There is something I'm not understanding about the right wing Afghanistan narrative...

I don't see the problem of having a "single office-holder getting us in" any different than a single office holder deciding to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban.

It's still the case of one individual being the sole decision maker on that level of decision. And, in both the "in" and "out" of Afghanistan did NOT need to be snap decisions. There have always been many months for making decisions about Afghanistan (outside of the far lesser decisions concerning defense of the last extractions).

We had all of 2020 plus the previous 19 years to determine what to do in Afghanistan. Yet, it boiled down to the Trump/Taliban plan that didn't involve congress or the public or coalition forces and could not possibly have had an outcome different than handing Afghanistan to the Taliban - unless Biden had made an immediate decision to flip flop the whole US position, which would be the same problem all over again.

 

You are the one who turned my mere supplying of fact-- to which I saw no objections, from you-- into the idea of my making some, "larger point." Your assumption of this, was your blunder.

It seems ever less worthwhile, to even try to communicate with you, as you apparently respond based on the inner conversations, taking place only in your mind, rather than to what is actually said.

 

Your point, if there was one?
That giving the war powers exclusively to Congress was a Constitutional mistake, or unnecessary, as it is, "not a problem of having a 'single office-holder get us in,' " to a war?


P.S -- don't get confused. I am not claiming it was a mistake to make declaring war, a responsibility of Congress. Those words in quotes, about it "not (being) a problem," to leave that decision to a single person, are yours. I am guessing that you are merely jumbling together the ideas of declaring a war, and prosecuting one.

Your point about Trump's not getting Congressional approval to end the war, is misguided on too many fronts to seem even worth trying to explain to you. For starters, there was no declared war, for Congress to declare ended. Secondly, it could be up to none other than the Commander-in-Chief, to decide when a military operation had achieved it's goals, when a war was won. If Congress disagreed, it would have several options, including a new war authorization, or impeachment, for dereliction of duty.

I will leave it there, as that is more than enough to cause your wounded pride to respond with some spurious misreading of my words

 

Bronco cited a GrahamAllen.com screed where the argument was that the meeting on Kabul security WAS a point at which Biden could have inserted more troops.

That cite refers to the Washington Post article if you look hard for the link and claims that is support for Allen's claims.

The problem here is that Allen's idea is just plain nonsense. The issue was safe extraction. And, the military rejected Kabul security as being a distraction in their mission.

Bronco's Allen argument just doesn't hold up.

I'm sorry, but I just did not see that in your post.

 

I don't believe there is any difference between "declaring" and "prosecuting".

Congress couldn't respond to our war in the Balkans. There wasn't any congressional decision making in conquering Libya. The decisions to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq were unilateral, with our brave congress telling Bush it was up to him!! Congress had nothing to do with the decision in 2019 or 2020 to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Your ideas on how congress could stop the president are just plain silly. Our law gave Clinton a full 6 months of freedom in what chose to do in the Balkans. Bush would have had that, too. In today's world, the original reasons for that time delay don't exist.

And, America is NOT going to impeach a president who has sent the US into war. We WILL fall in line behind that president for several strong reasons.

And, a president isn't necessarily going to go to war just because congress authorizes it.

This problem of totally unitary war decisions exists and is serious.

 

And THERE'S the total misreading of my words!

My point had been the very same as your own conclusion:

It was YOU, who had said he didn't see any problem, with a single person making this type of decision.


WillReadmore said: ↑
I don't see the problem of having a "single office-holder getting us in" any different than a single office holder deciding to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban.

It's still the case of one individual being the sole decision maker on that level of decision...

 

I thank you for, and accept your apology. Unfortunately, I only, just now, got to it, at the end of your post, because I began responding after reaching the earlier part of your post, in which you allege some blunder on my part, leading to the misunderstanding.

Not very good, at apologies, are you?

 

LOL - now you are misinterpreting what I've said.

In this specific case I said it is the same problem - in or out, makes no difference. They are equally bad in terms of how we should be making momentous decisions.

I have said over and over again on this thread that having one person make such decisions without serious review is a significant problem.

 

Because the Congress had given the Executive carte blanche, which the Constitution does not prescribe; Gorfias brought up, as a problem; I agreed with him about, occasioning your reply; and you ultimately agreed with, as well, after counter arguing against that idea, which you quoted, from my post, and yet somehow tried to present, at the end of it all, as your own conception.

If you don't watch out, you are going to surpass Golem, as most disingenuous poster of this thread (at the least).

