controls our country and i am not sure we can stop it.
And if we think our inept congress will step in FORGET IT
And if we think our inept congress will step in FORGET IT
3
4% is too much for education. The Federal government has no duty or responsibility in the field of education. Instead they much about wasting money and making things worse. Oh and the 23.5% is too much also.
What, you don't pay school property taxes? Mine have gone through the roof so that school teachers can enjoy free health and pension benefits for life. Include state and local government education spending and the total rises to about $700 billion - pretty much in line with the military budget.
1
This is pretty laughable. The underlying message is that editors want Congress to endorse the President's agenda in Syria- whatever it is. Does anyone know? Oh, I know- preservation of his "legacy".
It is the fervent hope, nay absolute belief, of McConnell and Ryan that the next president will be a Republican. They want to take no action now that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for that GOP neocon (and all of the candidates are) to send hundreds of thousands of American troops to the Middle East to die in another war for oil, empire and to enrich the MIC and the rest of the 1%.
How much longer will the American people tolerate this seditious behavior on the part of the GOP?
How much longer will the American people tolerate this seditious behavior on the part of the GOP?
7
Why vote when you can whine and complain? Harry Truman would
have understood this "do nothing" Congress very well.
If you want war, vote for it.
have understood this "do nothing" Congress very well.
If you want war, vote for it.
2
I don't blame congress or administration as the forth pilar of democracy, our media and journalism, is even less effective and functional. A discriminate law was slipped in the omnibus bill and received the admin's and congress' blessing without any serious objection from to media including NYtimes. It created a second class of America. Citizens and everybody knows how ineffective it is in terms of fighting ISIL and its supporters, but nobody in the NYtimes editorial dated to write about it. So why do you hold the gov and congress to a higher standard while you are not better than them?! Everybody knows that most of the terrorists have ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey ( at least most of them pass throughly the Turkey's intentionally left open border). I wished you would have asked why residents/citizens /travelers of all those counties were left out of the HR 158 which was overwhelmingly passed. How about Practicing independent journalism first before calling the congress fearful.
Wow, since when has illegal executive overreach been treated as a topic of concern by liberals or this news paper? Obama's illegal (as determined by courts) executive overreach in the hamstringing of this countries ability to fight illegal immigration has been treated as the second coming all rolled up with victory in Europe day by the NYT and the left. Let hypocrisy ring.
1
The good ole boys and gals of Congress simply haven't figured out a way to launch into yet another conflict in western Asia without an obvious benefit to their magnanimous constituents, the military-industrial complex. Trust me, as soon as it becomes apparent that some defense contractors can make obscene profits from the ISIS debacle, we'll be involved in a conflict up to the hilt. But typically superficial, as are almost all their electorate, Congress hasn't figured this out quite yet.
2
The four military engagements, all unnecessary, were authorized by Republican Presidents thus setting the stage for Isis. One can argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, despite the fact that the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi, but none of the others were. We have established our right to invade anywhere except in hostile countries that we consider our "allies." Eternal wars support the American arms industry which is our major manufacturing export, over 50% of the world's arms. Of course we need wars. This is what we do...kill people both here and abroad.
5
Incredible! After being on the wrong side of the last foreign intervention, mostly by being cowed by the neocon crew, the NYTimes editors call for an "escalation" to the point of "declaring war" on ISIS. First, ISIS is not a country. Second, as this paper reports, the tide has begun to turn against them. And lastly, we have no business fighting wars for these people. Until we get that through our thick elites brains, such as the editorial board of the NYTimes, we will continue to spill blood and treasure with a negative return. I have a better idea, write an editorial encouraging all parents to tell their kids not to enlist or volunteer since if they do they are nothing more than cannon fodder for the war machine that runs this country, and gets rich off their sacrifice.
4
As we all saw with the George W. Bush Iraq folly; sending US Troops to the Middle East to kill people, destroy property, and, in some cases, terrorize civilians, is a good way to waste young Americans and turn a tough, but stable, situation into a cauldron of fire producing millions of refugees.
As one of my friends says after we both do something really stupid: "Let's do that some more".
Maybe not.
As one of my friends says after we both do something really stupid: "Let's do that some more".
Maybe not.
15
President Obama has bypassed Congress so much during his tenure that I doubt Congress knows exactly what they are anymore.
2
Seems to me that Obama has bypassed Congress so much because they never quite knew what they were.
1
While they talk tough during debates, the war Congress loves to formally and repeatedly declare has been the war on Obama.
15
Let the members of congress gather their own loved ones and send them over to fight. Bet that would put an end to the boots on the ground idea.
12
Obama's refusal to ask Congress to declare war on Islamic terrorism and their refusal to declare war on Islamic terrorism are proof that our President, Senators, and Congressmen are not serious about winning the war against those that would destroy or conquer our country.
Declaring war on Radical Islam would put our political leadership, all of it, on record and give us the legal authority to treat Islamic fighters as spies if they are out of uniform or POWs if they are captured on the battlefield in uniform which would be much better than the limbo status of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
So November 2016 I will be voting to throw all the incumbents representing me out of office, and for me that means voting for the Republican Presidential nominee because Hillary would be nothing but Obama's third term and against my Democratic Senator and Congresswoman who will be running on the same drivel that has defined our elections for the past 50+ years. And if I have to repeat that voting pattern until we have strong honest moral leaders instead of the craven corrupt socialist deal makers we currently have in office I will.
Declaring war on Radical Islam would put our political leadership, all of it, on record and give us the legal authority to treat Islamic fighters as spies if they are out of uniform or POWs if they are captured on the battlefield in uniform which would be much better than the limbo status of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
So November 2016 I will be voting to throw all the incumbents representing me out of office, and for me that means voting for the Republican Presidential nominee because Hillary would be nothing but Obama's third term and against my Democratic Senator and Congresswoman who will be running on the same drivel that has defined our elections for the past 50+ years. And if I have to repeat that voting pattern until we have strong honest moral leaders instead of the craven corrupt socialist deal makers we currently have in office I will.
EB: One of the reasons they do not step up is that they will be pilloried by many of the NY Times' commentators from their bully pulpits. Who wants that kind of savaging? Probably by the EB, too, if something goes badly. And it will, because no Plan ever survives contact with Reality.
Second, the general population of the USA is very ambivalent about war in general and war without end in particular. Until Islam decides to reform itself, heal the breach between Sunni and Shia, and decide to enter the 21st century, most especially in regards to women and criticism of Islam, these wars will not end. Jonathan of NYC's comment, third paragraph, is particularly spot on. We used to have to quarantine incurable diseases like small pox. We don't have an inoculation against belief systems yet.
Please notice that Japan has not admitted any Syrians and won't be doing so. We could learn from them.
Third, we in the West should not have to deal with a philosophy that is totally antithetical to everything we stand for---freedom of press, speech, religion, no religion, women's rights (we have a ways to go here), etc. None of these are permitted in Muslim-dominated countries. Why should we be confronted with demands of immigrant people here that go against our values, like Sharia Law? It's insane. Britain is insane for allowing it.
So, EB, short of annihilating 1.6 billion Islam-believing human beings, we are going to be at war for a long time. Will you support that?
Second, the general population of the USA is very ambivalent about war in general and war without end in particular. Until Islam decides to reform itself, heal the breach between Sunni and Shia, and decide to enter the 21st century, most especially in regards to women and criticism of Islam, these wars will not end. Jonathan of NYC's comment, third paragraph, is particularly spot on. We used to have to quarantine incurable diseases like small pox. We don't have an inoculation against belief systems yet.
Please notice that Japan has not admitted any Syrians and won't be doing so. We could learn from them.
Third, we in the West should not have to deal with a philosophy that is totally antithetical to everything we stand for---freedom of press, speech, religion, no religion, women's rights (we have a ways to go here), etc. None of these are permitted in Muslim-dominated countries. Why should we be confronted with demands of immigrant people here that go against our values, like Sharia Law? It's insane. Britain is insane for allowing it.
So, EB, short of annihilating 1.6 billion Islam-believing human beings, we are going to be at war for a long time. Will you support that?
1
It's not so uncommon a state that those with the fattest wallets come robed in the thinnest fabric of valor.
3
Most Americans are tired on war and the Middle East. And to be honest, this Viet Nam Veteran does not want to see anymore American men and women die for a corrupt Middle East government(s). Let the governments of that region solve the ISIS problem.
14
What's it going to take for you folks to realise Sarah threatens all of western civilisation? It seems pretty evident that we can't just ignore them and expect they'll leave us alone. Do you see the atrocities they are committing? Do you see the global reach their ideology has? It seems cowardly to pretend this stuff isn't going on just because you're to much of a coward to get involved.
1
don't know what happened there... "Daesh" somehow became "Sarah"
1
Read the writing on the wall beyond the smokescreen : the military-industrial complex exults in the permanent state of war transpiring in the Middle East because it suits their purposes. Profits and more profits are the sole motivating factors for American interest in this distant part of the world. And if worse comes to worse, send in the Marines with no qualms : 'soldiers are just dumb animals' as that great 'diplomat' Henry Kissinger once said.
6
This Editorial present some valid arguments about the Congress's inaction re “Declaration of War on ISIL” I believe what the Editorial Board wants is the approval of plans to fight ISIL. In order to obtain approvals there needs to be a plan presented by the Pentagon and endorsed by the President.
Once Congress approves the plan then would fund the program. Currently Congress has provided the funding, but it has no idea what to do about ISIL. The Congress wants it ambiguous to have deniability just in case it didn’t work.
We keep harping on having moderates in Syria who would be trained to fight ISIL. If the so called moderates are from Syria, it may work; but if the moderates are from other countries, their introduction in Syria will be as detrimental as was the introduction of foreign fighters in Afghanistan. In the long run foreign fighters (mercenaries) do not work to the advantages of the locals as they do not have a relationship with the land.
ISIL needs to be fought on two fronts, one certainly is militarily and the other is Ideological. We have seen Saudi Arabia announce a 34 nation coalition to fight ISIS, but have not done any constructive work in those 34 countries to tamp down the ISIS influence. It is the Saudi/Wahhabi ideology that is at the center of ISIL, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram. Would the editorial board wants the Congress to sanction Saudi Arabia for supporting ISIS/Taliban/Al-Qaeda? If not, I do not see any change happening with ISIL.
Once Congress approves the plan then would fund the program. Currently Congress has provided the funding, but it has no idea what to do about ISIL. The Congress wants it ambiguous to have deniability just in case it didn’t work.
We keep harping on having moderates in Syria who would be trained to fight ISIL. If the so called moderates are from Syria, it may work; but if the moderates are from other countries, their introduction in Syria will be as detrimental as was the introduction of foreign fighters in Afghanistan. In the long run foreign fighters (mercenaries) do not work to the advantages of the locals as they do not have a relationship with the land.
ISIL needs to be fought on two fronts, one certainly is militarily and the other is Ideological. We have seen Saudi Arabia announce a 34 nation coalition to fight ISIS, but have not done any constructive work in those 34 countries to tamp down the ISIS influence. It is the Saudi/Wahhabi ideology that is at the center of ISIL, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram. Would the editorial board wants the Congress to sanction Saudi Arabia for supporting ISIS/Taliban/Al-Qaeda? If not, I do not see any change happening with ISIL.
45
Congress is peopled by a bunch of representatives and senators who are cowards, afraid to vote on any meaningful legislation. They are afraid they will lose their job in the next election because they vote for needed legislation.
5
"A Fearful Congress Sits Out the War Against ISIS"
Apparently, a sense of irony is missing from the Times editorial board offices.
The Times refused to re-print not only the Danish satirical Muhammad cartoons, but also the Charlie Hebdo cartoons drawn and published by their murdered colleagues earlier this year in Paris. The reason given, sensitivity to Muslims, was later revealed in these pages to be simple fear of Islamic fascist violence by its correspondents around the world and in Times square.
Understandable. But if the paper which printed the Pentagon papers and then crowed about their mission to inform the public, national security be damned, is cowed by Islamic fascism, is it perhaps too much to castigate Congress as a "fearful Congress"?
Or is perhaps an alternate Editorial properly entitled, "A Fearful Times Sits Out the War on The First Amendment Waged By Islamic Fascism"?
Apparently, a sense of irony is missing from the Times editorial board offices.
The Times refused to re-print not only the Danish satirical Muhammad cartoons, but also the Charlie Hebdo cartoons drawn and published by their murdered colleagues earlier this year in Paris. The reason given, sensitivity to Muslims, was later revealed in these pages to be simple fear of Islamic fascist violence by its correspondents around the world and in Times square.
Understandable. But if the paper which printed the Pentagon papers and then crowed about their mission to inform the public, national security be damned, is cowed by Islamic fascism, is it perhaps too much to castigate Congress as a "fearful Congress"?
Or is perhaps an alternate Editorial properly entitled, "A Fearful Times Sits Out the War on The First Amendment Waged By Islamic Fascism"?
5
Congress has proven quite handily that they're pretty incapable in general and have explicitly proven their incapability around making moral and rational decisions about going to war. We have their war-making decisions to thank for the current crisis, so I'm just fine with them sitting this out. Let other smarter, more sensible people make those decisions. Just because there is "broad political consensus" that we should do something, doesn't make it so. Get Saudi Arabia on it--it's their fundamentalism at the root of the savagery--and let them clean up the mess.
69
"After a couple of halfhearted attempts, the White House and leaders in the House and Senate appear to have given up on drafting a new authorization etc."
Maybe if the attempts were not so halfhearted then there might have been that draft. While the NYT admits that the White House is also at fault, the blame in the editorial goes exclusively to Congress.
Just a short while ago the NYT was writing editorials against the interference of Congress in the Iran deal.
So perhaps the issue and the editorial position of the NYT might be rephrased: when the policy of the president might blow up in his face, then better to have Congress also involved to share the blame. However, when Congress is not needed, or when there is the possibility of glory or success, then they should sit it out and let the president do what he wants because in any case case he would disregard their opinion and veto their decisions.
Maybe if the attempts were not so halfhearted then there might have been that draft. While the NYT admits that the White House is also at fault, the blame in the editorial goes exclusively to Congress.
Just a short while ago the NYT was writing editorials against the interference of Congress in the Iran deal.
So perhaps the issue and the editorial position of the NYT might be rephrased: when the policy of the president might blow up in his face, then better to have Congress also involved to share the blame. However, when Congress is not needed, or when there is the possibility of glory or success, then they should sit it out and let the president do what he wants because in any case case he would disregard their opinion and veto their decisions.
