General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts) Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:34 PM Jun 2014

Would intervention in Iraq require a new AUMF?

Senators Question Obama’s Authority For U.S. Military Strikes In Iraq

Rand Paul and Senate Democrats say the administration needs to come to Congress before any Iraq operations. Obama will meet with Congressional leaders Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — Senate critics of President Barrack Obama’s war on terror efforts are warning the White House must come to Congress for authority if he wants to launch significant military action in Iraq.

Democrats and Republicans alike have raised questions about the authority of the Obama administration to wage war against terrorist groups, the continued territorial gains by ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) and deteriorating situation in Iraq have given the debate new urgency on Capitol Hill. The administration announced Monday they would dispatch up to 275 U.S. troops to protect the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

...

“I think the president has essentially admitted the Iraq AUMF has functionally expired,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who along with Paul is part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who have pushed to reign in the administration’s authority under the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force resolution. “I think we have over a dozen AUMFs on the books and we need a comprehensive look at which are functional and which are obsolete. The Iraq AUMF is functionally obsolete.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/senators-question-obamas-authority-for-us-military-strikes-i

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would intervention in Iraq require a new AUMF? (Original Post) Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 OP

An interesting question Lurks Often Jun 2014 #1

I think it would. Although, Obama has sent the 275 there under the War Powers Act and has claimed morningfog Jun 2014 #2

"he should get Congressional approval...hopefully, like in Syria, Congress will shut him down again" Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #3

Regarding Libya Lurks Often Jun 2014 #4

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

1. An interesting question

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:42 PM

Jun 2014

On one hand, I don't believe the 2001 AUMF had an expiration date, on the other hand we have essentially exited Iraq militarily (excluding of course the normal military presence associated with the embassy).

It also presents an interesting legal issue, if the administration says that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the use of military force, it is essentially saying that the 2001 AUMF was legal under US law.

If the administration does go back for another AUMF in Iraq, it risks getting the request denied, which would be considered a political defeat for the administration.

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

2. I think it would. Although, Obama has sent the 275 there under the War Powers Act and has claimed

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:43 PM

Jun 2014

they can stay until the security improves (read indefinitely).

Before he goes whole hog on the air strikes, he should get Congressional approval. And hopefully, like in Syria, Congress will shut him down again.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

3. "he should get Congressional approval...hopefully, like in Syria, Congress will shut him down again"

Reply to morningfog (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 04:20 PM

Jun 2014

Or worse.

He asks for an AUMF and congress grants it. Some congress critters would do it to rope the President into "vindication" of Bush while others simply and honestly wouldn't want to see Iraq come apart at the hands of a group like ISIS which is too radical even for al Qaeda. Nonetheless, a new AUMF which would be solely portrayed as a vindication of Obama's predecessor. Meanwhile, taken in conjunction with the Syria denial it would be a resounding political backhanded slap.

However, I suspect the President will attempt to provide some THING to bolster our embassy in Baghdad but to a minimalist degree. I'm as opposed to a new Iraq engagement as I was to the original but if a token force is deployed and things get bad then additional forces may not be available to relieve those in trouble if there is serious trouble. That would be portrayed as a second Benghazi.

That leaves the option of having something more robust available but therein lies the even worse case scenario --

The President acts unilaterally as he did in Libya. That would mean the War Powers Resolution is effectively dead unless the Democrats want to censure/impeach one of their own. It's a sad irony that the resolution adopted to check unbridled Republican presidential power is being most profoundly threatened by a Democratic president with a Nobel Peace Prize. That would be in addition to the aforementioned "vindication."

To this day I cannot fathom the President's decision to act in Libya. The second and third order effects from that decision have all played against him and Democratic policy positions.

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

4. Regarding Libya

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:36 PM

Jun 2014

my opinion is that the British and the French essentially forced him into it with something along the lines of "we helped you in Iraq & Afghanistan, you owe us, now you're going to help with Libya".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Skimmed it, but there is a lot there that I don't remember seeing in the US media

Reply to this discussion