Obama is President of the USA, not of Iraq or of Syria - it is up to their leaders to rid themselves of the problem. If you don't believe that, then show me where in the Constitution it is written that Obama must do for them what they won't do for themselves.
MMC, Mr_Truth, et al, First, the War on Terrorism (WoT) is not a "war" (per se). It is a more acceptable phrase or "euphemism" that implies an activation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, --- wherein the Legislature has the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. Related to the power to Declare War, is the WoT euphemism to "Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." (COMMENT) Letters of marque and reprisal are commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder: Names person, authorizes him to pass beyond borders with forces under his command. Specifies nationality of targets for action. Authorizes seizure or destruction of assets or personnel of target nationality. Describes offense for which commission is issued as reprisal. Restriction on time, manner, place, or amount of reprisal. In contemporary times, the Congress uses the phrase "Authorization of Use of Force." JOINT RESOLUTION This Public Law, 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23], was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 and signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. The law authorized U.S. armed forces 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 11, 2001". SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (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 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. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Approved September 18, 2001. This question: (Our Friend "MCC" posed "Show me where the War on Terror has boundaries." The intention was to exact reprisals for acts of treachery and violence that were committed against the United States and its citizens. The reason was to deter the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence. The purpose was to neutralize such acts that continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Congress had determined that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States. Congress exercises this power to give them some political cover, plausible denial on the domestic front, and yet look as if they are taking some action. One example of an addition way this is accomplished is where Office of Legal Counsel uses existing legislation to extend authority or jurisdiction at the direction of the President or the Attorney General the FBI may use its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 533(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3052 to investigate and arrest individuals for violations of applicable United States law, even if those actions depart from customary international law or unexecuted treaties. While I have addressed the abilities to intervene (legally and militarily), the wisdom of exercising this authority is a altogether different matter. Operations (military and law enforcement) should only be undertaken when the executive has more than a reasonable expectation of success. And in the Middle East, that is not an expectations America or its executive leadership should hold. Most Respectfully, R
Rocco, First, please check your PMs. Second, while the Constitution empowers the government to issue letters of marque and reprisal to private parties such actions are illegal under international law per the Paris Convention of 1856. While the US is not signatory to that treaty, it is subjected to authority of international administrations per other treaties and the government would be accountable for the actions of any such privateers. Third, you are correct in that any legality is subject to practicability of any such actions. ISIS was not involved in the California attack earlier this month. Therefore, the government has no possible justification for undertaking violence against that group. ISIS (commonly referred to as Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) is at war with Syria and Iraq. Let those countries fight it in their own way. We have already given them billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Any more expenditures in terms of dollars or human blood is a total wastage.
Mr_Truth, et al, Part of this is accurate. Part is arguable. (COMMENT) Most of the Letters of Marque [now called "Rewards for Justice" and Authorization for Use of Military Force] are merely modern day application of older Congressional Authority. They are variations on a theme. International Law is a different animal all together. The Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) are not really applicable. But there are clearly violations of foreign domestic law and violations of sovereignty issues. There is a different kind of slant on these. In the case of a private interdiction, the US generally does not want to know about it until you are ready to hand the fugitive into US Custody. If the US Government knows before hand, it would be compelled to act in favor of the host nation. (COMMENT) Neutralization activities against DAESH are based on the determination that there exists a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. This requires a bit more close coordination. Most Respectfully, R
I say we "crush them with our Commerce Clause"; they will be so busy being better Capitalists, they won't realize it until it is too late.