20
Congress has ceased any functioning that does not include cameras and lights or fund-raising; everything else gets delayed until must-pass omnibus bills that are created after Congress returns from Thanksgiving, before they leave for the holidays - otherwise, the only votes Congress takes are ' show votes ' to express displeasure with the Executive Branch.
11
The NY Times gives no reason why it is the duty of American boys and girls to fight ISIS. The determination of who was the rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed is an issue for Muslims to decide. The Battle of Karbala apparently failed to definitively determine that so now the so called geniuses in Washington, enthralled by their affection for the European Union, which depend on us for security but which will not back us politically or economically, seek a new adventure. The solution to problems in the Muslim world, the Dar al Islam, must be sorted out and settled by Muslims themselves. Sunni, Shiite and other Muslim tendencies must find their own way here. Getting into World War III is not to our benefit. Nuclear France and Nuclear United Kingdom have plenty of blood and treasure to expend. It is their job not ours. Can anyone forget how they wouldn't stand up for what was right in the failing Yugoslavia leading to death and destruction while they waited for America to come and do their job? No American involvement. This is not our fight. No American boys and girls need bleed and die for this adventure. Let the Times, if they dare, call for Universal National Service so that all serve, not only the disadvantaged. The only thing that can stop this new Jingoism is a draft, which will then awaken the college students and youth to demonstrate as otherwise they, as the Congress, remain totally indifferent to the sacrifice that will be needed for this madness.
7
In twenty words or less: You would not want Congress to act unless you saw advantage in it for the Democratic Party.
1
STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE I am very pleased to read that Paul Ryan is speaking with the voice of reason to encourage Congress to act to defend our Homeland Security rather than continuing the disgraceful disdain shown for legislation and governance of this past Congress and the one preceding it. It is a great boon to the country to have the Speaker of the House demonstrate emotional and professional maturity and competence by engaging in substantive action rather than sabotaging Congress. While I disagree with some of what Paul Ryan has done, say for how taxes are being raised to pay for the new highways bill, we can all see how we will be starting to rebuild our badly decayed infrastructure. We can always revise the funding formula if necessary, without refusing to take care of the nation's need for jobs and safety on roads and bridges. I hope that Ryan's contributions will continue and increase, building upon the momentum established at the end of this Congressional term. I also think that he is the only member of the GOP leadership who shows the maturity and dedication to improving our nation, to stand for the office of President. The GOP would do itself a great favor by nominating a winner rather than one of the losers currently on the roster.
Our real enemy is not the ISIS but the incompetent American politicians.
If we are not going to pay for the medical bills, the scholarship, the mortgages, the credit bills, or the food for the fellow Americans in need, there is no need to subsidize the Middle-eastern nations either.
If Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkey cannot defeat the ISIS because they are too biased to cooperate, then no American soldier should die trying to protect them.
The locals don’t deserve such a colossal help.
If the locals were good people, capable of cooperating mutually and truly loved their neighbors, they would not need our help at all to defeat the ISIS…
Why?
They have been piling up the military arsenals and weaponry for several decades and trained their troops while the ISIS was created less than 5 years ago.
If they cannot defeat the ISIS on their own, they would have to surrender their national sovereignty to the international community to teach them the fundamentals about the modern humanity…
If we are not going to pay for the medical bills, the scholarship, the mortgages, the credit bills, or the food for the fellow Americans in need, there is no need to subsidize the Middle-eastern nations either.
If Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkey cannot defeat the ISIS because they are too biased to cooperate, then no American soldier should die trying to protect them.
The locals don’t deserve such a colossal help.
If the locals were good people, capable of cooperating mutually and truly loved their neighbors, they would not need our help at all to defeat the ISIS…
Why?
They have been piling up the military arsenals and weaponry for several decades and trained their troops while the ISIS was created less than 5 years ago.
If they cannot defeat the ISIS on their own, they would have to surrender their national sovereignty to the international community to teach them the fundamentals about the modern humanity…
3
Once again- why blame Obama?
2
Why would Congress authorize war against the JV team?
1
Anyone surpirised? Republicans crowed from the roooftos 2014-------give us full contol of congress and watch hwnwell it will work!
Give President Clinton a Democratic congress and things WILL get done, and done right..
Give President Clinton a Democratic congress and things WILL get done, and done right..
2
And some people shout and point and say the the rest of the world doesn't respect President Obama because he isn't "tough enough"?
And point to Putin as an example of what he should be like?
And point to Putin as an example of what he should be like?
2
I think you're jumping at shadows. It's most unlikely that President Obama will take us into a new war. To date, his moves against ISIS have been modest at best. Small special forces units. Advisors. And while some of these moves have been oddly clumsy, on balance I'm grateful for his thoughtful restraint.
3
Our Republican Congress is concerned with only one thing--getting re-elected-period. They do what they need to do to keep the largess of the rich and their lobbyists to fund their campaigns and then stand in the door of any progress to fulfill the famous line of Reagan that: "Government is the problem".
They have no courage or conviction for the people!
They have no courage or conviction for the people!
5
Congress's failure to vote yea or nea is a classic example of political cowardice and abdication of duty. They want it both ways - the ability to criticize the military measures without actually voting against those measures. They want to wage war without having to declare it. They couldn't wait to vote to limit the ability to assist refugees fleeing ISIS because they deemed that politically expedient. Pathetic.
17
This is asinine and you know it. No one is responsible for Barack Obama's executive failings, from drone strikes against civilians to unconstitutional spying on US citizens to windbag, hallow bluster about "red lines" save Barack Obama himself. Congress consists of simple morons, cynical morons, and simple, cynical morons but it is transparently partisan, and grossly inaccurate, to lay at the feet of those dimwits the failings of the dimwit-in-chief.
I trust this president much more than I do the current Congress both to make the difficult decisions regarding and to prosecute the American engagement with ISIL. I much prefer that Congress continue to do nothing, at least concerning this particular issue, even though it continues a dangerous practice.
3
It was reported today that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reminded Israel that ISIS has not forgotten about them and that Israel was an imminent target.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.693956
I can hardly wait for Israel to give ISIS the politically-incorrect pounding that's coming to them. No water, no electricity, no internet, no phone, no hospitals, no nothing, just sitting there wet and freezing in the rubble of what used to be their homes. Remember Dresden? Worse.
Really send them back to the 6th century.
Make their women and children and parents beg their sons the fighters to knock it off.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.693956
I can hardly wait for Israel to give ISIS the politically-incorrect pounding that's coming to them. No water, no electricity, no internet, no phone, no hospitals, no nothing, just sitting there wet and freezing in the rubble of what used to be their homes. Remember Dresden? Worse.
Really send them back to the 6th century.
Make their women and children and parents beg their sons the fighters to knock it off.
1
This editorial does not consider the fact that the situation with ISIS has been rapidly changing. The relative inflexibility of congressional action makes it less suitable for crafting responses to the rapidly shifting sands of the war in Syria, and with ISIS around the world. In such times, leaving command to the executive is a sensible way to increase flexibility and responsiveness.
Would you really want Congress to direct our response to ISIS? Given the stalemate that has characterized this Congress, that might be dangerous.
Would you really want Congress to direct our response to ISIS? Given the stalemate that has characterized this Congress, that might be dangerous.
1
What the Democrat and Republican congressman can do to stop ISIS and take responsibility for the chaos in the Middle East is STOP supporting countries such as Saudi Arabia which finance terrorist organizations like ISIS!
But, you'll never hear politicians in the Democratic party like Obama tell the truth, nor will his Republican friends, because they're in bed with Saudi royalty and the military industrial complex. Why should they treat the problem at its source when they can keep making the war profiteers lots of money on the "never ending war on terror"?
But, you'll never hear politicians in the Democratic party like Obama tell the truth, nor will his Republican friends, because they're in bed with Saudi royalty and the military industrial complex. Why should they treat the problem at its source when they can keep making the war profiteers lots of money on the "never ending war on terror"?
3
Mission-creep in service of military-industrial creeps.
Congress wants to spend, what is it this time... $607 billion on DOD (not counting all the other goodies those greasy palms get when congress keeps us fighting perpetual creeping wars).
The War was never meant to end. There's just far too much big business blood-money to be made.
Congress wants to spend, what is it this time... $607 billion on DOD (not counting all the other goodies those greasy palms get when congress keeps us fighting perpetual creeping wars).
The War was never meant to end. There's just far too much big business blood-money to be made.
14
Congress gets more cowardly and self-serving every year. Both of the major parties are to blame here, but this Republican group is so brazenly focused on pigging out on shadowy money and backroom deals that it's shocking...and this is coming from a Chicagoan, a place where political corruption is as common as the sun rising in the east.
162
It seems plain to many who comment here that our government is near totally dysfunctional. That’s a good start. Next we must recognize that government failings cannot be set right in a single election cycle.
Thus my vote for the Bernie Sanders social revolution is not so much in hope that a President Sanders will be elected and serve for the next 4 or 8 years. It is in hope that a more enduring social and political movement will be launched and then sustained by people such as those who supported the Occupy Wall Street effort.
Only if a movement can be sustained over a period of years, even generations, can we hope for a shift back toward a more representative government. If indeed results are seen they will be effected long after my death; but Americans must again start working toward long-term objectives. It's not in the best interests of our country to think only in terms of what will be most favorable within one's own lifetime.
Thus my vote for the Bernie Sanders social revolution is not so much in hope that a President Sanders will be elected and serve for the next 4 or 8 years. It is in hope that a more enduring social and political movement will be launched and then sustained by people such as those who supported the Occupy Wall Street effort.
Only if a movement can be sustained over a period of years, even generations, can we hope for a shift back toward a more representative government. If indeed results are seen they will be effected long after my death; but Americans must again start working toward long-term objectives. It's not in the best interests of our country to think only in terms of what will be most favorable within one's own lifetime.
1
Kinda obvious US policy to overthrow Assad trumps defeating ISIS.
2
The good news is that we don't have to fight ISIS. Putin's Russia is taking over. Iran will help. Problem solved. Pull up a seat and witness what real leadership can accomplish. Oh, also remember how Putin rid Syria of chemical weapons after Obama's failure to act.
2
As several of the GOP candidates hail from Congress, why have they not lived up to their bluster and sponsored legislation to 'solve' the problems of the Middle East.
Ted Cruz is too busy making cartoons exploiting his children, and Marco Rubio is too busy avoiding Congress altogether.
Ted Cruz is too busy making cartoons exploiting his children, and Marco Rubio is too busy avoiding Congress altogether.
6
Just like Congress' failure to pass an immigration reform bill, or a viable alternative to the ACA, here with ISIS, legislators would rather talk big and decry President Obama, than move constructively. The most noxious example is Ted Cruz, who is proud of derailing immigration reform, compared healthcare reform with Nazi appeasement, and now talks breezily of carpetbombing civilian homes and of 'making the sand glow in the dark.'
5
Everyone knows that ISIS has risen from the total lack of leadership by Barack Obama. The lack of Congressional approval is just an excuse for Obama's failure to protect America. Initially I started out by trying to support the Prsident even though I am a moderate. But his lack of leadership in the Middle East and his failure to improve race relations has caused me to change my mind.
"lawmakers are unwisely emboldening the executive branch to overstep its powers"
Seriously? You're blaming Obama's reckless and unconstitutional warmongering on Congress?
If the will of the people favors war, Congress will vote for war. The fact that the Congress hasn't declared war since the early 1940s clearly demonstrates that WE DO NOT WANT WAR.
Seriously? You're blaming Obama's reckless and unconstitutional warmongering on Congress?
If the will of the people favors war, Congress will vote for war. The fact that the Congress hasn't declared war since the early 1940s clearly demonstrates that WE DO NOT WANT WAR.
2
your govt sold you out
im sorry, i cant make it any simpler
im sorry, i cant make it any simpler
1
A good example of unchecked presidential excess is the executive order (no. 13692) issued last March by President Obama, that states that Venezuela is "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
2
As long as my taxes don't go up.
Fearful Congress indeed. They are afraid of terrorists. They are afraid of ISIS. They are afraid of their base. They are afraid of their donors.
They should all retreat and cower in the laps of their PACs to suck on their money teats for all the good they do.
How I wish we could control-alt-delete the whole mess of them.
They should all retreat and cower in the laps of their PACs to suck on their money teats for all the good they do.
How I wish we could control-alt-delete the whole mess of them.
8
The game plan is to take no responsibility and blame and snipe President Obama at every opportunity.
10
I can't blame the congress for being reluctant: it's a good sign in that circumspect is operative. Moreover, this diminishes the potency of Donald Trump's saber waving rhetoric. We must think befoe we leap.
I agree with those who ask the question regarding the potency of action: we do need a semblance of a strategy, not mere saber waving tactics. I doubt that Congressonal approval in itself will stop ISIS. They do not fear us.
I agree with those who ask the question regarding the potency of action: we do need a semblance of a strategy, not mere saber waving tactics. I doubt that Congressonal approval in itself will stop ISIS. They do not fear us.
Once again the Congress puts its political goals and needs above the well being of the country - what a surprise. The GOP leadership so hates Mr. Obama that they'd rather shirk their duty so that they can blame him - blame him for any perceived lack of success in the war campaign, but also blame him for outrageously (in their world) "overstepping" his executive powers. No one should be surprised by this. Their MO for seven years now has been to refuse to function, then scream foul when Mr. Obama steps in OR to refuse to work with him, then accuse him of being "partisan" when he acts on his own. They are both cowards and liars.
212
Well said Anne-Marie. I had planned to make a similar entry --- but couldn't have found the right way to say it any better than you did in your commentary. It's no wonder that our Congress has become such an embarrassment !!!!
1
Agreed, but you left out, treasonous!
1
It's time for "Term Limits for US Congress" read, sign and share. Wake up people your being made fools of.
Is there a constitutional means by which the people can hold Congress responsible for their unwillingness and or inability to act for the benefit of the nation as a whole? I know that the elections are supposed to be a means to "fire" an elected official, but each useless member of Congress is too entrenched in their own community, they communities are too bent on us vs them, partisan politics and it's reached a whole new low and harmed this nation beyond anything acceptable. So is there a constitutional remedy available to We, the People?
2
Well, things aren't bad enough for us to resort to our "second ammendment rights" yet so we can only work on getting all the sane people out to vote on off years. If every American voted in every election every year there would be no more than 2 or 3 repubs in Congress.
