Like Causes?

Install the App
Back to article
Should the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq Be Repealed?
by Causes
0 actions taken this week
  • Bobby
    Voted Oppose

    This is nothing more than the Liberals/Democrats injecting [politics into matters concerning national security. If this action is of such a compelling interest, the why did the Congress take this action in the period between 2008 - 2016? A review of our history reveals some illuminating aspects: 1. World War One ,1917 - 1918, president that asked for declaration of war, Woodrow Wilson (D). 2. World War Two, 1941 -1945, president that asked for declaration of war, Franklin Roosevelt (D). 3. Korean "Police Action", 1950 - 1953 president that committed troops to conduct combat operations, Harry Truman, (D). 4. Viet Nam Conflict, 1964 -1973, president that committed troops to conduct combat operations & call for Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, "Landslide" Lyndon Johnson, (D.) 5. Iranian Hostage Situation, 444 days, president that failed to act with an appropriate level of force when faced with an exceeding provocation by the Islamic Theocratic Government of Iran, James Carter, (D). 6. Invasion of Grenada - 1983 - operations to eject Cuban Communist forces and restore the preexisting civilian Government, 1983, president that committed troops to conduct combat operations, Ronald Reagan, (R). 7. Panamanian Incursion - 1989, operations to remove a corrupt, cartel-sponsored dictator, president that committed troops conduct operations, George H.W. Bush ((R). 8. Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm - 1990 - 1991, Operations to eject Iraqi Forces that invaded our strategic ally, Kuwait, president that formed a coalition to conduct combat operations, George H.W. Bush (R). 9. War on Terror - 2001 - Present, reaction to terrorist attacks by Islamist forces that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, president that sought and received Congressional approval to conduct combat operations in Southwest Asia to find, engage, and destroy Islamic forces where they sought/received aid and comfort, president who deployed troops to conduct combat operations, George W. Bush (R) & presidents that continued operations 2008 - 2017, Barak Obama (D) & Donald Trump 2017 - Present, Donald Trump (R). Several Presidential Administrations allowed situations to arise that resulted in American forces to eventually get committed to action as a direct result of their policy of appeasement, denial, and inactivity. These include: 1. Woodrow Wilson 1914 -1917. 2. Franklin Roosevelt, 1932 - 1939, who conducted ongoing, personal correspondence with both Adolf Hitler & Benito Mussolini. 3. Harry Truman, 1946 -1950, failed to take actions to force the Soviet Union to pull their force back inside their borders, precluding the Cold War that lasted from 1946 - 1989. Also Failed to provide a credible deterrent in Korea that allowed communist forces to plan, organize, and conduct an invasion of our ally, South Korea. 4. James Carter, 1976 - 1980, did nothing to provide a posture of strength in foreign policy that allowed multiple threats to go unopposed, the primary one being his refusal to support the last Shah of Iran that lead directly to the formation of the theocratic government under the Ayatollah Khomenei in 1978 - 1979. 5. William Clinton, 1993-2000 , refused to take meaningful actions to deter potential and actual enemy states and non-governmental organizations such as Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, et al, to gain strength, power, and support in conducting operations to harm America and our interests. 6. Barak Obama, 2009 - 2016, presented a feckless, weakened foreign policy that did NOT present a posture of strength and determination to be a valuable ally. Conducted air strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles that killed at least as many civilians as collateral damage as they did in actual bad actors. 6. George H.W. Bush 1989 -1992, failed to continue operations in southwest Asia that would lead to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein/Baathist regime in Baghdad, allowing that regime to continue to prosecute actions against our interests. In sum part, there have been presidents in both parties that have committed troops and forces to conduct combat operations. The rationales have ranged for easily justifiable (Pearl Harbor & 9/11/2001) to uncertainty. One key facet of almost ALL military interventions conducted by America since 1900 is that we have always stopped just short of the objectives that would have prevented further conflict and bloodshed. Peacetime policies and other actions allowed the rise of despots and the creation of international conflict that resulted in the expenditure of vast sums of national treasure and needless loss of life. Very few of our military actions have resulted in anywhere near a lasting peace. I am a retired Army Officer. In my chosen profession, we studied history in order to learn the lessons of history. We studied our enemies and potential enemies in order to understand them, their philosophical underpinnings, their strengths, and weaknesses. NOW that is apparently not politically correct. General George S. Patton oncec stated that "...the bilious bastards that wrote that in the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real battle and war than they do about fornicating (he used a little more colorful language.) I tend to apply the wisdom of John Nance :Cactus Jack" Garner when I consider how dilettantes involve themselves in military policy: "It ain't worth a bucket of warm spit (again old Cactus Jack used a more colorful phrase).


Comment Liked by 0 Users