#10 The central premise is "Why we should repeal the AUMF as a legal declaration".
The two best arguments, casualties and cost, are only valid if the primary argument, more terrorists, is correct.
Besides the first question, What is a terrorist?, the stats given are spurious at best.
Afghan used to have just one terror org now they have 20! can be argued that the US/Coalition demanded that the locals could not have a strong central leader without getting whooped so they reverted to traditional clan territories of control. Or, we thought it was one homogeneous happy family when really there was a lot more going on. Or, a power vacuum attracted flies. Or, Karzai's extended family should count.
AlQ Iraq and ISIS were two different, competing entities. In fact, AlQ Iraq warned us (McCain) against arming them, "We may be jerks, but those guys are cat in a yarn barn crazy." That's all Obama administration doing; include killing Qadaffy and Libya now.
There is no mention of the rise of groups like Boko Haram or other horn of Africa baddies - would they or would they not be around without US in Iraq/Afghan? Topic not even approached. MILF seems to be getting along on their own.
As fore number of AlQ increasing after 9/11, win the lottery and find out how many people want to be your friend.
So its all imagination land for cost/benefit, which can be countered with "How many more terrorists would there have been without US/Coalition thumping them." Or, "Unrestrained Bin Laden joins with Pakistan to unleash waves of terror against India, prompting nuclear exchange."
So back to the premise, do we do away with the current AUMF and any future versions thereof? Argue the reasons and/or results, a resolution went before Congress and was voted on. Done. When McCain started banging the war drums and attempted to expand the AUMF to include Syria, congress gave the administration the finger, a hardy no (look up France, Britain as well), and that adventure never officially happened which would have been US equipment and air strikes at the very least. So the AUMF works.
Thank you g(r)rom for that term, here at work. |
[LasVegasSun] In 2001 and in 2002, Congress passed authorizations for war. While not declarations of war, these mandates, each titled an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provided the legal framework for attacks against al-Qaeda for the Iraq War. Both AUMFs are still in effect today. As Congress considers its annual authorization to fund the Pentagon, our current members of Congress, both in the House and the Senate, are in positions of responsibility and ability to repeal these AUMFs.