Again, this is a nonsense response. YOU had a complaint about Trump ending the Afghan war w/out a Congressional declaration. I said that deciding when a military mission had been completed, was properly the determination of the Commander-in-Chief; if the Congress disagreed with his decision, to pull the plug, I said they had various options, including a new declaration of war, or impeachment. What can't you follow? In that scenario, they would not be impeaching a President who was leading us in war, but one who had supposedly retreated our forces, prematurely, from the battlefield. Hence, your comment, like 50% of what you reply, at least to me, is non sequitur.

Um, yes. That is his job. If the Congress declared War, & the President refused to prosecute that fight-- and there is a difference between declaring & prosecuting a war effort, regardless of whether you understand it-- he (or she) would be derelict in their constitutionally-mandated duties, and would almost certainly be the first successfully convicted, impeached president.

It is, therefore, your contention that a president won't necessarily go to war, just because Congress declares war, that is, "just plain silly." You are again backsliding down the slope of the Congress, "authorizing," the use of force, w/out declaring war.

 

Are you going to apologize for #1181 where you misconstrue what I said and have repeatedly said?

Do you want to discuss a possible standard for apologies, so I can be adequate in that regard?

 

I am certainly agreeable to that. My first proposal would be that an apology, should not be prefaced with an insult ("blunder").

My second suggestion, would be that no poster's response be judged by anything other than their own discourse with another, and those posts quoted by that poster. IOW, none should be responsible for knowing the contents of earlier parts of conversations, before offering a comment, or for knowing everything else that had been posted, by the poster to whom one is responding.

Note that, earlier in this thread, when you erroneously addressed me instead of Golem, I did not insult you. I explained what I thought was your mistake, & supplied the links to my posts, that I believed would clear up the matter. This, I submit, is a model that, if followed, would prevent the NEED for many apologies, in the first place.

Speaking of which, what was it in post #1187, for which I supposedly owe you an apology?

 

You could not POSSIBLY be more wrong on this. I have pointed out this problem numerous times over my posting history on this board.

I know what you said, and I absolutely disagree.

Deciding to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban is a major decisions for several different reasons. Making that decision without involving congress is a serious problem. And, that is exactly what happened.

As for your other ideas, I already pointed out that your congressional declaration of war can't be effective when the president can simply quit any war. And that direction does not solve the problem at hand in 2020.

Well, THAT'S never going to happen!!

Beyond that, a partisan food fight is NOT a methodology for making sound foreign policy and security decisions. And, that is ALL an impeachment is and all it CAN be under current practice and definitions.

Also, let's remember that the Trump/Taliban plan was never PRESENTED as a plan for handing Afghanistan to the Taliban - even though that was a highly likely outcome. Never did Trump present a plan of military support for Afghanistan. In fact, he told Afghanistan that nothing like that was going to happen - that they were 100% on their own.

In other words, the discussion in congress has to be far more inclusive than deciding a question as binary as "in" or "out".

As for your confusion about "declaring war", the last time we declared war was against the Axis in 1942.

 

1) The reason it won't happen, is because what you suggested is not likely to ever occur: a Congress declaring war, and a President failing to act on that declaration.

2) Your various, stipulated stances are completely contradictory of one another. Above, you say that partisan Congressional politics has no place in foreign policy & security decisions. And yet, prior to this, you cite the problem of NOT involving Congress in such decisions:

So which one is it? Is war a decision for Congress, as Constitutionally-mandated-- which cannot preclude partisan politics-- or is that decision, "NOT a methodology for making sound foreign policy and security decisions?" It is notable that
you also claim that Congress should be involved, in order to end any conflict; but that would require a treaty, which would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate. FYI, if two-thirds of the Senate were in favor of continuing a war, which the President deemed to have been concluded, that would be the requisite number to convict the President, in an impeachment.

So your various claims have been inconsistent. I was going to say, "all over the map," but I now realize that your other statement had merely been obscurely phrased:

This is very unclearly stated-- it does not distinguish whether you see neither, or both, as problematic, in equal measure. Originally, I'd read your emphasis on your not seeing any problem, but now I understand that you meant to emphasize the idea of not seeing the two problems as being any different from one another. (Note this, those who object to my use of emboldening, underlining, and enlarging, of text, which eliminates just this sort of obscurity of emphasis).

Which, still, invites more of the partisan fighting, which you elsewhere state (see top quote), should be no part of foreign policy & security decisions. To merely say that politicians should not adhere to partisan politics, which are a fact of life, is something easy, that most will agree with but, at the same time, is as meaningless as it is impractical.

