Obama officially asks Congress to authorize attacks on ISIS; includes a 3 year expiration date and a - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday formally asked Congress to authorize a three-year military campaign against the terrorist group the Islamic State that would avoid a large-scale invasion and occupation but in addition to air power could include limited ground operations by American forces to hunt down enemy leaders or rescue American personnel. A proposal sent by the White House to Capitol Hill on Wednesday would formally give the president the power to continue the airstrikes he has been conducting since last fall against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, as well as “associated persons or forces.” [B]The measure would set limits that were never imposed during the wars of the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq by expiring in three years [/B]and withholding permission for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” [B]But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal, Mr. Obama, who has said there would be no boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, envisioned limited ground combat operations “such as rescue operations” or the use of “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” He also said the legislation would allow the use of ground forces for intelligence gathering, target spotting and planning assistance to ground troops of allies like Iraq’s military.[/B] “If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” Mr. Obama wrote. While he repeated his contention that “existing statutes provide me with the authority I need,” he said he wanted to work with Congress to obtain bipartisan support. “I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.” The president’s proposal was sent to Congress shortly after confirmation of the death of Kayla Mueller, 26, an American held by the Islamic State. The draft legislation specifically mentioned her and three other Americans who were held hostage and then killed by the Islamic State — James Foley, Steven J. Sotloff and Peter Kassig — in clauses justifying the need for military action.[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/obama-war-authorization-congress.html?_r=0[/url] Official letter here: [quote]TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security. It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller. If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland. I have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL. As part of this strategy, U.S. military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Although existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions, I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to working with the Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL. Consistent with this commitment, I am submitting a draft AUMF that would authorize the continued use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL. My Administration's draft AUMF would not authorize long‑term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces. Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF. I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our Nation's security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL. BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, February 11, 2015.[/quote] [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/letter-president-authorization-use-united-states-armed-forces-connection[/url]

Didn't you already post this?

war declared?

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47121667]Didn't you already post this?[/QUOTE] No, that article was about Obama possibly asking Congress for authorization. Now, he's actually gone and done it and we have the details of his request.

At least he's trying to do the legal thing. I still don't think we should put even one of our soldiers in that hellhole again. The enemy may be evil, but this could turn into another Vietnam if shit goes bad enough.

[QUOTE=isreal?;47121675]war declared?[/QUOTE] If war were declared he would have requested a vote on a deceleration of war. Something that won't happen because that would risk us recognizing IS as a country.

[QUOTE=Megadave;47121708]At least he's trying to do the legal thing. I still don't think we should put even one of our soldiers in that hellhole again. The enemy may be evil, but this could turn into another Vietnam if shit goes bad enough.[/QUOTE] How about some well placed ordnance.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47121739]If war were declared he would have requested a vote on a deceleration of war. Something that won't happen because that would risk us recognizing IS as a country.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily identify them as a country, just as a sovereign entity.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47121739]If war were declared he would have requested a vote on a deceleration of war. Something that won't happen because that would risk us recognizing IS as a country.[/QUOTE] That actually isn't a requirement in the constitution that wars can only be declared against countries. It's just a formality. Presidents have asked permission to use military forces all the way back to the Quasi War with John Adams and the Barbary Wars afterward. It's just after WWII, Presidents start the conflict first, [I]then[/I] ask permission. It's all Truman's fault.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;47121813]Not necessarily identify them as a country, just as a sovereign entity.[/QUOTE] Which is what the US has been trying to avoid.

[QUOTE=Megadave;47121708]At least he's trying to do the legal thing. I still don't think we should put even one of our soldiers in that hellhole again. The enemy may be evil, but this could turn into another Vietnam if shit goes bad enough.[/QUOTE] lmao no it's a country we've invaded before that's not a massive fucking jungle, just a flat fucking desert practically everywhere isis currently is. fucking NO one likes isis, they're rich because they raided and stole shit

Be the president to remove troops from Afghan only to put them on Syria's soil. Can't blame him, but is it really wise?

Look the more Americans are beheaded in battle and reach the press the more this is going to be a PR, and literal nightmare Vietnam v3 calling it now [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TG2;47122853]lmao no it's a country we've invaded before that's not a massive fucking jungle, just a flat fucking desert practically everywhere isis currently is. fucking NO one likes isis, they're rich because they raided and stole shit[/QUOTE] Actually war isn't so fucking clear cut. Only part of the reason Vietnam was such a hellhole was the terrain. The other parts were effective guerilla warfare, our unwelcome presence, terrible misjudgment on the part of the military of how to actually fight the war etc etc. Go check out the documentary Restrepo if you want to see just how easy fighting in a desert is All this sound familiar? Cause we totally pwned Iraq and Afghanistan. But hell yeah wind up the war machine!!

Oh boy here we go again Seriously, since 2003 it feels like it's been one war after another. Every time the government took down one baddie another one fucking pops up like a macabre game of whack-a-mole. 12 years of this shit. I'm tired of it.

