Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Barbara Boxer: Why I'm Not Giving Obama War Powers [View all]
Confronting Terrorism Without Another American Ground WarThree months ago when Democrats were in control of the Senate, I voted in the Foreign Relations Committee for an AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) which authorized the President to continue working with a broad coalition to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL.
Unfortunately, that sensible AUMF never got a vote in the full Senate.
President Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another ground war.
This is the commitment the President made last June when he said, "I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again." He made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, "Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group."
That is why I was so surprised by the Administration's draft AUMF which would allow this Administration and the next one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no "enduring offensive ground combat operations.
At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing - and no one has defined the meaning of "enduring." At worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.
Even worse, some of my Republicans colleagues are now pressing to pass an AUMF with virtually no restrictions at all. Some of these same lawmakers have argued that the only way to defeat ISIL is to have American troops on the ground fighting against ISIL wherever they go.
Unfortunately, that sensible AUMF never got a vote in the full Senate.
President Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another ground war.
This is the commitment the President made last June when he said, "I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again." He made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, "Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group."
That is why I was so surprised by the Administration's draft AUMF which would allow this Administration and the next one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no "enduring offensive ground combat operations.
At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing - and no one has defined the meaning of "enduring." At worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.
Even worse, some of my Republicans colleagues are now pressing to pass an AUMF with virtually no restrictions at all. Some of these same lawmakers have argued that the only way to defeat ISIL is to have American troops on the ground fighting against ISIL wherever they go.
(Continued at link below...)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-barbara-boxer/confronting-terrorism-with-ground-war_b_6680544.html
---------------------
All of this on the front page of HuffPo under "Endless War", and rightly so...is this really something we want the nation to commit to? Is this really power we want to hand off to a new administration, with the prospect of yet another Bush vs. Clinton contest?
Kudos to Barbara Boxer, let's hope others join her. Haven't we devoted enough to the MIC? Our infrastructure and countless other avenues need attention...it's time for this rally to endless war to stop.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
32 replies, 3919 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (51)
ReplyReply to this post
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My heart SINKS when I think of a power like this in the hands of a Scott Walker or Cruz or Jindal
randys1
Feb 2015
#1
It is vomit inducing to say the least, as tho we all haven't had enough of this crap.
mother earth
Feb 2015
#2
I trust Obama to a point, I dont trust any republican on any issue ever, period.
randys1
Feb 2015
#3
We should all be nervous, and should get used to thinking in terms of the militarized police state
mother earth
Feb 2015
#6
If you read the full article, there are tools already in place to fight ISIL...I don't think Boxer
mother earth
Feb 2015
#8
OK, hope you are right. Is there a position paper on her or Bernie that you know of?
randys1
Feb 2015
#18
I read that, but it would be nice to see position on all main issues social and economic
randys1
Feb 2015
#20
I would go to Bernie's website. All candidates for office make their positions clear on
mother earth
Feb 2015
#21
Familiar, he has more on record about positions that I have read than the other w
randys1
Feb 2015
#22
Thank you Barbara Boxer. If only every Democrat was as brave and smart as you are.
dissentient
Feb 2015
#4
Another reason that we must replace her with a true Democrat (when she leaves)...
SoapBox
Feb 2015
#24