I guess if you claim all positions, you can claim to always have posts supporting the position you wish to take, at any given time.


For the record, this is how the topic is addressed in History.House.gov
<SNIP>
Madison and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts sought a middle ground. For Gerry, giving a single office the entirety of the country’s war powers contradicted the goals of a republic, and he and Madison proposed a quick edit, replacing “make” with “declare” so that the Constitution would read “Congress shall have power to declare war.” The change codified congressional authority but made the clause flexible enough to enable the President to defend the country during emergencies. The delegates worried that Congress would be out of session or would act too slowly if foreign forces invaded America. So, despite their resolve to dilute Executive power, they gave the office an implied authority to “make war” as an insurance policy of sorts for America’s security.

Like George Mason of Virginia, the founders felt that war should be difficult to ENTER, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process.

<END SNIP>
FYI, this shows the difference between prosecuting, or "making," war, versus declaring it.

I am aware of this. It is you who are lost, if you think that I am at all confused about this. That was Gorfias' point, I think, with which I was agreeing, & with which you have also both agreed, and contested, that Congress has been too spineless, in modern times, about taking responsibility for those calls. A President's ability to, "defend the country during emergencies," should not apply to the "military actions," of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan (for 20 years). That is my position, which I am not afraid to stake out, clearly, & w/out equivocation. Let me know, if & when you ever choose one consistent view, to stick with.

 

I just wanted to interject one thing. You sir have way way more patience than I do and I congratulate your best of intentions dedication. After several pages of best effort on my part I decided it was time to leave when then poster started going in circles and contradicting himself. After reading through your post and the honest effort you put forward I wanted to say I misjudged you and feel obligated to extend my apology for being crass in earlier communications and for not being more attentive to the substantive nature of your post.

It was mistake.

 

I

 

That is nobly humble thing for you to admit, which I much appreciate, & respect. I don't think your last response falls into that category; it was merely a difference of opinion which, frankly, I would need do more research, to have an informed idea as to whether or not it was accurate. I, in fact, had agreed on the point that this evacuation should have moved into high gear, sooner. But, as is often the case, when trying to play out alternative scenarios to complex, true life, events, it will probably be impossible to really know, had Biden increased our troop presence from the get-go, as you had suggested, if that would have ultimately led to fewer, or more, than our actual total of 13 dead servicemen. I had, therefore, taken as much as I could from the known course of events, to find what difference could have been effected with the least amount of speculation.

The path not taken, is one that I supported before Pres. Biden actually took the step, which turned out, IMO, to be a significant improvement on the previous, slow pace, despite its chaotic nature. It had been advocated by Afghanistan vets, now in Congress; by this point, it has become a much agreed-upon idea, even on the left.

But when I learned of the big monkey wrench, which President Ghani's abdication had inserted in our plans, I had to reconsider Biden's earlier choices, keeping that in mind. While I still believe that this could have been better run, it would not be fair to ignore any of the screwballs, that fate had thrown us. That is just the open-minded ideal, for which I strive.

I have no doubt, nevertheless, that on many, maybe even most, issues, we will continue to have differing viewpoints. But I do not see why that honest comparing of perspectives should mean that we need perceive each other as enemies. If you feel similarly, I think that will make comparing our views more interesting, enjoyable, & mutually-beneficial.

 

I would happily have them dropped off in nations with cultures similar to their own, like Uzbekistan or some other dozen Mid-Easter Muslim majority countries. If they're skipping over such countries to bring them to the 1st world, they're not refugees as they could have gotten such refuge before getting here.

 

Much agreed. But when it comes to American warfighters, my passion is only bridled by my anger unfortunately. As a former US Army pilot starting life as an Air Force brat, I have a very bias opinion on military personnel. And I have to admit that this administrations decisions leaving our young warriors at risk unnecessarily coupled with the events at Dover have hijacked me emotionally for days now.

One quick example. After my military career I started a drone company (Condor) to provide aerial surveillance for state and federal law enforcement. I found out one of our suppliers (Prioria Robotics) were selling used drones to the US Army Rapid equipping Force putting soldiers lives at risk for profit. I dedicated 4 years of time and legal expenses holding that company accountable in civil and federal courts and was able to successfully take control and seize the entire company. We are providing it to another military contractor for proper provisions as I have no connections to military contracting. Thats a task way over my pay grade.

