Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. Joint Res. 29

Authorizing Ground Troops Against ISIS — Anytime, Anywhere

Argument in favor

The U.S. needs to wage unrestricted war against ISIS if it wants to defeat the radical terror group. Prohibiting the use of ground forces, allowing ISIS to find security by crossing borders, or setting a time limit on military action will undermine the President's ability to lead a successful operation.

BTSundra's Opinion
···
01/28/2016
ISIS is probably one of, if not the most dangerous threat to America. Authorizing a fight will get this regime under control.
Like (49)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
02/10/2016
With reservations. Being a Vietnam Vet don't want to see it dragged out for years. If we go in, we go in all hands on deck with no hands tied.
Like (41)
Follow
Share
Xavier's Opinion
···
01/28/2016
It's time to fight ISIS head on, if we continue to pretend like ISIS is a "JV team" we are in for a very rude awakening.
Like (33)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This resolution would give the President unchecked authority to carry out military operations against ISIS — and could change the way Congress authorizes future military campaigns. Having U.S. ground troops deployed in any country that ISIS operates in, could create a war without end.

BernieSanders's Opinion
···
03/24/2016
“The U.S. and the international community should be fully supportive, but the leadership in this war must come from the Muslim world.” [thedailybeast.com]
Like (360)
Follow
Share
BarackObama's Opinion
···
03/24/2016
“It is not just my view, but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers, that that would be a mistake.” [thehill.com]
Like (202)
Follow
Share
AutumnStarlight's Opinion
···
01/30/2016
The President of the United States may have authority over our military as commander-in-chief, but he has no power to declare war. That power is vested solely in Congress as dictated by the US Constitution. Besides, haven't we learned from history? Unchecked unilateral military power given to the president on a silver platter was what got us stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for over ten years and gave rise to Daesh (aka ISIS) in the first place.
Like (89)
Follow
Share

What is Senate Bill S. Joint Res. 29?

This resolution would authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces against the self-proclaimed Islamic State group (commonly known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) and its associates. It would not put in place any geographic limitations on carrying out armed force, so the military would be authorized by Congress to engage ISIS wherever they are located.

No time limits would be placed on the authorization to use military force against ISIS. Because this joint resolution allows the President to commit military forces for a limited time before Congressional authorization is required, it effectively bypasses the War Powers Resolution.

No limitations would be placed on the use of U.S. ground forces to combat ISIS, or one the ability of national security entities to disrupt online terrorist recruitment activities, communications, and propaganda.

Impact

Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the American public, Congress, and the President.

Cost of Senate Bill S. Joint Res. 29

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced this legislation to avoid restricting President Obama and his successor in their efforts to defeat ISIS:

“I think an AUMF, an authorization to use military force, that ties the president’s hands behind his back is not something I would want to do to a new president, who’s going to have to clean up this mess.”

Both the White House and Democrats in Congress have expressed concerns about the broad nature of this AUMF. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) believes it would weaken the role of Congress in voting to send U.S. troops to war:

“This resolution is a total rewrite of the War Powers Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It is essentially a declaration of international martial law, a sweeping transfer of military power to the president that will allow him or her to send U.S. troops almost anywhere in the world, for almost any reason, with absolutely no limitations.”

Of Note: The growth of ISIS throughout Iraq and Syria has left U.S. policymakers with difficult decisions to make in their efforts to stop, and ultimately eliminate the group's influence in the region. The CIA estimated in the fall of 2014 that ISIS had between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.

Much of ISIS' notoriety in the U.S. comes from the beheadings of several Americans and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities via military campaign. During the 113th Congress, two bills were introduced — one to end the AUMF against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and one to repeal the AUMF and declare war on ISIS — but neither was successful.

Beginning in August 2014, the U.S. began carrying out airstrikes in Iraq, started arming the Kurdish Peshmerga, and eventually lead airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria. By mid-May 2015, the U.S. had carried out over 3,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

During this time, the number of American ground troops sent to Iraq has increased, with the first deployment raising troop levels to about 800 soldiers. Many of these soldiers were protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad (which employs more than 5,000 people), and other diplomatic outposts.

By February 2015, total troop levels in Iraq topped 3,000 after several deployments of about 1,000 troops each. These personnel are primarily tasked with training the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga, while defending U.S. diplomatic facilities. They are not engaging ISIS in ground combat, although some participated in the evacuation of the Yazidis from a mountain where they had been surrounded by ISIS fighters.

