Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Tips for Trump: Force War Authorization votes
President Trump,
All of the wars in the Middle East we are engaged in are “legacy wars”, with no congressional authorization other than a chain of justifications based on the Gulf war votes of many years ago.
This being the case, I suggest you announce a timetable to pull out of every conflict around the world unless Congress votes reauthorization to continue each one.
“I didn’t start any of these wars, and I don’t like them.”
“I don’t think the voters like any of these wars.”
“In this country, wars are declared by Congress, not the President. It’s about time we remembered that.”
“I am willing to delay returning troops in the field for 90 days, to give the people’s representatives the chance to debate and vote to continue any of these conflicts. After that, our boys will have the support of congress, or they are coming home.”
“Enjoy your speakership, Nancy.”
Published in Military
Now that is a very intriguing idea.
Yeah but most of congress would vote for it just for spite. Then what?
Domestic spite is a stupid justification for a war.
Because a vote of record is something the people can vote for or against with their choice of legislator.
That’s the point.
Congress has been abdicating their responsibilities so as to avoid the political ramifications of their choices for decades (if not a century). Trump has been trying to push congress to take on more responsibility (like DACA). This is right up his alley.
Yes, exactly. Congress has the luxury of speaking for or against every conflict without ever having to vote either way.
Gosh, I like that. Now if we just had someone in the White House who had the brazenness to break with tradition and end this cycle of undeclared wars. (And then I would know why we’re in Syria.) Wait a minute —
Exactly right. Since we have an all-volunteer military, our “leadership” finds it easy to send them into conflicts and then forget about them, with little protest from the home front.
I don’t know how I would endure having a loved one on duty in Afghanistan or the Middle East hell-holes right now, with no defined goals and no prospect for ending the engagement.
Heck, “winning” isn’t even a goal. We beat Nazi Germany and the Italians, liberated France, along with the rest of Europe, defeated Imperial Japan, and freed the Philippines, and all of the Pacific, building an army, a navy and an air force in the process, in four years.
This is exactly the problem! When winning was the goal we drove the Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, defeated Saddam, and ended any Isis caliphate, with each action taking a matter of months. It’s what happens/happened afterward that has lost the confidence of the American people.
Excellent post @mildlyo. On the money.
I knew a guy who travelled the world from country to country for decades teaching principles of law [to government entities], from Russia to Central America to Cambodia. But he was always hosted by the country who wanted him there.
Added: How do you nation-build in a hostile country you just bombed? Oh, I forgot. You force them to kneel before you, require of them a constitution, rebuild their infrastructure and manufacturing base, and threaten to do it again if they don’t come around.
Nevermind.
I like it. I feel Congress will vote for war most of the time, because they are generally afraid to be called wimps. But at least there would be a debate and a defined enemy and a mission. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed the House unanimously and 88-2 in the Senate and was based on a lie. It also was not an actual declaration of war, but authorization for use of force. Congress has voted to authorize all spending for all the “wars”, so they are voting for them indirectly.
This all reminds me of the long forgotten decades when we occupied Japan, Germany, and Korea. They all took the opportunity to democratize and become wildly prosperous.
The clock is now 18 years in for Afghanistan ans Iraq. I vote that “time’s up”.
In case my representative wants to know…
Let me add that we won, and not only democratized them, but spent the money to build them up out of the rubble. This we didn’t do with North Korea or Vietnam. Winning makes a difference.
I was referring to South Korea. My aunt has told me stories of how far south korea has advanced since she was a little girl that are incredible. North Korea was much richer than south when she was born.
Yes, I understand. I was just suggesting that a country can be beaten or just beaten up by others and still be “democratized”. And this had included really winning, not just bothering or bombing them while trying to train the troops of an otherwise losing faction.
This may not work in the Middle East, but it hasn’t been tried in my lifetime.
And when we just walk away, all hell breaks loose as in N. Korea, or civilization doesn’t take hold, as in Iraq.
This is the key point, sadly. I think you underestimate how much effort we spent trying, but it didn’t work.
See also Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and this:
https://youtu.be/N5p-qIq32m8
Then remember how quickly they turned.
That is not at all a bad idea. It reminds me of Charlie Cooke on The Editors podcast a few days ago. While Michael and David were going back and forth on whether President Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria was correct, which is justified discussion under the circumstances, Charlie rightly pointed out that it shouldn’t even be about Trump if Congress was doing their job and acting according to the Founding Father’s intentions.