Rand Paul should tout his Declaration of War - if he wants to lose!

[YesI'mALiberal]

I can't believe there are folks here that believe Paul's DOW proposal in Nov. 2014 should be trumpeted at this time. It's as if they wear blinders to the world outside of Pauldom. Advancing this as somehow a show of Paul's "aggressive stance" versus ISIL ignores the facts on the ground. Here's a little refresher.

First, the proposal in 2014 was purely for show - it was late in an election year, a new Congress with a new Senate majority was coming in, and there was zero chance it would be taken up. The actual debate was taken up in 2015, specifically February.

Second, the idea of declaring war was instantly jettisoned. You DO NOT declare war on a gang of bandits. To do so would instantly give them some legitimacy and a recognition of sovereign rights. Even Rand Paul recognized he was getting nowhere with this, and switched to the AUMF language.

So, let's go to the actual debate.

A majority of Americans polled, 54 percent, said their member of Congress should vote to authorize U.S. military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while 32 percent are opposed to it.

Positions on ground troops break down to 40 percent who support a “limited number” of troops on the ground, mostly in line with the president’s authorization. Twenty-six percent want the military to deploy a “large number of U.S. ground forces.”

The authorization request, released Tuesday, allows the president to fight ISIS for three years without geographic limitation but prohibits “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Congressional resistance to the plan continues to grow on both sides of the aisle and many lawmakers have said they are unsure it will pass as is.

There’s a stark partisan split over the ground troop debate. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans support deploying a “large amount” of boots on the ground, while just 16 percent of Democrats back that strategy. That largely mirrors the debate in Congress: Republicans have panned the strategy for being too restrictive, while Democrats are worried the vague language could give the president too much power.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?468893-Poll-Most-back-ground-troops-in-ISIS-fight

Contrast this to Paul's approach - one year time limit, restricted exclusively to the territory ISIL currently occupied in Iraq/Syria, and more restrictively defined use of ground troops. He also would have removed a bunch of existing authorities from prior AUMFs that are sacred to the GOP, and which they insist are all the authority the Pres. needs. Reality:

Rand Paul's Not-So-Secret Plan to End the War on Terror by Declaring War in Iraq
By David Weigel - Nov 24, 2014

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul swooped in. He gave an interview to New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters, which was splashed on the newspaper's website with the headline "Rand Paul Calls for a Formal Declaration of War Against ISIS." Instead of a sleepy issue that the administration could sit on for a while, Paul made a new AUMF a subject of debate—on libertarian terms.
...
Last year, Paul told me that most of the War on Terror's over-reaches came from "a very expansive understanding of the use of the Authorization of Force in 2001." He had been trying to get Congress to officially declare the Iraq war over, and finding very few takers. Same was true for repealing the 2001 AUMF. "I think it would have absolutely no chance of going anywhere if I were to introduce it right now," he said.

More: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ng-war-in-iraq

You guys think his proposal somehow makes him the hawk in the room? Good luck with that.


As Revere1776 put it: Look, I get what he's trying to do here but this seems really ill-conceived. On what planet is he supposed to win respect with this "Declaration of War" against an "organization," confining it to one year, and limiting the use of troops? Not to mention it has absolutely no provision as to what victory could conceivably look like. I know the point is to make Congress take responsibility for military action but I just don't see how this thing will win him any points really. I don't think most folks will take it the way he's hoping.

http://archive.dailypaul.com/329819

 

[Valli6]

The discussion should take place.

I think at the very least, it forces the debate on war.
They would have to answer all the questions;
What can be done? How would it be done? Has arming "rebels" improved the situation? Who will be involved? What can realistically be expected? Does the US have the resources to have some sort of success? What would success look like? At what point is it over? Is it worth it?

And everyone in Congress would be forced to go on record with their stance on war. They would take it more seriously if they knew they would be subject to blame if they are stupid about it. As it's been, they have it too easy - all the power and perks, while shirking this big chunk of their responsibility.

Otherwise, they will probably go with another poorly thought out, open-ended, AUMF.
And Paul's resolution is not really limited to one year, it would just need to be renewed after a year.

 

[presence]

the point is to make Congress take responsibility

..

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

I am sorry but war is pretty much inevitable. These ISIS fools really want to die and they will do anything to provoke a war. This was an attack in France but it's not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Life sucks and the world is not a fairy tale. The foreign policies of the past may be the cause of these problems but that doesn't mean the problems themselves don't have to be solved. Right now there's a serious problem with ISIS.

As far as them being an armed group, they pretend to be a nation.

 

[wizardwatson]

I am sorry but war is pretty much inevitable. These ISIS fools really want to die and they will do anything to provoke a war. This was an attack in France but it's not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Life sucks and the world is not a fairy tale. The foreign policies of the past may be the cause of these problems but that doesn't mean the problems themselves don't have to be solved. Right now there's a serious problem with ISIS.

As far as them being an armed group, they pretend to be a nation.

I'm not picking on you, but exactly what part of being at war do we currently not qualify for? Everyone keeps talking about declaring war on ISIS but I'm pretty sure the "war on terror" was kicked off in 2001. "Actually" declaring war is probably the last thing we'll do on a national level because that would require having a public debate about it. I can see maybe some paperwork being filed at the UN to further legitimize are insane foreign policies but with Russia in the mix even that is doubtful.

I'm just curious what everyone thinks "war" means. We're in war. Good little soldiers in the Nevada desert are killing the bad guys as we speak. Dysfunctional Veterans are dying to go over there. Thy WANT to go. Go ask a few. The only reason the government doesn't want American boots on the ground is because that's when it dawns on Americans that we are actually in a war. They don't want us anxiety prone Americans having to deal with that stress. Better you go on Facebook, change your profile pic to the flag of the day, and vote harder for "arming our allies" while we provide air support.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

The public doesn't give a rats butt about the nitty gritty. I would like to hear more discussion on the pluses and minuses. Trump is at the top of the polls and he is a completely empty suit. I bet Rand can score some points with this if he so decides... but I really don't know.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I would say that the best thing that we could do is for our government to immediately stop funding/arming ISIS and to throw out any notion of resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. Then perhaps stop huffing and puffing about shooting Russian planes down, who, as opposed to the U.S. government, is actually fighting ISIS.

That would be a good start.

 

[dusman]

I'm not picking on you, but exactly what part of being at war do we currently not qualify for? Everyone keeps talking about declaring war on ISIS but I'm pretty sure the "war on terror" was kicked off in 2001. "Actually" declaring war is probably the last thing we'll do on a national level because that would require having a public debate about it. I can see maybe some paperwork being filed at the UN to further legitimize are insane foreign policies but with Russia in the mix even that is doubtful.

I'm just curious what everyone thinks "war" means. We're in war. Good little soldiers in the Nevada desert are killing the bad guys as we speak. Dysfunctional Veterans are dying to go over there. Thy WANT to go. Go ask a few. The only reason the government doesn't want American boots on the ground is because that's when it dawns on Americans that we are actually in a war. They don't want us anxiety prone Americans having to deal with that stress. Better you go on Facebook, change your profile pic to the flag of the day, and vote harder for "arming our allies" while we provide air support.

The main reason there is talk about a declaration by Rand or chatter of a new authorization is because presently the 2001 AUMF doesn't provide the necessary authorization to respond to ISIS. That authorization only permits the Commander-in-Chief to engage those who perpetuated the attacks on 9/11. This administration has been skirting the law for a while on that authorization and I think its only because the neocon side of the republican party would never engage in that dialogue (mainly because it's a power they want in the presidency), that it's continued. However, the intelligence and proposals in committee must be significant enough to make them believe that a new AUMF is necessary.

The talk may be a indicator that ground troops are becoming a more significant option on the table. There will definitely be a new AUMF before that happens. If the last 15 years are any indication.. it seems everything but troops on the ground is considered "tolerable" without a clear authorization. I expect that we are going to see PNAC members coming out in droves calling for troops on the ground in Syria. We'll know that consensus is forming when an AUMF goes to the floor for debate.

It may have been fortunate for Rand to have submitted his resolution for a declaration of war from a political standpoint, but it gets a little trickier when it comes to a vote on an AUMF. It's to be seen how Rand will vote.

There's certainly merits to voting either way. It'll probably cause some divisions here though on if it's reached that level of threat where a yea is the wise vote.

 

[timosman]

Why did Rand put out the legislation then? Seems like a stupid move. Is there something we do not know about Rand? He can't be that dumb.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Why did Rand put out the legislation then? Seems like a stupid move. Is there something we do not know about Rand? He can't be that dumb.

I think it was all about Constitutionalism and trying to get Congress back into controlling the use of force. As I mentioned, he got an earful in the committee debates about why no Declaration was warranted; I think the experience has probably convinced him that the formalism of DOW won't go anywhere.

In the meantime, there are moves afoot to bring up an AUMF against ISIL and Paul is heading back to the trenches:

Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is also mulling a move to try and force the Foreign Relations Committee to vote on the war effort.

“We’ll see. I'm the only one to ever force a vote on this, because i think The Constitution requires it," said Paul, who helped jumpstart consideration of an AUMF last year in committee. It did not get a full vote in the Senate.