In October 2015, U.S. special forces participated in a raid in Syria that left one American serviceman dead. The Obama administration insists that the raid doesn't constitute a change in strategy towards a combat mission.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user U.S. Dept. of Defense)

AKA

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated Forces

Official Title

A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its associated forces.

joint resolution Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
    IntroducedJanuary 20th, 2016
    ISIS is probably one of, if not the most dangerous threat to America. Authorizing a fight will get this regime under control.
    Like (49)
    Follow
    Share
    “The U.S. and the international community should be fully supportive, but the leadership in this war must come from the Muslim world.” [thedailybeast.com]
    Like (360)
    Follow
    Share
    “It is not just my view, but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers, that that would be a mistake.” [thehill.com]
    Like (202)
    Follow
    Share
    The President of the United States may have authority over our military as commander-in-chief, but he has no power to declare war. That power is vested solely in Congress as dictated by the US Constitution. Besides, haven't we learned from history? Unchecked unilateral military power given to the president on a silver platter was what got us stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for over ten years and gave rise to Daesh (aka ISIS) in the first place.
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    Learn from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan...
    Like (50)
    Follow
    Share
    With reservations. Being a Vietnam Vet don't want to see it dragged out for years. If we go in, we go in all hands on deck with no hands tied.
    Like (41)
    Follow
    Share
    Now we have the ultimate Congressional dweeb move: the conservatives in Congress, wrapping themselves in the flag & complaining loudly about how weak our President is, have been unwilling & now clearly remain unable take responsibility for taking a stand on difficult issues facing the US and is so incompetent at the job of governing that they have introduced bill to give away their power to declare war! And dump all responsibility on the Executive branch for decisions about national security. Not that this shocks the constituency of any of these elected spineless ones--"THE DOG ATE MY COURAGE!" Not just NAY but HELL NO! Stand up & do your jobs. If your vote comes back to bite you in the ass, you will have finally discovered that you live in a democracy which apparently will be a revelation to most of you. (Unless you manage to completely destroy your country during this term--we have observed that as your intention for a very long time: this means YOU, Sen Rubio & Rep DeSantis!)
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    It's time to fight ISIS head on, if we continue to pretend like ISIS is a "JV team" we are in for a very rude awakening.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    The President can already send troops via the War Powers Resolution of 1973. However, they must notify congress they've sent troops within 48 hours, and can only stay for a maximum of 60 days barring a delclaration of war by Congress. This is how it should stay. There is checks and balances for a reason.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    I served 10 years in the Infantry. I served four years as a Rifleman in the Marine Corps Infantry, and then six years as an Officer in the Army Infantry. Regardless of which branch I was serving with, the mindset of an Infantryman was always the same. We are Warriors. We train to fight, we want to fight, and we go to extraordinary lengths to be prepared to fight. Then when the time comes and we must fight, we see then the evil that truly exists in this world. We see the brutality and terror that groups like ISIS can inflict on other people. We don't care about the politics back home, and all the hand wrangling or the platitudes spoken at press conferences. While everyone is talking about what to do, heads are being cut off. ISIS can be beaten, it can be defeated, and it can be destroyed. But you aren't going to accomplish this with targeted air strikes or talking points. You are only going to accomplish this with boots on the ground. Boots such as those of an Infantryman. Follow Me.
    Like (28)
    Follow
    Share
    No, this is unconstitutional and would set a dangerous precedent.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    There must be checks and balances in place throughout all military operations. We cannot risk the lives of our own soldiers, and the lives of civilians in proximity to Isis, over lack of planning and fear of terrorism.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This is the only way to truly fight ISIS at this point. They have invaded small lands/countries and are taking major resources as we speak. Ex: oil. This isn't something we can stop in air. It never will be.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Whether you are in favor of attacking ISIS or not, I think we can all agree that authorizing ground troops is not the answer. Putting American lives at risk on the ground would just result in more deaths for both sides. Currently, we are deploying air strikes against ISIS. Maybe the answer is to increase those air strikes. With that being said, you can't ignore the inevitable fact that innocent civilians will be killed. Regardless, there is no reason to put our troops out there under these conditions.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    We've done this after the gulf of Tonkin incident and after 9/11, both ended badly resulting the invasion of Iraq ( which was fine before the invasion) and the Vietnam war which left 58,000 soldiers dead, and the pentagon papers revealed some parts of the war were fabricated.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This is nothing more than a blank check for unending war. The president has done a pretty good job of dealing with ISIS already. They've lost more than 25% of their territories, key leaders captured or killed, and they're going broke. If we can avoid repeating republican policies that created them and stick to an INTELLIGENT plan, we can defeat them.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    War without end in sight with some regulation regarding how it will be fought is much better than without regulation. Isis is more than just a military group and the fight takes place in hearts and minds primarily.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    We should never give unlimited military authorization in any conflict. Learn from the past (e.g. Tonkin Gulf Resolution).
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    We should only send ground troops if Isis keeps killing Americans that are already over there and this terror group poses a real threat to the U.S.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I should have the right to protect my self and family and home
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE