Washington, D.C. — (RT) The US Senate has voted 61-36 to kill the amendment, proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) which would repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Senate can’t repeal the AUMF without replacing it with a new authorization, said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).
“It would mean that we would immediately need to start winding down” US forces abroad, said Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), who also opposed Paul’s amendment.
Paul had vowed to delay the passage of the $700-billion dollar National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if he didn’t get a vote on repealing the AUMF.
“We have been there for 16 years. It is time for [the wars] to end. It is time for Congress to vote on whether or not they should end,” Paul said on Monday.
The Kentucky Republican noted that his protest was for the soldiers, adding that “hypocrites” are happy to “pretend concern over our constitutional duty to declare war” but are happy to “block any vote on ending any of our 7 current wars.”
To fight the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorist group, the Trump administration relies on authorization for the use of military force that was approved by Congress in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks.
The measure was specifically designed to give the president powers to go after “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told lawmakers the 2001 authorization provides sufficient authority to wage war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Critics argue it’s a legal stretch at best, as the Islamic State group did not exist 16 years ago and that the US now uses the legislation to carry out military operations in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and other countries.
A separate authorization, which in 2002 approved the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is also still in force.
The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, prohibits US troops from being sent into combat for more than 90 days unless Congress has approved authorization for military force.
The war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001 as a US response to the 9/11 attacks, is the longest war in US history.
#1: Tooconservative To: Deckard (#0)
Tooconservative posted on 2017-09-14 09:16:05 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
We have 34,000 military personnel in Germany for over 70 years. We have 40,000 military personnel in Japan for over 70 years. We have 23,000 military personnel in South Korea for over 60 years.
We have 11,000 military personnel in Afghanistan, and they've been there for 16 years. Whoop-de-do.
misterwhite posted on 2017-09-14 10:45:09 Reply Private Reply
#3: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#2)
The difference between the first set of cases and Afghanistan is obvious.
Basing troops in Germany is like basing troops in Wisconsin.
Basing troops in Afghanistan is like basing them in Vietnam.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-09-14 10:57:10 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: misterwhite (#2)
Hmmm...I wonder why?
American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production
It is well-documented that the U.S. government has – at least at some times in some parts of the world – protected drug operations.
(Big American banks also launder money for drug cartels. See this, this, this and this. Indeed, drug dealers kept the banking system afloat during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. And the U.S. drug money laundering is continuing to this day.)
The U.S. military has openly said that it is protecting Afghani poppy fields:
As Wikipedia notes:
Indeed, a brand new report from the United Nations finds that opium production is at an all-time high.
Deckard posted on 2017-09-14 11:12:54 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Meaning there's still work to do.
misterwhite posted on 2017-09-14 12:02:48 Reply Private Reply
#6: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#5)
Yep. A trillion more to be spent, and many, many more lives to be shattered, limbs to lose, people to destroy.
Before we finally get tired of it and go home and lose.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-09-14 16:22:01 Reply Private Reply
#7: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Maybe you're right. Maybe we should just pack up and go home. Perhaps if we ignore the terrorists they'll go away.
Although, prior to 9/11, that's basically what we did and look what happened. So I'm thinkin' maybe we should stay awhile.
misterwhite posted on 2017-09-14 17:17:22 Reply Private Reply
#8: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#7)
But nope, can't do that.
So instead we've got to commit to forever war, forever expense, and eventual loss.
Government can do what it wants - obviously it isn't going to listen to me. But you can't expect me to support it if it does things contrary to what I think is right and prudent.
I'm reminded of the Soviet Union. They had their reasons to do what they did too. But at the end of the day, it broke them.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-09-14 17:25:32 Reply Private Reply
#9: Hondo68 To: misterwhite (#5)
Yes, the evacuation like Jerry Ford did in April 1975.
In the last days of April 1975 thousands of people were airlifted out of Vietnam
"They just marched in, they can just march out". ~Ron Paul
Hondo68 posted on 2017-09-14 19:15:12 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: hondo68 (#9)
Ah. So you want to duplicate that proud moment in American history. By the way, which U.S. buildings did North Vietnamese terrorists fly into?
misterwhite posted on 2017-09-15 10:16:26 Reply Private Reply