The middle east is fucked, I can't see any way of fixing it. Then again I'm not expert, but having crazy muslim extremists have their way is not the right things to do that's for sure

[QUOTE=Complifused;47123036]The middle east is fucked, I can't see any way of fixing it. Then again I'm not expert, but having crazy muslim extremists have their way is not the right things to do that's for sure[/QUOTE] I wouldn't exactly call it fucked, but certainly not a civilized case anymore. It's about time we get this approved tho', rest of the world will follow up and it'll be over in a cloud of smoke.

[QUOTE=Ryu-Gi;47123017]Oh boy here we go again Seriously, since 2003 it feels like it's been one war after another. Every time the government took down one baddie another one fucking pops up like a macabre game of whack-a-mole. 12 years of this shit. I'm tired of it.[/QUOTE] Gotta keep that military-industrial complex rolling.

I honestly think that this should've been done in the first place.I understand why the issue has been pussyfooted around with the airstrikes and arming the Kurds, but why depend on other countries to fight for us when we could've stomped the bastards out of existence before they became a real threat? This issue is different than with the initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody wants IS around, and the majority of the islamic world wants them to die for blasphemy, since they installed a caliphate and have (i think) rejected the Qur'an. Right now, the people of those countries would be extremely grateful to see IS go away in a cloud of DU hellfire.

Finally! But I have no doubt republicans are gonna blast Obama for being a "warmonger".

[QUOTE=zombini;47123182]I honestly think that this should've been done in the first place.I understand why the issue has been pussyfooted around with the airstrikes and arming the Kurds, but why depend on other countries to fight for us when we could've stomped the bastards out of existence before they became a real threat? This issue is different than with the initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody wants IS around, and the majority of the islamic world wants them to die for blasphemy, since they installed a caliphate and have (i think) rejected the Qur'an. Right now, the people of those countries would be extremely grateful to see IS go away in a cloud of DU hellfire.[/QUOTE] ISIS has been around since 2006, formed in Iraq to combat the US occupying forces. The US didn't "stomp it out" then, what makes you think we can do it now?

[QUOTE=TG2;47122853]lmao no it's a country we've invaded before that's not a massive fucking jungle, just a flat fucking desert practically everywhere isis currently is. fucking NO one likes isis, they're rich because they raided and stole shit[/QUOTE] You don't need a jungle for it to turn in to guerrilla warfare. Urban warfare is the worst, especially the current towns and cities ISIS are currently controlling. They are large and have a high population density, there is no way you're going to destroy ISIS on the ground without large amount of civilian casualties. If the United States decides to send in the troops, once again. There will be utter destruction. ISIS are monsters, but they're also unlike any other foe.

[QUOTE=Tools;47123053]I wouldn't exactly call it fucked, but certainly not a civilized case anymore. It's about time we get this approved tho', rest of the world will follow up and it'll be over in a cloud of smoke.[/QUOTE] And you know who's going to be in that cloud of smoke? A whole lot of innocents. [url=https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/10/u-s-media-13-year-old-yemeni-boy-killed-u-s-drone]Like this 13 Yemeni boy who went up in smoke last week, and his father and brother killed before him[/url] not to mention the lives of the other 2,400 innocents What's the point? So we can raise the next generation of fighters to hate America, like their precursors? Sure ISS is fucking horrific, but this isn't a problem that US soldiers should face. And nothing ever ends with a cloud of smoke

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47121739]If war were declared he would have requested a vote on a deceleration of war. Something that won't happen because that would risk us recognizing IS as a country.[/QUOTE] they don't have to be a country for war to be declared. anyways he's doing this not because he's suddenly toughened up, but because the president generally respects the war-powers act (even if its probably unconstitutional), and the 3ish month deadline set by it in which the president has full authorization to act, after which though he must either withdraw or request congressional approval

This isn't a gateway to boots on the ground. These are all tasks handled by SOCOM and are, almost entirely, centered around facilitating air strikes. If you want to blow shit up on the ground, you generally need a mechanism to retrieve pilots in the event of a crash and people on the ground with the right training to tell you what and how to blow stuff up with aircraft.

People need to start looking into things deeper. It calls for NO US ground troop involvement. And only for Special Forces and airstrikes. [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] Chill the fuck out. We're not having another Vietnam

[QUOTE=joshuadim;47123190]Finally! But I have no doubt republicans are gonna blast Obama for being a "warmonger".[/QUOTE] no they actually said he didn't ask for enough powers. dead serious, I saw speaker boehner say it.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47123724]People need to start looking into things deeper. It calls for NO US ground troop involvement. And [B]only for Special Forces and airstrikes.[/B][/quote] That's not technically true. There's quite a few people that will be getting sent over there in the near future for mission support. The article even mentions it calling for ISR troops, logistics, etc. It doesn't look like we'll be seeing any combat forces quite yet, though I wouldn't be surprised if we do within either this year or the next. Syria is a pretty messed up hell hole.

you know whats funny if you look at at ussr-afghan war and if we didn't assist the Mujahideen with weapons; do we have to fight terrorism for 13 years or will it be the same?