Tuesday, June 09, 2015

The Latest Iraq PUMF (Prohibition On The Use Of Military Force)

by JASmius



Remember about four months ago when Barack Obama, after insisting - correctly, I might add - that his non-war against ISIS was covered by the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs covering al Qaeda and Iraq, respectively, was floating a fresh AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) vis-a-vie the Islamic State that would have so constrained U.S. forces of any sort - including beyond his presidency, if there is such a place - that they might as well put on ninja garb and hoist the black flag?

Well, now it's "bipartisan":

When we last checked in on the whole question of whether Congress would ever vote to authorize the war against ISIS, things looked pretty hopeless. Senator Bob Corker — the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who was thought to be the key to negotiating an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that both parties might support — had essentially slammed the door on any such vote, deriding it as an “intellectual exercise.”

It now appears, however, that the prospects for a vote are not quite dead yet. Dem Senator Tim Kaine and GOP Senator Jeff Flake have just rolled out a new AUMF that looks like it could serve as a genuine starting point for discussions. That is, if Congress is inclined to take it that way.

Of course, more than eight months have passed since the escalation against ISIS began, and more than three months have passed since Obama offered his own proposed AUMF (which many liberals and Dems thought was too broad and too vague, even as many Republicans thought it was too limiting). [emphasis added]

Hence my description of it and the Flake-Kaine version as "PUMFs".

So this whole saga has long since devolved into something irredeemably ridiculous.

At last, Greg Sargent and I agree on something.

As I’ve argued, however, there are still reasons to have this debate. …

Thus, the new AUMF offered by Kaine and Flake contains one major improvement over Obama’s proposal: it specifies that the 2001 AUMF authorizing force against the perpetrators of September 11th attacks is not the basis for authorization of the current conflict. That’s important, because Obama’s original claim of authority based on that 2001 AUMF — which was absurd on its face — would have essentially rendered any new AUMF worthless.

Nothing absurd about it, Greg.  Here is the core premise and scope of the 2001 AUMF:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 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. [emphases added]

"ISIS" is simply Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's rebranding of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda In Iraq.  Thus it is eminently covered by both the 2001 AND 2002 AUMFs, additionally seeing as how they are not being bashful about their overt-as-a-hairlip intentions to commit "future acts of international terrorism against the United States".   Consequently, a fresh AUMF is, indeed, completely unnecessary.

So why do leftwingnuts like Greg Sargent want to have more of this pointless "debate"?  Because, essentially, they want to ensure that the United States can never go to war ever again, and they fear that the more dangerous their demigod allows and encourages the rest of the world to become and the more anti-American enemies his foreign policy breeds, the harder it will be to keep the ignorant hoi palloi in a militantly pacifistic frame of mind.  Hence, first Obama's and now the Flake-Kaine PUMFs.

Leaving the inevitable, tiresome exit question: Why, once again, is another Republican senator attempting to provide aid, comfort, assistance, and political cover to an(other) anti-American Democrat policy objective?

I'll leave you with Senator Orrin Hatch's highly entertaining rant from February:

“And here we have the president coming up with this — I think it’s utterly stupid — proposal,” Hatch told KSL News Radio. “And he’s binding the next president also with really stupid language.” …

Hatch said ISIS could use the restrictions in the proposal to its advantage.

“Why would we not only unilaterally impose limitations as to which types of tools and tactics our service members can use then also broadcast these limitations to the enemy?” he said.

“If we’re telling the Islamic State upfront that we will not using ground forces, will they not tailor their strategy around that fact? Tell me!” he said.

I had no idea that old RINO did such a spot-on Loki impression....



No comments: