Mattis, Tillerson tell Congress new war authorization should have no time, geographic constraints - Polidicks

[url]http://thehill.com/policy/defense/357899-mattis-tillerson-describe-conditions-of-support-for-new-war-authorization[/url] [quote]Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson laid out three conditions on Monday that they want Congress to follow should it pass a new war authorization, while maintaining the administration believes it already has sufficient legal authority to wage war. Specifically, Tillerson and Mattis told the committee that a [B]new war authorization should not have time constraints or geographic constraints.[/B] They also said the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) should not be repealed until a replacement is in place. The 2001 AUMF “remains a cornerstone for ongoing U.S. military operations and continues to provide legal authority relied upon to defeat this threat,” Tillerson said at the top of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “However, should Congress decide to write new AUMF legislation, I submit to you today several recommendations that the administration would consider necessary to a new AUMF.” Mattis added that 2001 AUMF, as well as the 2002 AUMF, “remain a sound basis for ongoing U.S. military operations” but that “any new congressional expression of unity, whether or not an AUMF, would present a strong statement to the world of America’s determination.” The Trump administration relies on the 2001 AUMF for legal authority in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as did the Obama administration before it. Both also intermittently cite the 2002 AUMF that authorized the Iraq War. [B]The 2001 AUMF authorized military actions against al Qaeda, the Taliban and other perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Proponents of using it against ISIS argue that the terrorist group grew out of al Qaeda, while opponents highlight the two groups’ public falling-out as well as the fact that ISIS did not exist in 2001.[/B] Mattis and Tillerson are testifying amid scrutiny of the extent of U.S. military operations following the deaths earlier this month of four U.S. soldiers in an ambush in Niger.[/quote] The AUMF has been grossly exploited to militarily intervene all over the world and is a huge executive overstep. Mattis and Tillerson are arguing "we can go anywhere, anytime."

And what war would they want authorised?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52842474]And what war would they want authorised?[/QUOTE] by the looks of it they're asking to carry on with this bullshit in the mid-east, as if it was accomplishing anything.

I don't understand, I keep bashing my skull into this stone wall but nothing is coming out of it? I don't know guys, should I keep doing it? I'd really like your help on this one guys because gosh, I can't wrap my head around this haha.

Actually, it's probably Africa considering Niger is the topic right now.

It's for the use of military force in general, not a specific war. The AUMF was passed after 9/11 to authorize military action against al-Qaeda. Normally, Congress has to formally declare war before the executive is allowed to do anything in other countries, but they've simply kept re-interpreting the original authorization to justify circumventing Congress and going wherever they want. When Bush left office, we had two interventions. When Obama left, it was seven. This is a gross abuse of executive power. We're basically a war state.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52842474]And what war would they want authorised?[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? [I]We have always been at war with Eastasia...[/I]

[QUOTE=TestECull;52842561]by the looks of it they're asking to carry on with this bullshit in the mid-east, as if it was accomplishing anything.[/QUOTE] Well we started stirring this pot, if we quit its only going to explode in our faces. Pulling out now will only make things worse. We gotta see it through to the end. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52842619]It's for the use of military force in general, not a specific war. The AUMF was passed after 9/11 to authorize military action against al-Qaeda. Normally, Congress has to formally declare war before the executive is allowed to do anything in other countries, but they've simply kept re-interpreting the original authorization to justify circumventing Congress and going wherever they want. When Bush left office, we had two interventions. When Obama left, it was seven. This is a gross abuse of executive power. We're basically a war state.[/QUOTE] The US is a military industrial complex, but a really shitty one. Its an industry that stands to profit private industry, instead of the government and its people.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52842619]We're basically a war state.[/QUOTE] It's been like that for even longer sorry to say.

Worth that mattis places a high value on successful execution. He's an "ends justifies the means" type, doesn't suprise me that he's advocating to remove any limits on what can be done to achieve what he sees as what needs to be done. By arguing for this he's sending a message that attrition warfare and porous borders with Pakistan will not save you from the US army. He's a good soldier but not a politician, charging across borders to chase mujahadeen sounds simple but it'll cause all sorts of political trouble. Also he's a man acquainted with death, his stance toward the acceptability of civvy casualties as collateral doesn't come from some monstrous indifference but from a combination of him seeing death, seeing it as a lesser evil than perpetual war and his stance toward death (it must happen to everyone someday) [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] Also his philosophy is bottom up rather than top down. This isn't him ordering men to shoot civilians and cross borders, this is his trusting and empowering his men to do what they, on the ground, think what is needed. Peeps get frustrated when bad guys flee across the border to Pakistan, this is him trying to let those soldiers give chase to level the field - good for moral and tactically sound. Just politically very awkward and when shit happens it's gonna be big

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52842474]And what war would they want authorised?[/QUOTE] by this definition, a damn world war against terrorism