A useless, obstructive, and ideologically bound Congress that would much rather criticize the President rather than truly deal intelligently with ANYTHING in either the domestic or foreign domain, by choosing to not do anything, is still making a decision - a pathetic and feckless one to be sure, but a decision nevertheless.
It's a long way from this to a President that is "overreaching his authority." The President has domain over Foreign Policy, and would ordinarily consult with the Congress - that is if we had normal times, and a functional, cooperative Congressional relationship. Our President is doing the best he can in bad circumstances, considering that the Congress has long since become an ineffective and dysfunctional body, and has morphed into an ideological purity and debate committee.
Whether the President's plan is truly effective or not, is another issue altogether. Normally, under difficult circumstances, our Congress and President (Legislative and Executive branches) would work closely together to do what is best for the nation's interest. Sadly, the President is still the only adult in the room. Our Right Wing dominated Congress is still far more interested in obstruction and leveraging political advantage, than doing what is right for the nation or the world.
All parties need to show up for the balanced power between the various branches of government to work correctly. We have not had that for years. Criticism is cheap, cooperation is harder.
It's a long way from this to a President that is "overreaching his authority." The President has domain over Foreign Policy, and would ordinarily consult with the Congress - that is if we had normal times, and a functional, cooperative Congressional relationship. Our President is doing the best he can in bad circumstances, considering that the Congress has long since become an ineffective and dysfunctional body, and has morphed into an ideological purity and debate committee.
Whether the President's plan is truly effective or not, is another issue altogether. Normally, under difficult circumstances, our Congress and President (Legislative and Executive branches) would work closely together to do what is best for the nation's interest. Sadly, the President is still the only adult in the room. Our Right Wing dominated Congress is still far more interested in obstruction and leveraging political advantage, than doing what is right for the nation or the world.
All parties need to show up for the balanced power between the various branches of government to work correctly. We have not had that for years. Criticism is cheap, cooperation is harder.
5
And if there were any such resolution, the ultra-partisan interests on the Right would declare, "this resolution means nothing because if a Republican president is elected, it will be torn to shreds on day one."
Thus runs our democracy these days, held hostage to the extremism of our right wing. It exists as an axiom: nothing a Democrat does must ever be endorsed.
This is the contract, America.
Thus runs our democracy these days, held hostage to the extremism of our right wing. It exists as an axiom: nothing a Democrat does must ever be endorsed.
This is the contract, America.
11
I'm just waiting for Obama to declare that science has proven that the sun comes up in the east just to watch the republicans fall all over themselvs to be the first to declare it junk science.
Frankly speaking, I have more confidence in Obama than in the Congress of recent years. Obama is capable of making decisions in the best interest of the country. The Congress has shown repeatedly through government shutdowns, national debt default threats, and countless other shameless actions that it has no concept of a national interest. Let's leave well enough alone.
52
Somehow 'Politics' has become a career option when it should be anything but. The goal is now to be re-elected' rather than do a job that calls at times for unpopular decisions, for which there is often no-thanks and which might lead to being voted out of office. This inevitably leads to compromised decisions. Also it seems obvious to me that politicians are more often than not the least qualified to make value judgments and decisions in highly complex matters of state. The current slew of candidates is a testament of plenty to this. The decision making process is further compromised when vested interests buy their way into the halls of congress and sway lawmakers into the creation of self-serving legislation benefiting themselves and not the country.
Democracy may have hit a brick wall.
Democracy may have hit a brick wall.
5
Calling out Congress on this issues seems to turn logic on its head.
My understanding is that the Commander-In-Chief, who has to prosecute the war, is supposed to ask for a declaration of war and part of his lead-up to that request is to sell it to the American people. President Obama has kept a low profile and pursued a limited engagement model and Congress has supported him as they obviously agree with him that we should make some minimal effort. In that sense they are in harmony.
If we want to clean up this process then the POTUS needs to start by identifying the enemy and then explaining his strategy to defeat them and why it's important and that argument has been a mess from day 1. But to the point of the story it makes no sense to bash Congress until we see the President lead. Then the ball is in their court.
My understanding is that the Commander-In-Chief, who has to prosecute the war, is supposed to ask for a declaration of war and part of his lead-up to that request is to sell it to the American people. President Obama has kept a low profile and pursued a limited engagement model and Congress has supported him as they obviously agree with him that we should make some minimal effort. In that sense they are in harmony.
If we want to clean up this process then the POTUS needs to start by identifying the enemy and then explaining his strategy to defeat them and why it's important and that argument has been a mess from day 1. But to the point of the story it makes no sense to bash Congress until we see the President lead. Then the ball is in their court.
3
Obama has asked for authority and money to back it up but Republicans have refused. Their main excuse is that he won't start a big enough war.
So now Obama has a strategy to win. Who knew?
Any President that comes to Congress asking for authority and money needs to sell it to the public first and then sell it to Congress. Putin can do what he wants but the POTUS cannot and that's the way we should keep it.
Any President that comes to Congress asking for authority and money needs to sell it to the public first and then sell it to Congress. Putin can do what he wants but the POTUS cannot and that's the way we should keep it.
It's apparent that an overwhelming majority of our members of Congress want nothing more than to stay in Congress for as long as they can. Perversely, this means that they will do as little as possible, lest what they do antagonize someone who might then take part in voting them out of office.
While members of both parties play this game, I have to say that it fits the Republican Party the most. It's hard to believe, for example, that a public works project akin to the Interstate Highway System would be authorized by Republican majorities in both Houses even under a Republican president.
We simply can't afford to allow our Congress to keep doing business this way. Time to remember that we are a democratic republic, if only for one out of four years, and to pay attention so that we can vote intelligently.
While members of both parties play this game, I have to say that it fits the Republican Party the most. It's hard to believe, for example, that a public works project akin to the Interstate Highway System would be authorized by Republican majorities in both Houses even under a Republican president.
We simply can't afford to allow our Congress to keep doing business this way. Time to remember that we are a democratic republic, if only for one out of four years, and to pay attention so that we can vote intelligently.
6
Congress has abdicated its most important -- arguably sacred -- responsibility for well over a half century. Not since World War II has it had the integrity, the courage, the decency to stand up and be counted, as it sent other people's children off to get killed, not for the Korean War, not for the Viet Nam War, not for the Iraq War, not for Afghanistan, let alone the more minor engagements.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress has suggested that they have to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress has suggested that they have to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
9
This Congress is fearful and feckless. Its failure to debate, deliberate, and take a public stand on authorization for war belies the posturing and mendacity of its bellicose majority. The President, powerless to influence the majority to staff the State Department, Secret Service, or Internal Revenue Service adequately, fills the breach by resorting to emergency powers. As a result, more US arms, consultants, and out-of-date military equipment are pushed like chessmen into an active war zone, while the American people--in whose name this occurs--are kept in the dark about the complexities of the failed states involved. Decades pass, but only military industrialists benefit, a recipe that ripens regional threats into global ones.
Meanwhile, in Syria and Iraq during the last two years, the world has witnessed more than 100,000 casualties, a population of over 5 million on the move, plus insurrectionist policies of religious extermination, rape, and sexual slavery.
Many actors are to blame for this apocalypse. However, two necessary ingredients persistently enable it. The first is a proliferation of citizens disenfranchised by gerrymandering or silenced by politicians selling self-interest in the land of the free and home of the brave. The second is a Speaker of the House who expediently disregards his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Meanwhile, in Syria and Iraq during the last two years, the world has witnessed more than 100,000 casualties, a population of over 5 million on the move, plus insurrectionist policies of religious extermination, rape, and sexual slavery.
Many actors are to blame for this apocalypse. However, two necessary ingredients persistently enable it. The first is a proliferation of citizens disenfranchised by gerrymandering or silenced by politicians selling self-interest in the land of the free and home of the brave. The second is a Speaker of the House who expediently disregards his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
5
The argument that Congress should declare war or else the president will further ramble outside of his power and declare war, is completely without logic. Congress should only declare war if it has been agreed that there is an enemy, it is a serious threat to national security, and the belief that the president will do everything possible to win the war in a manner which is as quick and painless to the U.S. while being quick and most painful against the enemy. If congress does not believe that the commander in chief is willing and capable to fight a war the right way, the winning way, it would behoove congress not to declare war. If Obama decides he wants his war his way and oversteps his authority, well that is on Obama. Certainly congress must not declare war to save political face of Obama, nor declare war to keep Obama from doing something stupid. And since the writers want want to declare war on the Islamic state these writers must want us to invade with no boots on the ground in a myriad of places around the world, from the U.S., to Singapore, all of the Arab world, and most of Asia Minor and Europe and Africa. After all, that is where th enemy is. So perhaps the Times may reconsider and understand that Congress may indeed be doing its job by not declaring war against what would in effect be a war against most of the world, a war that we cannot afford to fight, cannot pay for and one that sickly Americans could stomach.
While it is hardly surprising that a do-nothing Congress continues to do nothing, let's keep reminding voters of the extreme danger of inaction. President Obama led the effort to deal with current issues in a relatively sensible manner - reduce dependence on foreign oil by pushing for alternative energy sources and expending production at home; work on reducing the causes of extremism by disengaging gradually from large scale military operations in the Middle East; engaging with the rest of the world and using sanctions and negotiations (rather than rushing in with the cavalry) to resolve long-running feuds that were going nowhere good... It appears that rather than taking a cue from the President and being realistic and pragmatic about resolving issues, Congress has decided to act like a bunch of sophomores and cruise through this semester. They should not receive a passing grade this time ... let's hope the next election hands them a failing grade.
13
Obama's decisions, more than anything else, led to 4 million refugees.
We could have, and should have avoided ISIS taking control in Iraq and Syria.
Group think is proved too powerful as the pendulum swung Obama's way.
We could have, and should have avoided ISIS taking control in Iraq and Syria.
Group think is proved too powerful as the pendulum swung Obama's way.
What about sequestration? That was cutting off funding in the military. But that was at a time when after the Great Recession, however, some disagree when that officially ended. Now we're looking towards a robust economy but at what expense to those who lost during the Great Recession?
If we have another sequestration I'm afraid it will be towards those receiving pensions or social security on top of disability. But wait the Republican Party sees that we should privatize social security. Maybe the next President will think that is an option being a Democrat or a Republican.
Therefore, the American way of life while changing now after 9/11 will come true of what Osama bin Laden was thinking. The downfall of the United States as a Empire against the Kings of Saudi Arabia. The only thing Osama bin Laden didn't know is who will be the leaders in the free world that will prevent that from happening.
If we have another sequestration I'm afraid it will be towards those receiving pensions or social security on top of disability. But wait the Republican Party sees that we should privatize social security. Maybe the next President will think that is an option being a Democrat or a Republican.
Therefore, the American way of life while changing now after 9/11 will come true of what Osama bin Laden was thinking. The downfall of the United States as a Empire against the Kings of Saudi Arabia. The only thing Osama bin Laden didn't know is who will be the leaders in the free world that will prevent that from happening.
1
These are extremely disturbing events and continues to provide dangerous precedence for the executive branch to exercise powers not meant for it.
Our founding fathers were smart in creating a system of checks and balances but when they aren't adhered to it can lead to such dire consequences.
Look at how Obama has become the drone president and so many children killed by the use of said weapons of war.
Our founding fathers were smart in creating a system of checks and balances but when they aren't adhered to it can lead to such dire consequences.
Look at how Obama has become the drone president and so many children killed by the use of said weapons of war.
5
America is no longer the policeman of the world! This realization has come to pass here in Europe as European countries have begun to accept more responsibility for their neighborhood's problems.
America, both citizens and politicians, need to grasp this new reality and encourage their allies to increase their own military budgets in order to protect their own citizens. America has bankrupted itself with a 20 trillion Dollar debt fighting unnecessary wars for allied countries while allies spent their revenue improving their own quality of life at home.
Obama is well aware of this foreign policy debacle and in his own reticent manner, is passive aggressively calling congress' bluff by doing nothing.
America, both citizens and politicians, need to grasp this new reality and encourage their allies to increase their own military budgets in order to protect their own citizens. America has bankrupted itself with a 20 trillion Dollar debt fighting unnecessary wars for allied countries while allies spent their revenue improving their own quality of life at home.
Obama is well aware of this foreign policy debacle and in his own reticent manner, is passive aggressively calling congress' bluff by doing nothing.
13
By retiring to France 12 years ago, I am benefitting from France's investing in its terrific health care system, infrastructure, high speed trains, etc. . All of these improvements were made possible by America paying for European defense and wars while the French government invested in itself.
At the same time, America has neglected investing, partly for lack of money, in its own country. America's violent gun culture and uncivil citizens make retiring to France a no brainer.
At the same time, America has neglected investing, partly for lack of money, in its own country. America's violent gun culture and uncivil citizens make retiring to France a no brainer.
1
Actually it doesn't matter what congress proposes and authorizes, if it isn't exactly what Obama wants he'll veto. The Republicans were opposed to the complete pull out of US troops from Iraq; Obama went ahead any way and unilaterally. The Republicans are opposed to the large influx of Syrian refugees; Obama ignored the opposition and we are accepting refugees.
The Republicans can pass legislation to their heart's desire - and they have - but without a significant veto proof alignment of Democrats in support; the measure will be vetoed. This is the state into which congress has been rendered impotent. There is no give from Obama and Democrat legislator leaders - see Reid and Pelosi - to allow for any GOP initiative to be authorized.
The congress is frozen and while it's the task of the Times to blame all this on the GOP one only has to skim the comments and accusations by Reid and Pelosi to sense the poison they have injected into congressional consideration. There's no coming together; and this situation suits the Democrats and Obama just fine.
The Republicans can pass legislation to their heart's desire - and they have - but without a significant veto proof alignment of Democrats in support; the measure will be vetoed. This is the state into which congress has been rendered impotent. There is no give from Obama and Democrat legislator leaders - see Reid and Pelosi - to allow for any GOP initiative to be authorized.
The congress is frozen and while it's the task of the Times to blame all this on the GOP one only has to skim the comments and accusations by Reid and Pelosi to sense the poison they have injected into congressional consideration. There's no coming together; and this situation suits the Democrats and Obama just fine.
10
Either I or you must be living in an alternate universe.
10
Tthere is no evidence that the President would veto authorization for military action in Syria. He requested it. The only way Republicans will authorize, is if social programs are cut to fund the military action.
