Obama proposes war authorization against ISIS

Not sure I'm keen on the restrictions - time limit and limited numbers - especially when combined with unlimited geography. I certainly think there should be no time limit and I don't see why additional geographic areas couldn't be added over time if needed. Would love to hear what others think.
 
Not sure I'm keen on the restrictions - time limit and limited numbers - especially when combined with unlimited geography. I certainly think there should be no time limit and I don't see why additional geographic areas couldn't be added over time if needed. Would love to hear what others think.

If the U.S. does end up sending people to the area ISIS definitely deserves whatever's coming to them. Sure, they've improved conditions in several areas but overall they are monstrous.
 
Last edited:
It's fairly clear ISIS doesn't care about the Geneva Conventions.... why we still do is beyond me.
 
Not sure I'm keen on the restrictions - time limit and limited numbers - especially when combined with unlimited geography. I certainly think there should be no time limit and I don't see why additional geographic areas couldn't be added over time if needed. Would love to hear what others think.

That's just Obama trying to distance himself from the Bush administration's military actions in Iraq/Afghanistan, which he so roundly criticized when he was campaigning in 2008. I guess he's finding that sometimes American military power is a useful tool and it can't all be done with small groups of special forces and drones. I think he'd do what he wanted anyway, but at least he's putting some window dressing on it by asking for Congress' blessing.

It doesn't matter if it says 3 years and "X" number of troops. The next administration could either cut it short or extend it. By making it appear limited in scope and duration, he's just making it trying to make it less disagreeable to his "Democratic Underground" base of voters.
 
As a disclaimer, this comment has nothing to do with political parties or as an agreement with either:

As a purely political move, the White House made a great move, they have been under fire recently from media and members of Congress for being to soft and not making any moves since Jordan stepped up their efforts. By submitting this proposal the White House has, for lack of a better term, put the ball back in the hands of Congress. It will be interesting to see how the debate goes and how many in Congress start to back peddle as they measure public opinion.
 
One would assume, if Congress plops itself and the Israeli PM right smack in the middle of nuke negotiations with Iran, then it would have to think about, discuss, and make a statement about a major recommitment of forces to the region.
 
Still remember reading about that. If anyone can elaborate, essentially congress invited israeli pm to speak in the US without the White House's knowledge? Isn't this a big no-no?
 
I have no problem with going to war against such fiends, they barley classify as humans.


2019 WestPoint class appointee

Recipient of 4 year army rotc scholarship.
 
Still remember reading about that. If anyone can elaborate, essentially congress invited israeli pm to speak in the US without the White House's knowledge? Isn't this a big no-no?
Depends on one's point of view and how you define "big no-no". It's definitely not normal protocol.
 
I have no problem with going to war against such fiends, they barley classify as humans.

2019 WestPoint class appointee
Recipient of 4 year army rotc scholarship.

I agree with you. However, upon further reflection through the day, I think the President has put together a proposal which will not be supported by the left or the right, and will therefore not be passed. I would also be reluctant to change the proposal to something other than what the President asked for, because I don't believe he would execute it as written. So, although I support the general idea of taking on ISIS more vigorously, if I were in Congress I would have to vote against this proposal.
 
I agree with you. However, upon further reflection through the day, I think the President has put together a proposal which will not be supported by the left or the right, and will therefore not be passed. I would also be reluctant to change the proposal to something other than what the President asked for, because I don't believe he would execute it as written. So, although I support the general idea of taking on ISIS more vigorously, if I were in Congress I would have to vote against this proposal.
I believe he would only increase the air strikes and maybe send in some more 'advisors' right now they seem to be getting fought off without an overwhelming presence of Americans if we went in by ground we would whips them out in a month


2019 WestPoint class appointee

Recipient of 4 year army rotc scholarship.
 
I believe he would only increase the air strikes and maybe send in some more 'advisors' right now they seem to be getting fought off without an overwhelming presence of Americans if we went in by ground we would whips them out in a month


2019 WestPoint class appointee

Recipient of 4 year army rotc scholarship.

Haha -- perhaps. But more likely IMHO it will take much longer than a month.

It's difficult to gage the best plan of action when the most effective method costs the most amount of American lives (potentially).

Air strikes aren't going to rid the region of ISIS. Neither will drone strikes. There has never been a "war" won without boots on the ground (or at least not yet).

I just hope this doesn't turn into another war in the Middle East that stretches on for ages and does more harm than good.

Just my 2c
 
To add, the boots don't necessarily have to be American.
 
if we went in by ground we would whips them out in a month
"It'll all be over by Christmas."
attributable to
-Revolutionary War soldier
-Civil War soldier
-WWI soldier
-WWII soldier
-Korean War soldier
-Vietnam War soldier
-Gulf War soldier (hey we got one right!)
-OEF soldier
-OIF sodier
...(next?)

It's sort of nice to see the Executive Branch somewhat acknowledging they have duties with regard to the War Powers Act, even if they completely missed the timeline requirements. (Arguing the fight against ISIS is authorized by the AUMF against Al Qaeda is rather weak, since the groups are sworn enemies.)
 
It's sort of nice to see the Executive Branch somewhat acknowledging they have duties with regard to the War Powers Act, even if they completely missed the timeline requirements. (Arguing the fight against ISIS is authorized by the AUMF against Al Qaeda is rather weak, since the groups are sworn enemies.)

Just for reference and an interesting read for all(only 3 pages) --

AUMF: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf
Obama to Congress: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ion-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection
 
]
I believe he would only increase the air strikes and maybe send in some more 'advisors' right now they seem to be getting fought off without an overwhelming presence of Americans if we went in by ground we would whips them out in a month

I highly doubt that "if we went in by ground we would whips [sic] them out in a month." Fortunately for ISIS, they don't have tattoos on their face identifying that they are a member of ISIS or wear uniforms so we can identify them easily. They can simply bury their weapons and blend in with the local population. Even if local populuation tells that who are foriegn ISIS fighters/local ISIS supporter, we need to verify as locals can easily to accsue someone of being ISIS to settle personal disputes. Or how far do we chase them, if they keep on retreating? Can we distinguish a truck on a highway between ISIS or local civilian.
 
As a disclaimer, this comment has nothing to do with political parties or as an agreement with either:

As a purely political move, the White House made a great move, they have been under fire recently from media and members of Congress for being to soft and not making any moves since Jordan stepped up their efforts. By submitting this proposal the White House has, for lack of a better term, put the ball back in the hands of Congress. It will be interesting to see how the debate goes and how many in Congress start to back peddle as they measure public opinion.

He's also accused of over stepping his power. With the 3 year window he is saying, I want this until the end of my Presidency and then 45 can take it over.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
That's not very uncommon in terms of American wars marinedad, most recently with the iraq war, so i don't think overstepping his power was in play. I'm interested in seeing how this plays out with congress and the white house though. I do think something needs to be done about Da'ish and its rapid growth, had to happen sooner or later.
 
Back
Top