It will be interesting to see if the Iraqis can retake Ramadi and re-establish moderate Sunni-led governance there. If they can do that, it may serve as a model for retaking Fallujah and the rest of Anbar Province and Mosul in Nineveh Province. Surely, a slow, bloody process that will take years. But it is better that Iraqis fight for their country than that our children and loved ones do it for them. But even if all of that comes to pass, there is still one big elephant in the room. Sunnis will not be governed by Shiites. Kurds will not be governed by Shiites or Sunnis. So even if ISIS is defeated you are left with a Balkanized country that is "one country" in name only. Why not just make it official? Iraq is Humpty Dumpty, and we are not going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. In Syria, we never should have armed anyone there. Nor should have anyone else. That policy helped create this mess and must be ended completely. We must now do everything in our power to get others in the area (like Turkey and the Gulf States) to stop sending arms and people to fight the Assad government as well. I believe the Assad question can be dealt with later, after the defeat of ISIS. Syria, like Iraq, doesn't exist as a nation anymore except in name only and official borders. I believe Syria's only hope for long term peace is to divide. Let the Alawites govern Alawites, the Sunnis govern Sunnis, and the Kurds govern Kurds. You guys who say we should go in and crush ISIS with a ground force are right about one thing. We could do that. ISIS would be wiped out by the superiority of the U.S. Army and Marines. But that doesn't answer the "then what?" question. America does not want to occupy large areas of Syria and Iraq for years and years. We also do not want to leave and go back and leave and go back, endlessly. And when we talk about invading with a ground force, we are talking about killing our children, folks. And I, for one, am unwilling to kill our children unless it is absolutely necessary, and only if the "end game" is rock solid. So until such time as we actually have an end game - a final outcome - that brings a lasting peace (and I think that means Balkanizing Syria and Iraq), I am satisfied to just bomb them and slowly grind away at them that way.
I more or less agree with that. Long term, I think the future of that area is some sort of negotiated Dayton Accords-like agreement that partitions the area into religious and ethnic states. Basically independence for everyone. The problem is that with the arrival of the Russians to shore up Assad. As long as they do that, it's impossible to negotiate away territorial gains that Assad can hold (with Russian help) by force. And then there is the problem of the Sunni Arabs. They have a de facto state already, the Islamic State. Either someone is going to have to defeat them and destroy it, or we're going to have to live with a new country dedicated to conquering the world to establish a caliphate.
Thanks for answering back, Lil Mike. I'm brand new here, so I appreciate the feedback. And yeah, you're right. ISIS has to be wiped out in those two countries, and (1) I'm not sure the Iraqis or the Syrians can do it, even with U.S. and Russian support. And, (2) if they can do it, would either the Iraqi or Syrian governments give up their gains and allow those Sunni areas to have independence? I don't know. Both governments may be holding on to the notion that they can re-establish governance over their Sunni areas and once again become whole nations. My humble opinion is that they cannot, and they may learn that eventually. Even Assad may eventually realize that he and his people would be better off in an Alawite country living in peace than to be in a constant state of civil war that never ends while trying to govern a people that hates him more than anything in the world. My pie-in-the-sky solution might be something like this: I guess if I were the president I would want to sit down with Putin and talk about the end game. I would see if we could agree on a final outcome that both wipes out ISIS (and other jihadis) and fosters a lasting peace by redrawing the borders and creating new countries. If we could agree, I think I would then bring in the other players and present a united front - two superpowers with a common vision for peace. It may be necessary to exert the threat of our combined military/economic/diplomatic power to bring the other players along. Then we would need to develop a coordinated plan to wipe out our common enemy. If the sun and the moon and the stars all lined up, and all of this came to pass, then and only then would I be willing to commit U.S. ground troops to make it happen, and then only if the Russians and Europeans (and possibly a muslim state or two) did as well. I would not be willing to do it on the ground by ourselves. A lot of if's and maybe's in that. Yeah, I know ... that's why I called it pie-in-the-sky. But short of something along those lines, I think I would just continue doing what we're doing - bombing, trying to make life miserable for them, trying to find and take out their leaders, etc. At least we are answering them back, killing thousands of them, and not having our children fight, bleed, and die for nothing.