1
Hard to believe some people are still blaming the 2008 SOFA agreement on Obama. Sheeesh! Obama couldn't keep troops in Iraq for the same reasons GWB couldn't. If anyone is to blame it's Maliki. It was his country afterall. Are the blame Obama folks really saying the concept of national sovereignty is just a quaint isea ro be disregarded by the whim of the powerful and arrogant? Isn't that Putin's modus operandi ee: Ukraine? Do we really want to go that route?
2
Congress has declared war only five times and then at the behest of the President so actually this is not new behavior. And it is constitutionally unclear, and perhaps intentional, whether it is required since as commander-in-chief, the President can use the military to defend the interests of the United States without a declaration of war, which historically has been the case. When it comes to foreign policy and use of the military it is better that the nation speak with one voice rather than 535. That being said, the real power of Congress given in the constitution is the power of the purse. If they fund extended military operations, in which case they should at least debate the conflict, then they have effectively given their approval for the President. Nothing else is required. It maybe that the war powers act was unconstitutional anyway. It is likely a constitutional conundrum that will never be settled and maybe that was intentional too. The founders are not around to ask.
3
I really don't understand... maybe someone can help me.
1. Teams of people in the 1980's Beyond War movement examined the institution of war and came to the universal conclusion that it had become obsolete. Nuclear war. Conventional war. All war.
2. After 911, it became apparent that the only reliable resource for security in the world today is relationship. When relationships are healthy, you don't need any military to protect you. When relationships are unhealthy, no military in the world will keep you safe.
3. The United States spends a trillion dollars a year on the military. I wonder what would happen if we spent just one percent of this, (10 billion dollars) per year on developing alternatives to war, such as sister city programs, economic interdependence, scientific collaboration, dialogue groups, preemptive diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and many other "relationship based" programs.
* If we think we can bomb ourselves to peace, we are gravely mistaken.
* The universe is a planet nursery and is intolerant of any planet that uses war to resolve conflict.
* Solving the problem by colonizing Mars is space genocide.
* Relationship is the master organizing principle of the cosmos. We need to align with it, globally, immediately, if we want to survive.
Come on, America.
Lead! Innovate! Move! Create!
We can do... just not with war.
1. Teams of people in the 1980's Beyond War movement examined the institution of war and came to the universal conclusion that it had become obsolete. Nuclear war. Conventional war. All war.
2. After 911, it became apparent that the only reliable resource for security in the world today is relationship. When relationships are healthy, you don't need any military to protect you. When relationships are unhealthy, no military in the world will keep you safe.
3. The United States spends a trillion dollars a year on the military. I wonder what would happen if we spent just one percent of this, (10 billion dollars) per year on developing alternatives to war, such as sister city programs, economic interdependence, scientific collaboration, dialogue groups, preemptive diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and many other "relationship based" programs.
* If we think we can bomb ourselves to peace, we are gravely mistaken.
* The universe is a planet nursery and is intolerant of any planet that uses war to resolve conflict.
* Solving the problem by colonizing Mars is space genocide.
* Relationship is the master organizing principle of the cosmos. We need to align with it, globally, immediately, if we want to survive.
Come on, America.
Lead! Innovate! Move! Create!
We can do... just not with war.
100
Franky, I do not care who governs the Middle East, so long as it is not the USA.
1
Nice in theory. but the US can not just abdicate its leadership role in stabilizing transitioning areas around the globe.
It takes both a carrot and a stick to make these relationships work. Once dictators or mobs take control of territory dialogue often cements their ill gotten control.
It takes both a carrot and a stick to make these relationships work. Once dictators or mobs take control of territory dialogue often cements their ill gotten control.
Bravo!
It's interesting that the Board should use the phrase "A Fearful Congress", for surely that's what it is. The philosophers can suck on their pipes and decide what or who makes these minor legislators to cower. Surely it's not, what are they called, "freedom fighters"? How totally cartoonish. In fact, the same frailties, the scratch of fingers at the door raw to the quick, the apparition of a murder of crows lurking in the periphery of perception, the doe in the headlights look when they face a question and only the abyss opens before them, these are the same human conditions that we all not sheltered quite as well as they face and befriend every day. At some point, familiarity with the world and its unpredictable psychotic behaviors actually strengthens us and ameliorates the rough edges of those most in need of therapy, as it were. The most fearful wild beast responds to kindness and forgiveness.
These are not easy platitudes. To give these pasteboard silhouettes a backbone is probably impossible, but to prevent them from committing intolerable acts of intolerance and yes, courage, we only need say: Not In My Name! and you may attach any vulgar sobriquet you choose for emphasis.
Who is it that are so multitudinous that empathy, which requires us to put ourselves in the steps of the diaspora, is inaccessible? My friends, they are us.
These are not easy platitudes. To give these pasteboard silhouettes a backbone is probably impossible, but to prevent them from committing intolerable acts of intolerance and yes, courage, we only need say: Not In My Name! and you may attach any vulgar sobriquet you choose for emphasis.
Who is it that are so multitudinous that empathy, which requires us to put ourselves in the steps of the diaspora, is inaccessible? My friends, they are us.
9
This is a do nothing Congress and it has been just that for the last several years under Republican control. Of course, they may be fearful of addressing a subject as difficult as war powers, but it is not because of the gravity or complexity of the issues involved. It is about potentially losing their job over doing the right thing. It is so much easier to just stand around and say anything you want, since you can always change your mind depending on which way the wind blows. Everyone knows that even relatively simple votes that are contentious in one way or another, like aid for Hurricane Sandy victims, are cast in ways so that one can say they voted in favor of something, even when they actually voted against it. Yes, the people fall for it because who would think that their representatives were devious. Let me retract that. By now, everyone knows that greed is what fills the chambers of Congress, and it is time to vote these people out of office. If only there was some one to replace them, and there is no one who has stated a position on our presence in the Middle East and the War on ISIS that either makes sense or is in any way convincing, probably because there isn't any, but we could at least honestly admit that. Unfortunately, and debate under the present circumstances will only lead to more intractable and hardened positions, none of which address the problems and are bound to end in no agreement at all on what to do.
46
Thomas Jefferson believed the Congress acted as a cooling system for hot headed ideas. He made the comment of that it was like pouring your tea into the saucer to cool it before drinking it. The fashion of pouring tea into the saucer and slurping it out of the saucer is lost but the meaning is entirely clear.
Isis is a terrorist group that has filled a vacuum in countries with little government in place. Basically thugs with the internet. Run by mostly it appears young boys being handled by older men via a system of gifts and praise to get them to do terrible acts. The random attacks can not be stopped easily as it just takes a few people to carry them out.
So traditional warfare is not going to work on containing the group. Congress has political reasons that they are not acting. At the moment there are several important issues that Congress again for political reasons is doing nothing. The executive can do within it's means to take action. Sadly the changes in campaign funding have made the Congress more extreme.
There are a lot of dangerous people in the world. There are many countries with bad governments. The destabilization of the mideast will be a longstanding problem for years to come. There was positive action in the 33 thousand people going to Paris to discuss global warming and steps to prevent it becoming worse. I don't think action by Congress can legislate a fix by themselves. It's going to need to be an international effort like global warming.
Isis is a terrorist group that has filled a vacuum in countries with little government in place. Basically thugs with the internet. Run by mostly it appears young boys being handled by older men via a system of gifts and praise to get them to do terrible acts. The random attacks can not be stopped easily as it just takes a few people to carry them out.
So traditional warfare is not going to work on containing the group. Congress has political reasons that they are not acting. At the moment there are several important issues that Congress again for political reasons is doing nothing. The executive can do within it's means to take action. Sadly the changes in campaign funding have made the Congress more extreme.
There are a lot of dangerous people in the world. There are many countries with bad governments. The destabilization of the mideast will be a longstanding problem for years to come. There was positive action in the 33 thousand people going to Paris to discuss global warming and steps to prevent it becoming worse. I don't think action by Congress can legislate a fix by themselves. It's going to need to be an international effort like global warming.
85
Destabilization/Sectarian violence in the Middle East has persisted for centuries and will never be resolved; all over a difference of opinion in the construct of rites and rituals in the manner of religiosity of prayer.
I agree with you, Elise,
The Paris Climate Conference produced some rules, but the ultimate goal should also include some functionality for future issues, such as water, pollution and terrorism.
A functioning global community, of governments, citizens, media and business, dedicated to solving ALL problems at the highest level of concern, should be part of our new thinking.
See, war,,, think global community.
See climate change, think global community.
See preparation for war, think stupidity.
The Paris Climate Conference produced some rules, but the ultimate goal should also include some functionality for future issues, such as water, pollution and terrorism.
A functioning global community, of governments, citizens, media and business, dedicated to solving ALL problems at the highest level of concern, should be part of our new thinking.
See, war,,, think global community.
See climate change, think global community.
See preparation for war, think stupidity.
I applaud your optimism but do not share it. ISIS is all what you say but is controlled by upper echelons who are not clearly in our sights for many reasons. Nazism rose out of a far worse vacuum and was likewise initially controlled by upper echelons but who lost all control later on leaving the devil to his business until the ultimate Valhalla.
Speaking of a future president, that makes the presidential election next year so much more pivotal. We are talking not just about the Supreme Court but also war or peace.
Already, the political TV ads from former Gov Jeb Bush are filled with the neocon messages of "overwhelming force" etc.. And the scary thing is that Mr Bush has zero percent international experience let alone military services. Already, his brother has done great damages to this country with President George W Bush's experience. While it may be true that President Obama was also inexperience with the military. At least, he errs on the side of caution. As we stand, the only real qualified individual is Sec Clinton.
Cynically, Congress sitting on the fence is understandable. It members don't want to repeat President Bush's legacy but they also don't want to be attacked as being weak politically. In the presidential race, anyone who offers up anything simplistic or even dualistic is a fraud. There is no perfect solution. It cannot be either/or. Instead, even if the voters may not agree with parts of a plan, a qualified candidate must provide a nuanced approach to solve the terrorism puzzle in general and ISIL in particular.
That is to say, the next president must be a pragmatist and not a zealot from either the extreme right or the extreme left. Or America will suffer
Already, the political TV ads from former Gov Jeb Bush are filled with the neocon messages of "overwhelming force" etc.. And the scary thing is that Mr Bush has zero percent international experience let alone military services. Already, his brother has done great damages to this country with President George W Bush's experience. While it may be true that President Obama was also inexperience with the military. At least, he errs on the side of caution. As we stand, the only real qualified individual is Sec Clinton.
Cynically, Congress sitting on the fence is understandable. It members don't want to repeat President Bush's legacy but they also don't want to be attacked as being weak politically. In the presidential race, anyone who offers up anything simplistic or even dualistic is a fraud. There is no perfect solution. It cannot be either/or. Instead, even if the voters may not agree with parts of a plan, a qualified candidate must provide a nuanced approach to solve the terrorism puzzle in general and ISIL in particular.
That is to say, the next president must be a pragmatist and not a zealot from either the extreme right or the extreme left. Or America will suffer
40
Pretending that Hillary Clinton is not a war zealot is ludicrous. Hillary's War Gallions left the dock long ago and she has supported every military adventure that has arisen in her career. She is EXACTLY what is not now needed.
How amusing in the same comment you call bush a neocon and Clinton the only qualified choice.
I guess you missed the memo that she too is a neocon when it comes to foreign policy... I do not understand "liberals" who forgive or forget her Iraq vote, it is entirely unacceptable. No, not everyone voted for the war, and more importantly it was her JOB to make sure the reasons for going to war were valid. How is it that some congress people such as bernie sanders had the foresight to vote against it and others did not? It's simple: they did their jobs, politics and imaging be damned.
Clinton is NOT qualified to be president. Her judgement on foreign policy is no better than a republicans. She says the exact same things as them - take off your ready for hillary blinders and see reality for what it is: sanders is the only person qualified for the presidency. He's the only one in the race as of now who voted against the Iraq war showing good judgement.
I guess you missed the memo that she too is a neocon when it comes to foreign policy... I do not understand "liberals" who forgive or forget her Iraq vote, it is entirely unacceptable. No, not everyone voted for the war, and more importantly it was her JOB to make sure the reasons for going to war were valid. How is it that some congress people such as bernie sanders had the foresight to vote against it and others did not? It's simple: they did their jobs, politics and imaging be damned.
Clinton is NOT qualified to be president. Her judgement on foreign policy is no better than a republicans. She says the exact same things as them - take off your ready for hillary blinders and see reality for what it is: sanders is the only person qualified for the presidency. He's the only one in the race as of now who voted against the Iraq war showing good judgement.
Sounds like Vietnam
31
The lesson learned in Vietnam was to never draft soldiers as they might complain. Use well paid mercenaries instead and do as you wish. Public input be damned.
2
Congress is not abdicating its authority because that particular protocol which is built into the Constitution is not designed for a war with a foe that lacks borders, mentally and geographically. Besides, this editorial is a distraction from our real problems: poverty, domestic gun violence, income inequality, plutocracy, and a bought and paid for central government. If and until the locals get into the fray and make the sacrifice of the last full measure of devotion, taxpayers are simply throwing their money away.
31
Hopefully if we do not do anything the people in the Middle East might see it as a sign that they should clean up their own neighborhood.
31
Do you mean the ethnic "cleansing" by Syria 250,000 and counting.
The federal government has lost its spine. This country has not formally declared war, as provided for in the Constitution, since World War II. If the President wants to be seen as a leader, he should stand before Congress and make his case. If Congress ever hopes to be seen as doing what is right by the Constitution, they'll listen to the President's request, debate it, and vote on it. But this constant squirming by both branches of government (and both parties) for the sake of political expediency and cover is unforgivable.
4
It is not the federal government. It is US culture as a whole (see today's article "The Real Victims of Victimhood). Far too often we demand absolute assurance and perfect safety from even imagined dangers and then imagine more and more. The president and Congress are an accurate (not perfect) reflection of America and Americans. Unfortunately.
3
Any formal declaration must include a draft with no exemptions.
1
"The president and Congress are an accurate (not perfect) reflection of America and Americans. Unfortunately."
There's no better example of that than the patriot Act which nullifies the fourth and eighth amendments (search and seizure and habeus corpus). How can anyone call that safety?
There's no better example of that than the patriot Act which nullifies the fourth and eighth amendments (search and seizure and habeus corpus). How can anyone call that safety?
There is only one thing that Republicans want, and that is more for the rich at the expense of average Americans. They need to gain power back in order to achieve that effectively.
They will do nothing that might jeopardize that possibility in any way.
They will do nothing that might jeopardize that possibility in any way.
75
Congress has abdicated its most important -- arguably sacred -- responsibility for well over a half century. Not since World War II has it had the integrity, the courage, the decency to stand up and be counted, as it sent other people's children off to get killed, not for the Korean War, not for the Viet Nam War, not for the Iraq War, not for Afghanistan, let alone the more minor engagements.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress has suggested that they have to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
The only war Congress may have actually declared is the War On Drugs, not that any Member of Congress has suggested that they have to take a drug test before passing laws funding undeclared wars, passing budgets, or banning French Fries in favor of Freedom Fries in the Capitol cafeterias.
26
Inertia is the last refuge of the cowardly. You can always count on our Congress to go nowhere when the going gets tough. Not debating how best to confront this, supposed, existential threat should be considered a dereliction of their oaths of office. The reasoning is simple, however. If they vote for something, they cant blame Obama for everything.
327
When the going gets tough, Congress goes home for a holiday. Then again, is president. still playing golf in Hawaii?
You are exactly right Rick. The Republicans would be stupid to let Obama off the hook for his failed foreign policy. If a Republican president had done what Obama had done, you would be telling the world what a failed president he would be. Obama learns nothing because he is always the smartest guy in the room. And the media, constantly letting him off the hook, don't help this guy. He is incompetent and paranoid...all the worst of Carter and Nixon rolled into one.
Nobody in America would care about ISIS and the rest of the Middle East if they didn't have lots of valuable oil. If we all buy electric cars, the value of oil will decline. That will help solve the problem without empowering the military and killing Americans.
Electric cars are cheaper and better than gas powered vehicles, but they provide lower profit margins for car makers and oil companies. That is because they do not require as many expensive repairs, and the cost of electric power is half the cost of gasoline. Electricity production also produces half the pollution as gasoline use. So Chevrolet makes 10k Volt cars each year while Tesla is up to 50k this year and double that next year.
For more good ideas watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec and it's no joke). Get an electric car, send a buck to Bernie, invite me to speak to your group, get free printed copy of The Platform at alibris.com. Happy New Year!
Electric cars are cheaper and better than gas powered vehicles, but they provide lower profit margins for car makers and oil companies. That is because they do not require as many expensive repairs, and the cost of electric power is half the cost of gasoline. Electricity production also produces half the pollution as gasoline use. So Chevrolet makes 10k Volt cars each year while Tesla is up to 50k this year and double that next year.
For more good ideas watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec and it's no joke). Get an electric car, send a buck to Bernie, invite me to speak to your group, get free printed copy of The Platform at alibris.com. Happy New Year!
9
A government 'by the people, for the people' but never in the interests of the people. The GOP.
14
Sept 3rd 2013, there was a draft resolution by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "To authorize the limited and tailored use of United States Armed Forces against Syria". It was the authority that the President had requested to implement his planned response to the use of chemical weapons.
Congress dithered, delayed, refused; and the President was made vulnerable so that he was forced to accept the compromise put forward by Putin.
This weakness, inflicted by Congress, was a watershed in the deterioration in Syria, the emboldening of Russia, and the decline of American authority abroad. Those in Congress that call now for more aggressive action, and who call the President weak or without a clear policy; they should explain why they did not support the President in 2013 when lesser action could have been effective.
Congress dithered, delayed, refused; and the President was made vulnerable so that he was forced to accept the compromise put forward by Putin.
This weakness, inflicted by Congress, was a watershed in the deterioration in Syria, the emboldening of Russia, and the decline of American authority abroad. Those in Congress that call now for more aggressive action, and who call the President weak or without a clear policy; they should explain why they did not support the President in 2013 when lesser action could have been effective.
16
Thank you for reminding us. Now Donald and his supporters hero-worship the autocratic Vlad and vilify Obama for not being "decisive."
2
Don't forget that the British Parliament voted against joining us in any action against Syria. I would suggest that carried a lot of weight at that time. And further, if the U.S would have attacked Syria at that time then it appears that extremists would be running Syria now. Was that our goal?
The inconsistent NY Times one day must get their story straight. We went through this after Sept 11 and we had a Republican President with a democratic Congress, it was the Republican President's fault for Presidential over-reach. Now with the roles reversed a Democratic President with a Republican Congress, it is now the fault of Congress. The biased reporting by the NY Times needs to stop so all the news that is fit to print is not slanted news and can be believed. Do the people at the Times think that everyone who reads this paper has such bad memories that we cannot remember who you ridiculed just a few years ago under the same circumstances.
16
In addition to criticizing The Times for "biased reporting" in response to an EDITORIAL (that would be OPINION), you are misleadingly framing your argument as Republican/Democrat political opposition and conveniently ignoring the truth of each situation (and truth, as Colbert famously said, has a well known liberal bias) and you blame the editors for "slanted news." In the first pace this paper has expressed its regret over their support for Iraq. Secondly, in the case of Iraq the Democratic majority Congress supported Bush (wrongly). This Republican Congress has opposed this president on every issue, including even a debate about a new war resolution. Long way of saying your argument is specious.
3
Further: George W Bush presented to Congress all the intelligence we had before invading Iraq. The Congress decided, after their deliberations. Two of the biggest hawks were Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Retrospective debate or not, Iraq was becoming stable. Elections were held. But Obama deserted the country, and a rapidly expanding ISIS resulted. (Obama doesn't even identify the full enemy). But the leftists (NY Times is one of their homes) constantly complain that the war is Bush's fault.
Bush wasn't the one who unilaterally fired on Libya without any authorization, destabilized Egypt, failed to support our ally Israel, drew two lines in the sand in Syria and did nothing when they were violated, nor made a treaty with dangerous Iran and hid it from the Senate and the American people. Seems to me that not only has (as we easily know) the NY Times chosen and supported sides, that liberals/progressives/Democrats will seldom even bring up this disparity.
To head off the throw out argument that GW Bush made the agreement to leave Iraq: 1. Agreements can be negotiated as conditions change and the military commanders present best evidence to a president,,and 2. The agreement said we would remove COMBAT troops...same as we did in Korea and West Germany .. We still have troops there.
Bush wasn't the one who unilaterally fired on Libya without any authorization, destabilized Egypt, failed to support our ally Israel, drew two lines in the sand in Syria and did nothing when they were violated, nor made a treaty with dangerous Iran and hid it from the Senate and the American people. Seems to me that not only has (as we easily know) the NY Times chosen and supported sides, that liberals/progressives/Democrats will seldom even bring up this disparity.
To head off the throw out argument that GW Bush made the agreement to leave Iraq: 1. Agreements can be negotiated as conditions change and the military commanders present best evidence to a president,,and 2. The agreement said we would remove COMBAT troops...same as we did in Korea and West Germany .. We still have troops there.
Given the current GOP hostility towards Obama, I wonder if Obama were to say more about his plans towards ISIS it would it "come back to bite" him. Is there anytime during the current administration when the GOP has advocated for anything Obama proposed?
I do, however, remember the nation taking a stand to support George after 9/11.
I do, however, remember the nation taking a stand to support George after 9/11.
4
Against whom would Congress declare war? Declaring war on ISIS would recognize it as a nation-state. Do we really want to legitimize those barbarians?
9
What do u suggest? Just ignore them when there are 450,000 of them, 15% of the Muslim population living right amonst us?
In 1801, Congress declared war on the Barbary Pirates. War was declared on the pirates, not the entire Ottoman Empire.
Do you really think that war can be declared only on another country? If so - then all a country would need do to render itself immune to US attack would be to make a formal declaration dissolving itself. Come on. The framers of the Constitution were not as silly as recent governments.
Do you really think that war can be declared only on another country? If so - then all a country would need do to render itself immune to US attack would be to make a formal declaration dissolving itself. Come on. The framers of the Constitution were not as silly as recent governments.
The reticence of Congress in matters of war fits into a broader dysfunctional foreign policy that has become over-reliant on punitive sanctions and a militarization of conflict. Since 9/11 the sky has been falling, and a fearful nation has opted for the solution nearest to hand: bombs and sanctions. Yet after more than a decade the eradication of Islamic extremism has proven elusive, and as the challenge has metastasized, the nation has been placed on a permanent war footing, albeit without formal declarations. The nation is now governed by a commander-in-chief and not by the other pillars of government. Congress by its inaction has become complicit in abetting this imperial presidency. The lessons of Vietnam have all be unlearned.
1
I love America having lived here for many decades, born in a military hospital, but thoroughly disgusted at the fascist state we have become.
War is not the answer. Strictly isolating the fire and letting it burn itself out is the solution.
I want to reiterate; the President is not first and foremost "The Commander In Chief". He is the President of the People as we have all forgotten, including the Presidents and the Congress.
America has released it's Beast upon the world that has generated widespread resentment and perpetual spot fires.
We may survive if we put a leash on America's Warmongers. We need to show the world we mean peace, not domination.
You made a big mistake with this editorial just like you did in the run up to Iraq. You are living in the moment. I see the past, present, and future as a homogeneous history and I know we must reign in our aggressors before they get us destroyed.
War is not the answer. Strictly isolating the fire and letting it burn itself out is the solution.
I want to reiterate; the President is not first and foremost "The Commander In Chief". He is the President of the People as we have all forgotten, including the Presidents and the Congress.
America has released it's Beast upon the world that has generated widespread resentment and perpetual spot fires.
We may survive if we put a leash on America's Warmongers. We need to show the world we mean peace, not domination.
You made a big mistake with this editorial just like you did in the run up to Iraq. You are living in the moment. I see the past, present, and future as a homogeneous history and I know we must reign in our aggressors before they get us destroyed.
28
For once I agree completely with the NYT. Congress, under both parties, has increasingly abdicated its responsibilities and allowed the Executive Branch to become more powerful.
But the big difference between the current situation with ISIS and that involving Iraq and Afghanistan is that President Bush requested an authorization to use military force. President Obama should do the same and put the onus on Congress to approve, decline, or modify his request.
But the big difference between the current situation with ISIS and that involving Iraq and Afghanistan is that President Bush requested an authorization to use military force. President Obama should do the same and put the onus on Congress to approve, decline, or modify his request.
Obama did request authorization from congress. He even sent them a draft so their deliberations wouldn't inhibit their limited work week. Their lack of spine is showing. Big talkers must get reelected so they can't take risks. After all, it's the highest paying part time job in America
2
He did make the request. Thei did not act.
1
The reason that Trumpism, Cruzism and, whatever is left of it, Carsonism exist in the first place is because of the ineffectiveness, even impotence, of the central government. When those we elect to do the public's business consistently fail to do so and betray their oaths, demagogues gladly step up to the plate. And people who think "It can't happen here" are kidding themselves.
8
A Fearful Congress Sits Out the War Against ISIS - Leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, cowed by the potential political risks of having an honest debate, have refused to make it a priority. The operative term here is 'potential political risks.' Congress is intimidated by the prospect of making a bad political decision - let someone else do it - like the President. Not to worry Congress, the American electorate is asleep.
5
Why should Congress act when the President wouldn't do anything to respond to it anyway. He is not fighting a war. He is conducting a political charade to get off stage before the next election without doing any damage to Radical Islamic Terrorists active in Syria/Iraq. After all, he cannot or will not even say Radical Islamic Terrorist. How can you conduct a war against people or a cause you cannot even address?
Vlady Putin is actually fighting a military action. We are not because our rules of engagement preclude it. Shoot missiles only at night at empty buildings. Don't attack oil delivery trucks because good guys might be driving them. Then when Putin exposes the sham, drop leaflets before attacking. That ain't war, its Phony War for publicity only purposes. In 1944 in Normandy not an enemy truck or war vehicle moved on roads near the front because of airpower. The same could be true today in Syria/Iraq, but it isn't.
Might as well keep the non-war undeclared.
Vlady Putin is actually fighting a military action. We are not because our rules of engagement preclude it. Shoot missiles only at night at empty buildings. Don't attack oil delivery trucks because good guys might be driving them. Then when Putin exposes the sham, drop leaflets before attacking. That ain't war, its Phony War for publicity only purposes. In 1944 in Normandy not an enemy truck or war vehicle moved on roads near the front because of airpower. The same could be true today in Syria/Iraq, but it isn't.
Might as well keep the non-war undeclared.
4
And yet GOP presidential candidates by and large have argued that Obama is weak or not doing enough (not "all in" as former candidate Lindsey Graham said) in the fight against ISIS. Again and again and again, it's all talk with these guys. Most sit on their hands in the name of political expediency. Today's GOP is a failed party full of anger, taunt, bluster, and cowardice when it comes to action and responsibility. And their like-minded conservative constituents seem like blowhards, perhaps living out rebellious days that bypassed them when they were young.
8
One the one hand, Congress complains about the lack of action by Obama to face ISIS....and on the other hand Congress fails to face the issue. If members of Congress actually used their intellect to try to solve problems instead of making PR sound bites we might actually make progress in many areas.
5
The Republicans majority in both Chambers by sitting in on President Obama 's request sent several months earlier , for authorizing the War on ISIS , after deliberations and debate in GOP in Congress , have caused a huge disappointment . This particularly in the aftermath of historical voting in support for the unnecessary Iraq War ( 2003 - to date ) ! The specific context is avoiding a mandated role under Constitution . Rather GOP in Congress 's has been following political strategy of gamesmanship for years of " do nothing " . Not limited to non - actions by Congress on this particular important issue .
2
When Governor Christie carelessly tosses around tough-guy talk such as "feckless weakling," he ought to pick his targets more accurately. Mitch McConnell surely tops the list but Paul Ryan, followed by both houses of Congress, are easily viewable in the rear-view mirror.
Anyone who can, with a straight face, call the President "feckless" while the national legislature declines even to debate its constitutional obligation in wartime is cause for contempt. In Christie's case the contempibility precedes his recent outbust of intemperance by years.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Anyone who can, with a straight face, call the President "feckless" while the national legislature declines even to debate its constitutional obligation in wartime is cause for contempt. In Christie's case the contempibility precedes his recent outbust of intemperance by years.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
22
Oh, brother.
President Obama committed missiles and jets for attacks on Syria and also on Libya, without even consulting members of his OWN party. Diane Feinstein first heard about the Syrian sorties from a reporter from this newspaper, four hours after the first bombs had fallen.
It's OK that this editorial board is 100% Democrat in ALL of its opinions. It's even OK that they allow their Democrat biases to show in their daily barrage on the Republican Party.
...but it's NOT OK when this paper's editors use lies and false information when they attempt to make their points.
President Obama committed missiles and jets for attacks on Syria and also on Libya, without even consulting members of his OWN party. Diane Feinstein first heard about the Syrian sorties from a reporter from this newspaper, four hours after the first bombs had fallen.
It's OK that this editorial board is 100% Democrat in ALL of its opinions. It's even OK that they allow their Democrat biases to show in their daily barrage on the Republican Party.
...but it's NOT OK when this paper's editors use lies and false information when they attempt to make their points.
5
The Republican-controlled Congress has been very quick to blame President Obama for "executive overreach" on varying issues ranging from immigration to climate change to public health to foreign diplomacy to common sense regulations for the public good. However, when it comes to the hard questions of war and peace, of the scary commitment of American lives to a dangerous foe on alien fields, the Right falls silent. The Paul Ryan-led House and his twin, Mitch McConnell in the Senate, dare not be too far out in front of this debate. They want this to end badly for President Obama. If a disaster can claim hundreds or thousands of American lives, they can justify it as "executive overreach"and claim they never authorized military engagement and settle in with "it's all Obama's fault." The Constitution expressly granted Congress this fearsome responsibility, behind which it now cowers, ready to cast blame for failure. They want a war against the Islamic State; they just don't want it laid at their doorstep.
38
They don't want to make the rules to the game or even play, but you can bet the rent they will be more than happy to criticise those who do. Armchair quarterbacking of the most cynical kind. Disgraceful.
2
There isn't a day when the Republicans don't chide Obama for overreaching of executive power into their legislative prerogatives on every issue. Yet these hypocrites from McConnell to now Ryan, have yet to respond to Obama's request for necessary legislative action for all of our necessary military operations and incursions from Crimea and Iraq, to Syria and Afghanistan. They have the temerity to criticize Obama's equivocations in these areas, and all of their candidates with the exception of Rand Paul, try to outgun the other with their promises from boots on the the ground, to a robust defensive and offensive military posture. Not one of these blowhards who are currently serving in Congress have drafted and sponsored a bill to back up their specious statements. It's time for them to show some leadership and put some of their skin in the game besides bloviating.
9
"Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, maintains, preposterously, that he wouldn’t want to pass anything that might constrain a future president."
Or interfere with a future President to ability to ignore The War Powers Act altogether, as a dead letter, once adopted in the name of restoring Congressional oversight, but effectively abdicated by subsequent Congresses in their continued financing of "unauthorized conflicts."
That said, should a future administration widely decide to refrain from entering in a Gulf State conflict the White House deemed to have been provoked by erstwhile "regional allies," Sen. McConnell et al would have likely have little hesitation in putting a President in an untenable political position with a unilateral Declaration of War, under Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution, whether or not any Congressional Declaration of War would be self-executing. See the coverage by The Times on Dec. 8, 1941, the last time a President sought such an authorization:
"Since the Constitution provides that Congress alone can declare war, there was some doubt here as to whether the United States was officially at war with Japan from the time the House adopted the war resolution at 1:10 P. M., ten minutes after the Senate, or from the time the President signed the resolution at 4:10 P. M. Most attorneys consulted inclined to the belief the latter time marked the historic step." http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1208.html#article
Or interfere with a future President to ability to ignore The War Powers Act altogether, as a dead letter, once adopted in the name of restoring Congressional oversight, but effectively abdicated by subsequent Congresses in their continued financing of "unauthorized conflicts."
That said, should a future administration widely decide to refrain from entering in a Gulf State conflict the White House deemed to have been provoked by erstwhile "regional allies," Sen. McConnell et al would have likely have little hesitation in putting a President in an untenable political position with a unilateral Declaration of War, under Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution, whether or not any Congressional Declaration of War would be self-executing. See the coverage by The Times on Dec. 8, 1941, the last time a President sought such an authorization:
"Since the Constitution provides that Congress alone can declare war, there was some doubt here as to whether the United States was officially at war with Japan from the time the House adopted the war resolution at 1:10 P. M., ten minutes after the Senate, or from the time the President signed the resolution at 4:10 P. M. Most attorneys consulted inclined to the belief the latter time marked the historic step." http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1208.html#article
This is a majority Republican Congress. Republicans who rant and rave and whine and moan about how 'feckless' Barack Obama is on national security and foreign affairs.
Why in the world the president and the non-feckless Democrats in the Congress and those running for any office in the country don't turn this failure to vote into THE political issue of 2016 is beyond my grasp.
Democrats could beat the drum around the clock about the 'feckless' Republicans who want WW 3, but won't go on the record with a vote on anything pertaining to Daesh. How 'feckless' is that?
This means the vote will not happen and Republicans will continue to blame Obama for everything that happens with Daesh and if only he did what they wanted things would work out...but, they refuse to say what they want him to do.
This will be a repeat of the Syria 'red line' when Obama asked Congress to vote and they wimped out. The Republicans rely on the MSM not to remember little facts like that and so they get a pass, i.e., no follow-up, every time they attack on the 'red line' issue again and again.
So, here we go again with the Democrats handing the Republicans the baseball bat with which to beat them over the head.
Why in the world the president and the non-feckless Democrats in the Congress and those running for any office in the country don't turn this failure to vote into THE political issue of 2016 is beyond my grasp.
Democrats could beat the drum around the clock about the 'feckless' Republicans who want WW 3, but won't go on the record with a vote on anything pertaining to Daesh. How 'feckless' is that?
This means the vote will not happen and Republicans will continue to blame Obama for everything that happens with Daesh and if only he did what they wanted things would work out...but, they refuse to say what they want him to do.
This will be a repeat of the Syria 'red line' when Obama asked Congress to vote and they wimped out. The Republicans rely on the MSM not to remember little facts like that and so they get a pass, i.e., no follow-up, every time they attack on the 'red line' issue again and again.
So, here we go again with the Democrats handing the Republicans the baseball bat with which to beat them over the head.
11
"So, here we go again with the Democrats handing the Republicans the baseball bat with which to beat them over the head."
Well the problem is both the Democrats and Republicans need the lobbying money and support from lobbyists to stay in office. The Dems are not going to take a stand against the ultimate agenda of overthrowing Assad.
Well the problem is both the Democrats and Republicans need the lobbying money and support from lobbyists to stay in office. The Dems are not going to take a stand against the ultimate agenda of overthrowing Assad.
If I may add 1 comment
Objection to Obama's request could also be tied in part to
1) his failure to depose Assad despite related statements he must step down
2) Obama talked about his red line and what he would do if he received evidence Assad was using chemical weapons became the world's red line. Obama did nothing to stop Assad from killing 250,000 of his people
3) He refused to arm the free Syrian Army despite a bipartisan offer to do so.
4) Obama and Hillary did not request Congressional approval to go into Libya. While he he stated he was going in to save the people but the toppling of Gadaffi created a vacuum and chaos that ensued which has led to instability that remains to this day
5) Toppling Mubarak less than after calling him a stalwart ally and putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power was a strategic blunder. Mubarak was a stabilizing force and did not have an adversarial relationship with. It added to the instability
6) His initial failure to denounce China's building of man made islands. To his credit he has forced the issue by sending was ships within 2 miles
7) Referring to climate change as a far greater. Why would Congress authorize when he clearly thinks that ISIS is not a geopolitical threat and he repeatefdly says ISIS is not a threat to our national security? He has to diminish the threat otherwise it sends conflicting messages
Objection to Obama's request could also be tied in part to
1) his failure to depose Assad despite related statements he must step down
2) Obama talked about his red line and what he would do if he received evidence Assad was using chemical weapons became the world's red line. Obama did nothing to stop Assad from killing 250,000 of his people
3) He refused to arm the free Syrian Army despite a bipartisan offer to do so.
4) Obama and Hillary did not request Congressional approval to go into Libya. While he he stated he was going in to save the people but the toppling of Gadaffi created a vacuum and chaos that ensued which has led to instability that remains to this day
5) Toppling Mubarak less than after calling him a stalwart ally and putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power was a strategic blunder. Mubarak was a stabilizing force and did not have an adversarial relationship with. It added to the instability
6) His initial failure to denounce China's building of man made islands. To his credit he has forced the issue by sending was ships within 2 miles
7) Referring to climate change as a far greater. Why would Congress authorize when he clearly thinks that ISIS is not a geopolitical threat and he repeatefdly says ISIS is not a threat to our national security? He has to diminish the threat otherwise it sends conflicting messages
1
"Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, maintains, preposterously, that he wouldn’t want to pass anything that might constrain a future president."
Interfere with a future President to ability to ignore The War Powers Act altogether as a dead letter, once adopted in the name of restoring Congressional oversight, but effectively abdicated by subsequent Congresses in their continued financing of "unauthorized conflicts."
That said, should a future administration widely decide to refrain from entering in a Gulf State conflict the White House deemed to have been provoked by erstwhile "regional allies," Sen. McConnell et al would have likely have little hesitation in putting a President in an untenable political position with a unilateral Declaration of War, under Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution, whether or not any Congressional Declaration of War would be self-executing. See the coverage by The Times on Dec. 8, 1941, the last time a President sought such an authorization:
"Since the Constitution provides that Congress alone can declare war, there was some doubt here as to whether the United States was officially at war with Japan from the time the House adopted the war resolution at 1:10 P. M., ten minutes after the Senate, or from the time the President signed the resolution at 4:10 P. M. Most attorneys consulted inclined to the belief the latter time marked the historic step." http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1208.html#article
Interfere with a future President to ability to ignore The War Powers Act altogether as a dead letter, once adopted in the name of restoring Congressional oversight, but effectively abdicated by subsequent Congresses in their continued financing of "unauthorized conflicts."
That said, should a future administration widely decide to refrain from entering in a Gulf State conflict the White House deemed to have been provoked by erstwhile "regional allies," Sen. McConnell et al would have likely have little hesitation in putting a President in an untenable political position with a unilateral Declaration of War, under Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 2 of the Constitution, whether or not any Congressional Declaration of War would be self-executing. See the coverage by The Times on Dec. 8, 1941, the last time a President sought such an authorization:
"Since the Constitution provides that Congress alone can declare war, there was some doubt here as to whether the United States was officially at war with Japan from the time the House adopted the war resolution at 1:10 P. M., ten minutes after the Senate, or from the time the President signed the resolution at 4:10 P. M. Most attorneys consulted inclined to the belief the latter time marked the historic step." http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1208.html#article
Looks more like the Peter Principle and Parkinson's Law at work to me. This is pure disingenuous mediocrity at best, storing up future wars at worst. Even the very idea of a "political solution" ignores the fact that many of the most persistent global problems are generated by political expedients which take full precedence over actual working solutions. If legislators would be so kind to condescend to address real world issues, not ideological drivel and ridiculous petty catfights, perhaps something might be achieved. The trouble is that abject non-achievements and their rationales are now the norm; no goals are set, no clear, viable objectives are considered and endless situations simply drag on for decades.
1
President Bush and Congress defined the operations against Al Qaeda as "the Global War on Terrorism?" They even struck a medal honoring those who served in it. How is attacking ISIS interpreting that mandate over broadly?
Saying that Congress is broken is the understatement of the year, and the year is nearly over. Why would any Senator or Representative make a vote that could be criticized later? Better for the GOP to sit on their hands and blame Obama no matter what.
Debate? No chance. Expressing an opinion can only get you in trouble. Unless your name is Cruz, then you can talk about carpet bombing and making sand glow. But no one will follow that lead, they despise him.
Of course we can always elect Trump. He will hire the smartest guys who will do just the right things. And he'll make ISIL pay for it.
It's very sad things are so ridiculous. Maybe after the election....
Debate? No chance. Expressing an opinion can only get you in trouble. Unless your name is Cruz, then you can talk about carpet bombing and making sand glow. But no one will follow that lead, they despise him.
Of course we can always elect Trump. He will hire the smartest guys who will do just the right things. And he'll make ISIL pay for it.
It's very sad things are so ridiculous. Maybe after the election....
5
The unwillingness of Congress or the Obama Administration to make clear its stand on ISIS seems like just another instance of the Israeli influence determining our governments actions and the weakness in our lobby dominated Congress allowing the Israeli influence to push it around because of the size of its lobbying expenditures. Israel, strangely enough, now seems to be allied with Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Bahrain in supporting ISIS and opposing friendly relations with Iran. When one looks at the devastation and suffering that has resulted from Israel's ham-handed pursuit of a homeland, It is a monstrous tragedy that Israel has put the achievement of a peaceful homeland farther away rather than nearer reality. Self-righteous religious extremists are not the material from which homelands are created.
2
So the war is OK as long as it is started by your party. Lets France, Russia, and Iran take care of Syria. US has zero interest there.
3
The US interests are making money from the sale of war toys and war "contractors"...ask any lobbyist.
2
the Obama admin's preference is diplomacy and avoiding a US-led quagmire. Obama admin may be overstepping executive power but I'd like to know what is the alternative. On one hand there's enormous pressure from critics of the administration to magically solve the Syria & ISIS problems using more military force, the same critics of the admin strategy in Congress are unwilling to debate/vote on a legal framework.
6
Good move, don't go were you are not appreciated or wanted. O and Mx. Hillary tell us 'we are where we need to be', so why complicate matters. In the end, results require a Muslin ground force, and that will never happen. So, drop a few bombs from time to time to show our interest, not to be confused with concern. As for a new authorization to give anybody license to kill more Americans, well, that would be plain stupid. Yes, lets have a declaration from Congress, but only to stop doing stupid things. Our mission should be clear, stay out of the Muslin world, something we apparently have not learned yet.
High time for the senate majority leader to step aside - that Mitch McConnell won't replace the 2001 war resolution because he "wouldn't want to pass anything that might constrain a future president" is blatherskite. The congress has abnegated its duty for too many years under the sway of the Republicans. Congress is unwilling to deliberate on what the US is willing to contribute to fight the Islamic State. Military matters must be faced by Congress in 2016. Congress has the exclusive right to declare war, not the President, our Commander in Chief. The conflict in Iraq and Syria is escalating and our allies are in agreement about fighting the terrorists of ISIS. Isn't it possible that the executive branch will wisely dive into the fray notwithstanding Congress's hemming and hawing and obstruction and inaction? The omnibus spending bill doesn't cut the mustard re US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. Too many representatives and senators don't want to be on the record voting for the use of military force when our European allies are dealing with the escalating conflict. Lawmakers fear the risk of casting a vote in favour of military intervention in the cruel zealotry of the Muslim theocracy against the west. The Pentagon is dealing in gobbledegook when it labels an expanding campaign against Da'esh as "a specialized expeditionary targeting force". Lord have mercy - the American
Expeditionary Forces of 1917 are coming back to haunt us!