But I digress. I didn't join the military to serve my country. I know that sounds odd but as a young man, I just wanted to be like them. While stationed at McCoy AFB (now Orlando Int) (which is why its identifier is MCO) during the Cuban missile crisis, as you can imagine it was a very different place in time. I feel this overwhelming need to oppose the changes this country has gone through over the last 20 years. While change can be a good thing, (normally) I don't see it based on the last presidents we have hosted and we get worse with every election.

So my frustration sometimes gets the best of me as to why (what I think is overwhelmingly obvious) seems to be allusive to so many. Be it partisanship or willingness to turn the other cheek, I see a great destruction from within on the horizon and I just can't help myself. Most likely why I am sitting on 30 points right now so I am trying to step back and reevaluate my mission standard if you catch my drift.

So I appreciate the kind words and I look forward to interesting debates in the coming future. But my only success in the future of not going on forced PF vacation will be to divest myself of those who have ulterior motives that I have unwittingly become accustom to confrontation with.

Its early in the experiment and not guarantees exist currently, but I am going to make the effort. Not sure of the outcome yet but as they say, recognition is the first step. Right?

 

There are too many, though, to expect just the neighboring countries to absorb the full burden. I heard that I think 80 countries have volunteered to host the Afghans, at least while they are being vetted (which is, after all, the riskiest time).

 

Oh... Dear God! Why am I wasting my time trying to have a serious debate with you. The suicide bomber was NOT a Taliban!!

Anyway... this is a waste of time....

 

I think Afghanistan was a complete waste of time. Yeah... we got Bin Laden. The symbol of 9-11. But the minute Bush decided to put it in the backburner to go after the oil, that was when the Taliban won.

 

Yeah... like you just quoted from the agreement: One of the conditions were that they would start a dialogue with the Afghan government. NOT that they would reach any sort of agreement. And the other was that they pinky promise not to allow the use of their territory to allow terrorists to attack us.

You quoted it.... I wonder if you understood what you quoted.

 

Yeah, Thats called a qualifier because your reputation of dodging out of conversations (just like you tried to do here) precedes you.

So now that we have confirmed (BY YOU) that no American was bombed at the airport by the Taliban

You have railed page after page about how bad Trumps agreement was which forces the question

Which decision is better

Having American soldiers killed and road side bombed for 2 years while staying at war with the Taliban
OR
Signing an agreement to release 5000 Taliban fighters
A Two year cease fire
NO American soldiers killed
NO road side bombs
1000 Afghan Military personnel released by the Taliban
13,000 soldiers brought home
3 Military bases evacuated

So are you going to answer that or keep avoiding the question. (Like you just tried too)

If you can't answer the question or its too difficult, you can always surrender and run away.

I however don't run from ANY question. What will you do

 

I fully understand what I quoted. That agreement is well over a year prior. That agreement was conditional, and over that year+ the Taliban was not even close to abiding by those conditions. A wise person would have correctly declared the agreement void and changed tactics, especially once it become obvious that the Taliban was making motions for territory back in April/May and it was undeniable that they had zero interest in any sort of meaningful peace pact. Strangely, this land grab did not trigger a change in plans. Its like switching bus drivers midstream and then blaming the first driver because he had it headed towards a bridge abutment 200 miles down the road after he left the drivers seat. At some point the second driver needs to make a course correction. No such course correction occurred, which is a damned shame.

Perhaps expecting a wise action in May was probably overly ambitious.

 

I agree with that. The switch to invade Iraq was unconscionable. And, the oil idea was too lame for words, in that there wasn't enough oil to pay for our expenditure, or for rebuilding Iraq, for that matter. And, the argument that we were protecting the orderly production and delivery of the world supply was also just lame.

I think the real objective was outlined in a paper signed by the VP and many of the key names we know from our DoD and other high officials. That paper, "The Project for a New American Century" pitched the conquest of Iraq as being important for the US establishing huge and permanent military bases so we could leave Saudi Arabia and still better exert our influence on the region with our military. The high officials who wrote that document had tried to sell the idea to Clinton, too. The point was that the US was the lone superpower after the fall of the USSR and thus we had a unique opportunity to reorganize for a century of US world domination - the new American century.

It is simply STARTLING that there was NO official justification for conquering Iraq - even though congress required him to produce one.

So, we let Afghanistan flounder along as we moved our military forces and attention to Iraq, where PNAC documents claimed we needed to make a stupendous show of military might in order to restore the fear of the world in our military capability.

When we claim we tried to improve Afghanistan for 20 years, that's really pretty much bogus.