Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

With Biden's support, Iraq is on the table of American legislators, and an important decision will be made soon


yota691
 Share

Recommended Posts

With Biden's support, Iraq is on the table of American legislators, and an important decision will be made soon
  
{International: Al Furat News} Members of the US Congress are engaged in a debate about canceling the presidential mandate that gave the green light to the US war in Iraq in 2003, amid the Democrats' demand to revoke it and opposition among the Republicans.
 

The abolition of the war mandate in Iraq may pave the way for the termination of another mandate for Afghanistan, which has been widely criticized for its lack of geographic limitations and the destinations that US forces may target in their military operations.   

 

The Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq Act of 2002, or AUMF 2002, granted former US President George W. Bush the authorization to wage war against Saddam's regime. 

 

This authorization was used recently in January 2020, when former US President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, which led to the martyrdom of the commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Authority, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, and a number of others. their companions. 

 

Some have criticized the use of Iraq's mandate in the assassination of Soleimani, and that "leaving the law hanging may encourage its misuse by future presidents," according to the "Axios" website. 

 

The difference between mandates and a declaration of war

US laws provide many military powers to the US president, who is also the commander of the armed forces. Article II of the Constitution grants him a mandate to use force in specific cases, after obtaining the approval of Congress. 

 

“Declarations of war” give the US president the full and unconditional use of the US military, provided they obtain a “specific statutory authorization” from Congress, or in self-defense after the country is under attack and a state of emergency is declared.

 

The United States issued its last "declaration of war", in 1942, against Romania during World War II. 

But then Congress approved a number of mandates that deviated from the constitutional norm, which allow the US president to launch military operations in specific cases, without the need for congressional approval. 

 

The United States has waged its wars in Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq according to these mandates.  

 

Four days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress issued the "AUMF 2001" authorization, which allowed any US president to use military force according to parameters that Congress had placed under the "war on terror" designation, without the need to obtain prior approval. 

 

However, the wording of this mandate did not include any geographical boundaries, which allowed actions to be taken against all those who “planned, authorized, perpetrated or assisted” al-Qaeda in launching terrorist attacks and those who “harbored” the attackers, and thus paved the way for launching the American war on Afghanistan, which embraced fighters Al-Qaeda. 

 

This "broad" language has contributed to the US launching 41 operations in 19 countries, according to the Friends Committee on National Legislation website.

 

The 2002 AUMF mandate for the US war in Iraq defined the president's authority to use the armed forces as "necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "implement all Security Council resolutions relevant to Iraq." ".

 

decisive vote

The Senate is expected to vote this week to repeal the "2002 AUMF" mandate for Iraq, as part of the passage of the $768 billion annual defense authorization bill. 

 

After about 20 years, the United States reduced the number of its forces in Iraq to 2,500 out of 170,000, and the Iraqi government became a close ally of Washington.

 

supporters

Democrats seek to declare their success in ending America's eternal wars, and this was evident when the United States announced the withdrawal from Afghanistan, to end the longest war it has ever witnessed.  

 

The current US President, Joe Biden, supports the decision to cancel the authorization for Iraq, and acknowledged that the United States "has no military activities that rely exclusively on the 2002 AUMF according to a domestic legal basis." 

 

Repealing the law could provide a more specific mandate for current challenges. 

 

The legislators seek to revoke the Afghanistan mandate (AUMF 2001), and see rescinding Iraq's first mandate as a necessary and essential step to do so.  

 

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who has led efforts to repeal Afghanistan's mandate, said members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were in talks with the White House to repeal and replace "AUMF 2001." 

 

But, he emphasized, "the idea was always that we'd revoke another mandate first." 

 

Critics see Afghanistan's mandate as a "blank check" used to launch military operations in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Niger, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and the Philippines.

 

Democratic Senator and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Menendez, told Axios, "I believe that Congress should give consent to the use of force, and when it has served its purpose, should rescind it to ensure that it is not abused." 

 

Menendez warned that repealing Afghanistan's mandate "is a complex matter," adding that the 2001 mandate "is not just about repealing it, but about replacing it."

 

His position was shared by Republican Senator Rand Paul, who told Axios, "I think it would be great if we could rescind the 2002 (Iraq) mandate," but warned that rescinding Afghanistan's mandate "would be more complicated." 
 
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, for his part, showed more interest in rescinding Afghanistan's mandate because presidents interpreted it "as allowing them to do whatever they want," he told Axios.

 

opponents 

But some Republicans fear that repealing Iraq's mandate may embolden armed groups in the country that have carried out attacks against US forces stationed there. 

 

And the "Axios" website quoted sources close to the Republican minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, that he expected the mandate to be revoked, but would demand that it be kept. 

 

For his part, Republican Senator Ted Cruz said: "I believe strongly in Congress carrying out its powers of war."

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 2
  • Pow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nov 17, 2021 - Politics & Policy
Congress fights over its own war power
Axios
Alayna Treene, Zachary Basu

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Congress is about to repeal a president's authorization to use military force for the first time in about half a century, kicking off a debate about restoring its role in authorizing future wars.

Why it matters: Democrats are eager to declare they've succeeded in facilitating an official end to America's "endless wars." The 2002 AUMF that justified the Iraq war was cited as recently as the January 2020 assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a drone strike in Baghdad.

Critics say the authorization was never intended for such an operation and letting it linger could trigger misuse by future presidents.
Some Republicans fear repealing it could embolden Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, which have carried out attacks against U.S. troops stationed there.
Biden, who supports repealing it, has acknowledged the U.S. has "no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis."
The repeal of another resolution passed in 2001, which also has been exploited, would be a heavier lift.
Between the lines: The 2002 authorization gave President George W. Bush the domestic authority to invade Iraq and topple the government of Saddam Hussein.

Nearly 20 years later, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is down to 2,500 from a peak of about 170,000, and the Iraqi government is an ally of the United States.
The Senate — on a rare bipartisan basis — is expected to vote as early as this week to repeal it as a component of approving the National Defense Authorization Act.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) concedes it will be repealed but is expected to speak out against the move, aides told Axios.
Driving the news: Part of the Democratic impetus is to rebound from the heavy criticism Biden and their party took for the administration's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

A repeal of the 2002 AUMF also would lay the groundwork for another effort to replace the 2001 AUMF for the post-9/11 "war on terror."
Critics label it a blank check cited for operations in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Niger, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and the Philippines.
It's also been used to justify the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.
Lawmakers who support repealing and replacing the 2001 authorization insist they're a long way off from that vote. Instead, they see their plans to deal with the 2002 AUMF as a necessary first step.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who's been leading the effort, said he and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are in discussions with the White House about repealing and replacing the 2001 AUMF.
"But the idea was always we would get another [AUMF] repealed first,” he said.
What they're saying:

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the foreign relations panel, told Axios: "I think that when Congress authorizes the use of force, when the purpose of its use has ended, then it should repeal it so no one can misuse it.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was evasive, saying, “I am a strong believer in Congress exercising its authority of war fighting."
"At the same time, some of the Democratic efforts in this area are really about giving a green light to Iran and the ayatollah, and trying to tie the hands of any military response to a nuclear Iran," Cruz said. "I think that’s a mistake."
Menendez cautioned that acting on the 2001 AUMF "is much more difficult." He said, "2001 is not just about repeal; it’s about replacement."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a proud libertarian, told Axios: "I think it would be great" to repeal the 2002 AUMF. But he also warned the 2001 AUMF, which he supports repealing, is "a bigger hurdle.”
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), told Axios he's far more interested in repealing the 2001 AUMF because it’s been interpreted by a president to “do just about anything he wants to."
"And I don’t agree with that interpretation. But now four administrations have interpreted 2001 as broad powers," Cardin said.

 


Go deeper
Andrew Solender

 


Nov 17, 2021 - Politics & Policy
Chart: It’s been 47 years since Congress repealed an AUMF

Data: Congressional Research Service/Axios research; Table: Will Chase/Axios
The last time an authorization of military force was repealed was in 1974, and some ancient authorizations remain on the books, according to the Congressional Research Service and House Historian.

Why it matters: Lawmakers in both parties have framed repeals as a rare instance of the legislative branch wresting some control back from the executive branch. That's especially true in the post-9/11 era, when Congress’ authority on war powers is often overlooked.

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we should have all war authorizations for the USA removed. We, the USA are not in a time of war but a time of peace. For many countries joint agreements of military cooperation are necessary as mutually beneficial. It’s time to re-gear the military industrial complex into a system that produces skilled and educated Americans to refill the middle class. If we don’t repopulate the middle class with skilled labor the USA will implode when those in power dictating others what to do cannot do the job themselves they are demanding of others to do. The USA needs independent self sufficiency, we can’t support our own demands; like an opioid addict withering away incapable of taking care of their own needs.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Pow! 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bunk said:

Biden would'nt know Iraq from his elbow.<_<


You are so right.... I’d like to add, he couldn’t slap his azz with both hands. However, he’s pretty handy when it comes to groping & sniffing young girls and women. 2 qualities apparently are essential to becoming POTUS. 
 

Gonna get negged by the brain washed Libs for sure. To them, I shall repeat this: I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ! Buh by.

  • Haha 1
  • Pow! 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.