May be this sounds shocking, but it's the output of decades of experience of continental European Republics [Italy, Germany and France] in dealing with Red and Black terror [Communist and Fascist terrorism, in other words]. Unfortunately, the basics for a terror organization are so "basic" that they require just one thing: someone who believes in an ideology [Islamism is an ideology ... not a theology, pay attention to this]. That's all. If "Al Muhammad Salam" somewhere in Ohio decides to buy a gun and to kill some white Christians along a street ... I'd like to understand how US authorities think [hope] to prevent this ... In Italy we have seen the last rests of the Red Brigades killing a functionary of the state in Bologna when we were totally unprepared to see the Red Terror still in action ... it happened. Terrorism tends to become endemic, so that it's possible to contain it or even to "embed" it at social level, to make it become substantially harmless. But about the "Islamic State" the matter is a bit different: they claim to be a state, so we can run a conventional war, first of all, with nice WW II style bombardments over the cities of that "state". Then, once we will have reduced that state to a medieval territory, we will deal with terrorism. Russians are substantially following this strategy, while I suspect Americans are following the strategy of "let's see if they come here too ...". How can you contain terrorism? Understanding it and reducing its capability of recruitment [a terror organization with ideologists but without terrorists is a total nut].
The only way of defeating terrorism is to deal with the heart of the issue. WHAT BREEDS TERRORISTS??? Poor education, unemployment, starvation, hopelessness...etc. These are things the U.S. and NATO and Russia can help with. But we cannot get Russia on board until the U.S. agrees to save the failing Russian economy as this is why Putin went into Syria to begin with as to get himself a bargaining chip. The Russian economy is TINY...and I mean SMALL...at only $1.89 Trillion which is smaller than a single U.S. state of California which has a $2.2 Trillion economy. Russia needs U.S. help...badly. AboveAlpha
That's what is to be done to defeat great terrorism and to contain what will remain of it. But I keep on repeating that terror will always be. Also a rich guy can become a terrorist because of ideological / political / religious / whatever else reasons [Osama Bin Laden wasn't a poor guy, you know ...].
I would agree that currently, all negotiating roads lead to Putin. I'm just not sure he's interested in negotiating away territory he already has and territory he might reasonably regain. I think it might take several more years and tens of thousands of more lives before Putin/Assad think that just controlling an Alawite territory is better than having it all. But right now, I think they would prefer civil war than several hostile states, including the IS, on their border.
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. The 9/11 hijackers were not some dumb jobless shepherds, they were middle and upper middle class, highly educated individuals. Syed Farook had a pretty good county job, making good middle class wages. Nidal Hasan was a Psychiatrist and Major in the Army. Sorry, but a Major is making pretty good money. If your clandestine government contracting job is telling you that "Poor education, unemployment, starvation, hopelessness...etc" is what's breeding terrorists, then we know less now then we did on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Not to belabor the point, but my thought was to wipe out ISIS so they wouldn't be on anyone's border. But yes, it may take a long war before they realize that it is not worth carrying on, and they look for some other solution.
Well there is no one to wipe out ISIS. The US isn't going to do it, and if it isn't the US, then no one will. So I would call it a semi permanent feature of the Middle East now.
Understood. But the optimist in me (what's left of it) sees a small glimmer of hope in the retaking of Ramadi by the Iraqis. Let's see if they can hold Ramadi, establish governance and security there, and move on. If they can, it will be a long war, but it could signal the beginning of the end for ISIS in Iraq. All we can do is wait and see.
Bin Laden is a rich bored guy who was irked that there were U.S. Military Forces stationed in Saudi Arabia. The CIA also used him to rid Afghanistan of the Soviets. We should have killed him at Tora Bora. AboveAlpha
Or before ... in the 90's you had to give more importance to his activities and to his figure as arising terror leader. But you know, past is past.
What Daesh needs to experience is some real banging. Let them experience the drive bys. Their Daughters being pimped out on what ever desert crosswalk they have. Their sons and daughters being tricked into drugs and becoming dopefiends. Where they have to physically fight and can't use their weapons. Let them experience some of that gangstering. Wherein the bangers just take whatever they want from the mopes. While making them.....pay for protection. Then let them deal with the criminal organizations that just kill them on sight. Trust me they will get the message and they will be the cause of Innocent Arab Muslims going thru the changes. Let the word spread.....if you become one of Daesh. You will be killed.
Nah.....let those overseas. See what real Evil is......and the last thing you will hear is how the US is called the Great Satan.
shouldn't we just goad them to be more faithful and call them "big chickens" if they can't handle it?
No.....because in their minds. It doesn't matter what we say. But it will when their people are treated worse than bugs and the piles left in the fields.