Expeditionary Forces of 1917 are coming back to haunt us!
1
Congress has absolutely nothing to gain by working to pass an Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS.
An AUMF has no constituency that can be manipulated to bring Lobbyists Congressional offices with promises of political contributions.
When the real boots on the ground conflict ensues and the body bags start coming home the American people will grow weary very quickly.
With an election coming soon any such idea of a AUMF is fraught with risk for Congress.
So Congress leaves it to Obama to solve, complains about any action he takes to keep America safe, while running the other direction..........to their elections.
An AUMF has no constituency that can be manipulated to bring Lobbyists Congressional offices with promises of political contributions.
When the real boots on the ground conflict ensues and the body bags start coming home the American people will grow weary very quickly.
With an election coming soon any such idea of a AUMF is fraught with risk for Congress.
So Congress leaves it to Obama to solve, complains about any action he takes to keep America safe, while running the other direction..........to their elections.
2
My response to this editorial is this. Why should Congress give Obama tha authorization he requests when he is clearly demonstrates he is not committed to the win?
1) If Obama is committed to their defeat why did he say that he.never believed in the program to train Iraqi soldiers? Because $500 million to train 5 soldiers was an embarrassment?
2) During the first days of Operation Desert the allies flew 1,200 sorties a day. Under Obama the US flies 20-25 a day And because of very strict rules or engagement 50% of sorties flown do not drop their bombs
3) The boards talks about more ground troops but didn't Obama say he would authorize their return previously? Also the troops that are there are not there in a combat capacity aside from special forces. Isn't also true that Iraq will not relinquish the right to try any US troops if they are accuse of a crime and the US refuses?
4) Obama did nothing to stop the genocide of Coptic of Coptic Christians and Muslims
5) Obama admitted for over a year that he ad not developed a strategy for ISIS
6) Obama continues to insist that ISIS is not a geopolitical threat. How can he say that after the 2 Paris attacks , downing the jet liner and San Bernadino?
7) I don't know he wants it after he went into Libya without Congressional approval. What's the difference?
1) If Obama is committed to their defeat why did he say that he.never believed in the program to train Iraqi soldiers? Because $500 million to train 5 soldiers was an embarrassment?
2) During the first days of Operation Desert the allies flew 1,200 sorties a day. Under Obama the US flies 20-25 a day And because of very strict rules or engagement 50% of sorties flown do not drop their bombs
3) The boards talks about more ground troops but didn't Obama say he would authorize their return previously? Also the troops that are there are not there in a combat capacity aside from special forces. Isn't also true that Iraq will not relinquish the right to try any US troops if they are accuse of a crime and the US refuses?
4) Obama did nothing to stop the genocide of Coptic of Coptic Christians and Muslims
5) Obama admitted for over a year that he ad not developed a strategy for ISIS
6) Obama continues to insist that ISIS is not a geopolitical threat. How can he say that after the 2 Paris attacks , downing the jet liner and San Bernadino?
7) I don't know he wants it after he went into Libya without Congressional approval. What's the difference?
4
To the senators running for President. Though you criticize Obama for his feckless leadership to confront ISIL forcefully, where is your leadership to move Congress?
11
I don’t recall Harry Truman wasting any time consulting with Congress about dropping the A-bomb.
He knew what the situation required and what the American people wanted and did it.
Now is not the time to be debating Constitutional niceties like declarations of war.
We are already in a fight-to-the-finish with ISIS, and need to act accordingly, without distracting
ourselves with side issues.
He knew what the situation required and what the American people wanted and did it.
Now is not the time to be debating Constitutional niceties like declarations of war.
We are already in a fight-to-the-finish with ISIS, and need to act accordingly, without distracting
ourselves with side issues.
1
We. shouldn't be worried about debating Constitutional niceties like declarations of war? Then why do Democrats continue to call Bush a war criminal? 27 senators supported him. Does that mean then you will stop debating the 2 nd amendment?
The Constitution is the basis for every law written, amendments passed so to ignore that is not only dangerous but irresponsible.
The Constitution is the basis for every law written, amendments passed so to ignore that is not only dangerous but irresponsible.
After the San Bernardino attack, President Obama listed several steps that the Congress could take, one of them being a "vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists."
After dismissing the president's address as "just a half-hearted attempt to defend and distract from a failing policy," Speaker Paul Ryan ignored the president's request for military authorization and other requests, such as action to"make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun," and the "need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino."
It was not exactly the "new day" Ryan promised when he was nominated to be Speaker of the House.
It's just the same old, same old, but with a different name. Instead of Boehner and McConnell, it is now Ryan and McConnell.
After dismissing the president's address as "just a half-hearted attempt to defend and distract from a failing policy," Speaker Paul Ryan ignored the president's request for military authorization and other requests, such as action to"make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun," and the "need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino."
It was not exactly the "new day" Ryan promised when he was nominated to be Speaker of the House.
It's just the same old, same old, but with a different name. Instead of Boehner and McConnell, it is now Ryan and McConnell.
62
Maybe Trey Gowdy and his expensive Benghazi investigation committee should be looking into the cowardice of Congress, and why they won't debate or authorize action on ISIS.
So many committees and investigations of Benghazi, so little interest in ISIS except as a political fear train.
So many committees and investigations of Benghazi, so little interest in ISIS except as a political fear train.
11
The Obama administration spent $43 million on a gas station in Afghanistan that no one can use and $500 million to train 5 Iraqi soldiers. Still want to talk about wasting money?
Knowing a little history, the term "expeditionary force" is usually associated with great loss of life, on both sides.
6
It would probably be more accurate to describe McConnell's attitude as one of not wanting to enact any measure that would help the current president. The rest of Congress mirrors his position on the war in the ME, a fact that should influence any reaction to GOP criticism of Mr. Obama for not pursuing a more aggressive policy toward ISIS. McCain and Graham, in particular, want American troops inserted into the struggle, but they have shown no public determination to persuade McConnell to drop his opposition.
In a more general sense, Congress's abdication of its responsibility to control the warmaking power sheds a garish light on Republican accusations of executive over-reach. A legislative body that fails to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities creates a power vacuum which even a much less energetic president than Obama would move to fill. Charges of tyranny made by politicians whose expressed goal involves the failure of the president carries about as much weight as a diatribe by Rush Limbaugh against the moral failings of Democrats.
In a more general sense, Congress's abdication of its responsibility to control the warmaking power sheds a garish light on Republican accusations of executive over-reach. A legislative body that fails to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities creates a power vacuum which even a much less energetic president than Obama would move to fill. Charges of tyranny made by politicians whose expressed goal involves the failure of the president carries about as much weight as a diatribe by Rush Limbaugh against the moral failings of Democrats.
4
Fearful Congress indeed. And we wonder why our vets are treated so poorly, our military used for social experimentation and many other wrongheaded initiatives. It is precisely because Congress has abdicated its responsibility to act as a "check" on the use of power by the executive branch. In the '14 elections the Republicans told us to entrust them to fulfill the responsibility of the Congress - we elected them and nothing has changed. They don't even have the courage to debate and vote on an AUMF suited to the enemy we are supposed to be fighting. I have said in this newspaper before that I don't agree with a lot of what Donald Trump is saying but it is easy to see why his message is attractive to so many people. Americans are looking for someone who will say and do the politically unpopular things that are necessary for our common good. It's called leading. The current crowd we have entrusted with the keys to our republic clearly either don't get it or don't want to.
2
Be it hereby affirmed,
The United State's 62 years, and counting, Crusade of Fools in the Middle East shall continue, unquestioned.
The United States shall continue to depose government's, install new dictators, support old dictators, torture and subcontract torture, bomb civilians as needed and ceaselessly continue to empower Islamic fundamentalism as a byproduct.
To this we pledge the children of the working class as cannon fodder, to be funded with the funds formerly dedicated to Social Security and Medicare.
Your Congress.
The United State's 62 years, and counting, Crusade of Fools in the Middle East shall continue, unquestioned.
The United States shall continue to depose government's, install new dictators, support old dictators, torture and subcontract torture, bomb civilians as needed and ceaselessly continue to empower Islamic fundamentalism as a byproduct.
To this we pledge the children of the working class as cannon fodder, to be funded with the funds formerly dedicated to Social Security and Medicare.
Your Congress.
185
@craig geary. But, alas, the chicken hawks DON'T fund medical needs of the maimed and broken veterans. Groups like Wounded Warriors have to step in . As I watch and read about dead and maimed soldiers featured in stories over the Christian holiday, Christmas, I realize just how these Christians are willing to sacrifice others' sons and daughters, but not theirs....nor their money.
6
Grey,
This will be the last election featuring not one, but two, republican Viet Nam draft dodging cowards, talking tough, pimping more war, with, it goes without saying, other people's children.
Bellicose, belligerent blowhards Trump and Dr. Sedated.
2012 featured two, Cranbrook prep guy cheerleader Romney and Newton Leroy Gingrich.
If the pom pom waver had won in '12 we'd all be learning the Farsi equivalent of Abu Ghraib. Romney was chomping at the bit for his cameo charge, across the South Lawn, as Willard of Iran. He already had the dancing pony and had promised Netanyahu and Adelson perpetual jihad.
This will be the last election featuring not one, but two, republican Viet Nam draft dodging cowards, talking tough, pimping more war, with, it goes without saying, other people's children.
Bellicose, belligerent blowhards Trump and Dr. Sedated.
2012 featured two, Cranbrook prep guy cheerleader Romney and Newton Leroy Gingrich.
If the pom pom waver had won in '12 we'd all be learning the Farsi equivalent of Abu Ghraib. Romney was chomping at the bit for his cameo charge, across the South Lawn, as Willard of Iran. He already had the dancing pony and had promised Netanyahu and Adelson perpetual jihad.
5
Oh Craig, how I wish you are not correct...but you are.
2
I've just witnessed a Christmas miracle: a NY Times editorial I agree with. It is also the reason that I vote anti-incumbent in most elections unless the individual involved has done something to earn my vote. Unfortunately, it appears that I will again be an anti-incumbent voter in 2016.
McConnell is defining new meaning for the phrase 'circular argument' when he uses his own opinion of the president's current use of military assets abroad (Obama's " non-strategy" against ISIL) to justify his stance, as Senate Majority leader, to not even countenance the debate in front of the public. By using such a flimsy excuse, McConnell seems to be telegraphing the reality that the GOP is as fearful of such a debate, as the Democrats, along with the general security establishment, are frustrated by the willful GOP refusal to have it.
We seem to be reaching that final denouement of any Republic in history, that finds it must choose between the ideal of a messy, citizen-driven democracy, with its winners and losers accountable for all to see, and the expedience of closed-door governance, where the powerful convince themselves that the stakes are too high to allow the very public they claim to be defending (and asking for votes), from observing the governance they're paying for as taxpayers.
Such is the hubris social unrest is built from. The Dems may not have all the answers, but the GOP has gone dark on the Republic and its Constitution.
We seem to be reaching that final denouement of any Republic in history, that finds it must choose between the ideal of a messy, citizen-driven democracy, with its winners and losers accountable for all to see, and the expedience of closed-door governance, where the powerful convince themselves that the stakes are too high to allow the very public they claim to be defending (and asking for votes), from observing the governance they're paying for as taxpayers.
Such is the hubris social unrest is built from. The Dems may not have all the answers, but the GOP has gone dark on the Republic and its Constitution.
5
It should be no surprise that Congress has shirked this duty. They are the worst in memory, perhaps in all of U.S. history.
There is virtually universal disgust with these legislators. Let's hope that voters convey this in the elections next year.
There is virtually universal disgust with these legislators. Let's hope that voters convey this in the elections next year.
5
The republican party is beyond weak. They are blackmailing the country. Either you give us our elections, or we will side with ISIS.
They are weak leaders, but when it comes to destroying the country from within, they show some resolve.
They are weak leaders, but when it comes to destroying the country from within, they show some resolve.
6
The American public wants the President to protect them, but they do not want any more American troops getting killed in those countries.
ISIS is more than a military problem, it is a political problem, and we have two factions trying to run the country.
The Dems are opposed to more foreign intervention, the GOP wants to see some kind of force, like Cruz and his idiotic carpet bombing. ISIS is not a concentrated ground force, it mixes in with the populace. The best we can do, is provide technical and material support.
The GOP does not want Obama to succeed, they created the situation with W, and are now doing all they can to get people to believe it was Obama that created it. The American people want out of there, but Al Qaeda and ISIS have to be stopped. That is a political problem that will have to be settled there.
Unfortunately, there is this Islamic divide between Sunnis and Shiites, that is worse than the GOP Dem divide.
Iran and the Kurds are our best chance to stop ISIS, but here the GOP is dragging their feet. They are opposed to any deal with Iran and do not seem to be willing to help the Kurds get a homeland. Everyone is worried about upsetting the Turks. They want to get rid of the Kurds more than they do ISIS.
ISIS is more than a military problem, it is a political problem, and we have two factions trying to run the country.
The Dems are opposed to more foreign intervention, the GOP wants to see some kind of force, like Cruz and his idiotic carpet bombing. ISIS is not a concentrated ground force, it mixes in with the populace. The best we can do, is provide technical and material support.
The GOP does not want Obama to succeed, they created the situation with W, and are now doing all they can to get people to believe it was Obama that created it. The American people want out of there, but Al Qaeda and ISIS have to be stopped. That is a political problem that will have to be settled there.
Unfortunately, there is this Islamic divide between Sunnis and Shiites, that is worse than the GOP Dem divide.
Iran and the Kurds are our best chance to stop ISIS, but here the GOP is dragging their feet. They are opposed to any deal with Iran and do not seem to be willing to help the Kurds get a homeland. Everyone is worried about upsetting the Turks. They want to get rid of the Kurds more than they do ISIS.
