You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Obama wants new AUMF for 'unlimited' war against ISIS
2014-12-10
Secretary of State John F. Kerry told Congress Tuesday that President Obama wants expansive war powers to pursue the Islamic State terrorists wherever and however he deems necessary, stunning lawmakers by requesting a war authorization that would even allow the Pentagon to commit American combat troops to the fight.

Though Mr. Obama doesn't want combat troops, he won't have Congress tie his hands against unforeseen directions the war could take should the Islamic State evolve, expand its fight to other countries or prove more difficult to rout, Mr. Kerry said.

"I don't think anybody wants to get into a long-term ground operation here. But we also don't want to hamstring the generals and the commanders in the field and the president, who’s commander in chief, from their ability to be able to make some decision they need to make," Mr. Kerry told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Kerry: would you advocate such a resolution if George Bush were still president? We all know the answer to that...
Mr. Kerry was deployed to try to quell a growing furor over the administration's approach, but his appearance didn’t appear to help, with lawmakers of both parties saying the White House appears to be trying to delay Congress from acting while doing little to step up on its own.

"The reason we're here is a total failure of the president to lead on this issue," said Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly refused requests to propose his own war resolution. Mr. Kerry said he didn't think it mattered who goes first.

For now, Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat and chairman of the committee, has written a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that would impose a three-year limit on the authority and forbid ground combat troops in most situations, with exceptions for intelligence gathering, acting as spotters or for rescue missions. He did not suggest a geographic limitation, however.

Lawmakers had hoped Mr. Obama, who won the presidency in 2008 in part due to his opposition to the Iraq War, would support strict limits. But Mr. Kerry said they don’t want to see them written into law.

"It sounds to me like you're making the case for a rather open-ended authorization," Mr. Menendez told Mr. Kerry, adding that he's been disappointed with how little cooperation he's gotten from the president’s team.
Compare and contrast to how Bush cooperated with the Senate, even when Harry Reid was in charge...
Mr. Menendez said he still plans to have his committee vote on Thursday on a war resolution, and if the Senate stays in session next week, he said he'd like to see a vote on the chamber floor. He said he'll push ahead even if they haven’t been able to iron out differences with Mr. Obama over limits to his war powers.

No matter what the Senate does, though, the debate won't be finished this year.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has said his chamber will take up the war debate next year -- and he said it’s Mr. Obama’s job to propose a resolution to Congress and make the case for it to the American people.

The rise of the Islamic State, which goes by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL, has proved embarrassing for the president, who a year ago declared al Qaeda on the run and said it was time to begin ramping down the war on terror.
They're also murderous thugs, but that's a fine point lost by the MSM...
On Tuesday, Mr. Kerry made clear the administration considers the Islamic State, which has captured large swaths of Syria and Iraq, to be a branch of al Qaeda operating under a different name.
As opposed to be a different group with a different name, a meme that the administration was flonking earlier this year.
He said that means Mr. Obama already has powers to go after them under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, so even if Congress doesn’t act, the president will continue to pursue the war.
Actually he doesn't, but it's interesting how Champ abandoned the 'rebranding' of al-Qaeda when he realized he needed to have that particular bogeyman around to try and use the AUMF. By the way, the 2002 AUMF concerned Iraq and Saddam Hussein...
"The fact is that we’re going to continue this operation, because the president and the administration are absolutely convinced -- and I respect your opinion -- [that] we have the authority," he said.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  So how does his desire for an unlimited war powers act dovetail with his demands for wholesale cuts in the military?

So does this include going after domestic enemies too? If so this could be very dangerous.

Lastly, whatshisname thinks he can revive the Dems by starting a war...worked for Roosevelt...to jump start a moribund economy?

Very odd here how they've done flip flops and somersaults of incredible mental gymnastics to justify doing something they pilloried Bush for.

Hypocrites.

Not that we need to take this latest toxic phenomenon in the ME seriously, it is just odd that after doing everything in their power to make it worse they want to drop the hammer of the nasty old evil US military on the entire problem.

Unlimited? Does that mean he intends to nuke the bastards?

I don't want to have someone knocking on my door calling me a terrorist for criticizing whatshisname. I'm already suddenly getting zapped by the IRS over tax returns from over eight years ago...so I'm paranoid.
Posted by: Mystic   2014-12-10 21:15  

#7  Yokay, I'll bite, doesn't he have this already wid the War Powers Act + other???

WE AL KNOW THE USDOD LOVES MANUALS BUT THATS BESIDE THE POINT.

We don't need to "Columbine" or over-Bureaucratize a War wid dozens, 00's or 000's of new Rules, etc. which won't be enforced because no one can nor will remember them all, + ultimately weren't needed in the first place???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-12-10 20:40  

#6  "NO - define what you want to do".
Obama doesn't want to say that we may need to go back to war under his watch, even though he, and we, know he should. Don't give this legacy coward an out. MAKE him specify what he wants and rub Kerry's looooong face in it before approving it.
Posted by: Frank G   2014-12-10 19:25  

#5  BTW, the AUMF in Sep 2001 was authored by .... Sen Biden.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2014-12-10 17:32  

#4  So as who was in Vietnam ya know, and who went to law school, the process means nothing? The process is essential in those two professions.

Obama is going to ask people to fight and die for his missions, whatever they may be, but also has no regards for process or balls to put his name on it.

Going around the chain of command will get you fired at a grocery store.

This is ceding the civilian authority side of the Presidency to the military.

Get that beggard off the porch. Tell the commander in chief of the military to put his name on a proposal for civilian review.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2014-12-10 17:07  

#3  We all know the powers are to be used against the Tea Party; the one thing both republicans and democrats can agree upon.
Posted by: Airandee   2014-12-10 16:53  

#2  US policy with regardings to the Jihad is just totally FUBAR.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418    2014-12-10 14:35  

#1  When Bush asked for powers like this intellectuals argued that a corrupt president could misuse the powers. We are in the midst of the most corrupt presidency in history. He would have this thing passed in the dark of night and next thing we know we would have troops in North Idaho to combat racist Americans.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2014-12-10 12:33  

00:00