22
If our elected officials in Congress can't pull themselves together enough to do some good for our country why should there be any expectation that they will pull themselves together enough to keep us out of any war or "police action"? We have idiots like Ted Cruz calling for carpet bombing. We have other senators who go out of their way to undermine a sitting president when it comes to foreign negotiations. And then we have those who want a war as long as they or their relatives don't have to participate.
We are, for better or worse, considered the police officers of the world. No matter what we do, someone will come after us for it. Furthermore, since our elected officials are more concerned with their poll numbers than having an honest debate, weighing the options, and trying to see if our interference is merited Obama is doing what he thinks is right. The GOP has, from the time Obama was elected, not been interested in a functioning government. Why this editorial board expects such spoiled brats to have any rational thoughts about what Obama is trying to do is beyond ridiculous.
As someone who has been watching Mideast for the last 30 years, I think that it's high time those governments did something about their problems. Instead of putting a fence around the United States, maybe we should put a fence around the Middle East until they decide that they want to be part of the civilized world.
We are, for better or worse, considered the police officers of the world. No matter what we do, someone will come after us for it. Furthermore, since our elected officials are more concerned with their poll numbers than having an honest debate, weighing the options, and trying to see if our interference is merited Obama is doing what he thinks is right. The GOP has, from the time Obama was elected, not been interested in a functioning government. Why this editorial board expects such spoiled brats to have any rational thoughts about what Obama is trying to do is beyond ridiculous.
As someone who has been watching Mideast for the last 30 years, I think that it's high time those governments did something about their problems. Instead of putting a fence around the United States, maybe we should put a fence around the Middle East until they decide that they want to be part of the civilized world.
240
If only there were no oil there. If only the Israelis and Palestinians had come to peace agreements long ago, accepted and even benefited from each other's existence. Miraculously change that situation and the Middle East could soon be a place that could be ignored in a military sense to the extent that, say, the Pacific Island nations are ignored, or Paraguay is ignored. How different the region could have developed if the world didn't rely on it for oil, if modernization had occurred based on a variety of industries, and there were no conflict between Israel and its neighbors?
We are considered the world "police officers" because we foolishly, and often against our own best interests, assume that role. It is a failed policy and self-image that only can go from bad to much worse in its effect on this nation.
4
Our congress has been bought off by the Military Iindustrial Complex to assure that we are the perpetually war-mongers of the world thinly disguised as the"peace officers".
My suggestion:
The nearest relative, male or female, of each of our 'elected' politicians and nearest realtive, male or female, of each politician's staff member/ advisor/consultant, of mlitary age should be drafted, trained for 8 weeks and then sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or some other war area.
If such draftee is wounded in battle, another relative would be required to take his/her place!
Then see how quick they all are to fund their backers of wars!
My suggestion:
The nearest relative, male or female, of each of our 'elected' politicians and nearest realtive, male or female, of each politician's staff member/ advisor/consultant, of mlitary age should be drafted, trained for 8 weeks and then sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or some other war area.
If such draftee is wounded in battle, another relative would be required to take his/her place!
Then see how quick they all are to fund their backers of wars!
4
What is the purpose of fighting ISIS? If we defeat them, who will replace them? So far, our actions seem to have produced worse and worse regimes.
The chimera that millions of 'moderates' are available to fill the vacuum and take over the government of Iraq and Syria has by now been thoroughly disproven. Driving ISIS out will let some other militants in. Maybe such militants would be willing to pretend to be allied with us, providing we send them arms and money.
The best thing Congress, and the president, could do, is stop trying to reform everyone in the Middle East, and defend US interests.
The chimera that millions of 'moderates' are available to fill the vacuum and take over the government of Iraq and Syria has by now been thoroughly disproven. Driving ISIS out will let some other militants in. Maybe such militants would be willing to pretend to be allied with us, providing we send them arms and money.
The best thing Congress, and the president, could do, is stop trying to reform everyone in the Middle East, and defend US interests.
161
Maybe because we don't want ISIS to control a major oil region?
1
the "millions of moderates", such as they are, are some fraction of the refugees in jordan, turkey and now europe.
How can you know that? Granted, they're not beheading any adulterers while sitting in refugee camps, but that is very slender evidence.
"By failing to debate and approve an authorization of war, Congress is sidestepping a set of critical questions it has a duty to address, including the precise goals of the campaign in Syria and whether the current strategy appears likely to achieve them."
Naturally. That way, they're not on the hook for anything that might come back to bite them and, even more important, they can criticize the President ad nauseum for being weak, wrong, impotent, whatever.
I've never seen a series of Congresses like this, as I have under President Obama. They don't do what they are paid to do. But they do do what they aren't-which is to hold budgets hostage, enact shutdowns, hold votes that are sure to be vetoed, and rant and rave against their own pet issues like defunding Planned Parenthood.
One of the most important jobs a Congress can do is define the terms of war. The last war vote taken was for Iraq. And yet, in GOP debate after GOP debate, when it comes to foreign policy, the candidates have no problem bragging about what they plan to do.
Does that include singlehandedly doing these things without authorization from Congress? Why oh why can't debate moderators really get down to the serious issues of the day about what these candidates plan with or without Congressional support? Better yet, what are they going to do when their majority now in Congress--assuming it holds, which ideally it won't--still refuses to put their necks on the line?
Naturally. That way, they're not on the hook for anything that might come back to bite them and, even more important, they can criticize the President ad nauseum for being weak, wrong, impotent, whatever.
I've never seen a series of Congresses like this, as I have under President Obama. They don't do what they are paid to do. But they do do what they aren't-which is to hold budgets hostage, enact shutdowns, hold votes that are sure to be vetoed, and rant and rave against their own pet issues like defunding Planned Parenthood.
One of the most important jobs a Congress can do is define the terms of war. The last war vote taken was for Iraq. And yet, in GOP debate after GOP debate, when it comes to foreign policy, the candidates have no problem bragging about what they plan to do.
Does that include singlehandedly doing these things without authorization from Congress? Why oh why can't debate moderators really get down to the serious issues of the day about what these candidates plan with or without Congressional support? Better yet, what are they going to do when their majority now in Congress--assuming it holds, which ideally it won't--still refuses to put their necks on the line?
357
Don't just blame the Congresses under Obama. Look all the way back to World War II, the last time we actually declared war. This is an issue both parties have failed to address in an honest manner.
1
"Naturally. That way, they're not on the hook for anything that might come ..."
"On the hook"? Has any Obama supporter every held him responsible for the lies he told about ending the war in Iraq and leaving it with a stable government? Obama lied and people died.
Did they every hold him responsible for allowing ISIS to grow and thrive while telling the world they were the junior varsity? Did anyone call Hillary Clinton to task when she joked "we came, we saw, he died" when told of Khadaffy's death? She gave new meaning to the expression "the shores of Tripoli" with the persecution of Christians.
The war in Iraq never ended. Regardless of what Obama claimed in his victory laps in 2012.
"On the hook"? Has any Obama supporter every held him responsible for the lies he told about ending the war in Iraq and leaving it with a stable government? Obama lied and people died.
Did they every hold him responsible for allowing ISIS to grow and thrive while telling the world they were the junior varsity? Did anyone call Hillary Clinton to task when she joked "we came, we saw, he died" when told of Khadaffy's death? She gave new meaning to the expression "the shores of Tripoli" with the persecution of Christians.
The war in Iraq never ended. Regardless of what Obama claimed in his victory laps in 2012.
"By failing to debate and approve an authorization of war, Congress is sidestepping a set of critical questions. . .". This statement by Christine McMorrow strikes at the heart of the issue here.
Congress, under the Constitution, is the only governmental body with legal authority to declare war, full stop. What the current and various past President's have been engaged in relative to "foreign adventures" is clearly outside of the President's Constitutional authority. Ever since Korea in 1951, the basic tenants of the Constitution relative to "war powers" has been discounted and devalued by several generations of US citizens to the point of virtual non-existence.
The framers of our Constitution must be turning over in their collective graves.
Congress, under the Constitution, is the only governmental body with legal authority to declare war, full stop. What the current and various past President's have been engaged in relative to "foreign adventures" is clearly outside of the President's Constitutional authority. Ever since Korea in 1951, the basic tenants of the Constitution relative to "war powers" has been discounted and devalued by several generations of US citizens to the point of virtual non-existence.
The framers of our Constitution must be turning over in their collective graves.
2
When you're right, you're right. As a general matter, anyway.
I would point out, though, that a Congress abdicating its war-declaring power in favor of a president simply waging it on his own credibility isn't a new phenomenon -- unlike allowing a president to simply dictate policy preferences with regard to immigration, financial regulation, environmental regulation and other matters, without congressional brakes. On all these matters, Congress has allowed the states to take the lead, through the federal courts, in challenging this president.
But as sensible as this editorial position is, I'd have to say this: Mr. Obama has not yet presented a war PLAN against ISIS to Congress, leaving in the air likely objectives, durations, costs and endgames. Congress has at least a rational response in not yet using that declaration power.
I would point out, though, that a Congress abdicating its war-declaring power in favor of a president simply waging it on his own credibility isn't a new phenomenon -- unlike allowing a president to simply dictate policy preferences with regard to immigration, financial regulation, environmental regulation and other matters, without congressional brakes. On all these matters, Congress has allowed the states to take the lead, through the federal courts, in challenging this president.
But as sensible as this editorial position is, I'd have to say this: Mr. Obama has not yet presented a war PLAN against ISIS to Congress, leaving in the air likely objectives, durations, costs and endgames. Congress has at least a rational response in not yet using that declaration power.
14
RL: On the contrary, if Congress showed some backbone it would have a say in helping shape the all-cap "PLAN" you say is lacking. That said, one with even limited exposure to the news could conclude that the plan is to limit US troop engagement on the ground to strategic support by special operations units, to promote engagement by other nations of all stripes (friendly and not so friendly) against a common enemy, and to conduct air and other long-range assaults in keeping with the first objective mentioned. The GOP knows that US citizens do not (yet) have the stomach for what could be another Iraq. The GOP knows that they cannot offer more than lip service to something stronger without paying the price at the polls. So they do nothing.
9
You must not have read the news article. ISIS is getting creamed. They are losing territory; they are losing tax revenue; they are losing period.
2
I'm always puzzled when I read people stating President Obama has to present a plan to fight ISIS that include objectives, durations, costs, and endgames. Really? Someone can map out how long and costly and what twists a war may take? Did Roosevelt do this in WW II? Did Eisenhower - who was capable of doing this if anyone could - do this for Korea? Did Johnson or Nixon do this for Vietnam? Of course the President and military leaders should have a plan, which will probably change or be modified multiple times over the course of a war. But it is silly to believe that the general public or even Congress is capable of stating whether the plan is good or not, especially when classified strategic information is used to formulate the plans. There's a reason the want-to-be presidents have not come up with a "plan" much different than what President Obama is already doing. It is actually easy to declare war even though our lame Congress will not do so. However it is almost impossible to look into the future and say how to defeat an enemy within a specific time and for a specific cost. It is something we won't get from any honest leader.
23
There is no good faith argument today that Congress does not want the President to act. There isn't even any crank out there making a bad faith argument that Congress does nto want the President to act. Everybody supports military action against ISIS.
They argue about what action, how much, things like that, but none of that would be decided by an authorization to use military force.
By taking action, the President is not defying the Congress nor the public will widely expressed. Again, it is not the same thing as agreeing on what action to take. Mostly, people who don't agree with the President want more action than he is willing to take at this time.
That is not a separation of powers issue. Congress does not merely passibly agree, it steps up to pay for it, and Congressional leaders and candidates on all sides actively speak for it.
I detest this Congress for so much that it does and does not do, but it is a reach too far to claim the President's actions are beyond his authority.
The US has fought more war with less Congressional unity from the very beginning, see the Quasi War with France in 1798-1800, fought by our second President, who created the Navy to do it and enmeshed us in the Napoleonic Wars doing it.
Of all the issues involving Syria and ISIS, this is the least of it.
They argue about what action, how much, things like that, but none of that would be decided by an authorization to use military force.
By taking action, the President is not defying the Congress nor the public will widely expressed. Again, it is not the same thing as agreeing on what action to take. Mostly, people who don't agree with the President want more action than he is willing to take at this time.
That is not a separation of powers issue. Congress does not merely passibly agree, it steps up to pay for it, and Congressional leaders and candidates on all sides actively speak for it.
I detest this Congress for so much that it does and does not do, but it is a reach too far to claim the President's actions are beyond his authority.
The US has fought more war with less Congressional unity from the very beginning, see the Quasi War with France in 1798-1800, fought by our second President, who created the Navy to do it and enmeshed us in the Napoleonic Wars doing it.
Of all the issues involving Syria and ISIS, this is the least of it.
94
I agree. The President's abuse of US air and sea power in Libya and the execution of US citizens in Yemen far outrank the commander's personal war in Syria in the outrage category.
1
Mark,
Would you agree that Obama failure develop a strategy for ISIS for over a year, an admission Obama admitted to contributed to this? Doesn't it indicate that Obama did not take the threat seriously given his repeated statement that ISIS is not a geopolitical threat?
That's why I believe they hesitate. He refused to arm the Free Syrian Army and give Ukraine lethal aid. He failed to get Congressional approve to go into Libya and his failure to leave a political apparatus in place
Doesn't the War Powers Act require the president to get the approval of Congress? so I fail to see how he would not exceed his power. Remember, Obama has received 13. 9-0 decisions, one of the most recent the recess appointments
Finally I disagree that he is defying Congress. He has done it with recess appointments. illegal immigration (5th Circuit Court of Appeals said he exceeded his authority) so I believe he has a history
Would you agree that Obama failure develop a strategy for ISIS for over a year, an admission Obama admitted to contributed to this? Doesn't it indicate that Obama did not take the threat seriously given his repeated statement that ISIS is not a geopolitical threat?
That's why I believe they hesitate. He refused to arm the Free Syrian Army and give Ukraine lethal aid. He failed to get Congressional approve to go into Libya and his failure to leave a political apparatus in place
Doesn't the War Powers Act require the president to get the approval of Congress? so I fail to see how he would not exceed his power. Remember, Obama has received 13. 9-0 decisions, one of the most recent the recess appointments
Finally I disagree that he is defying Congress. He has done it with recess appointments. illegal immigration (5th Circuit Court of Appeals said he exceeded his authority) so I believe he has a history
1
Adams did not fight a war with France. In fact, one of the reasons he was not re elected had to do with not getting involved when many thought the US should.