PDA

View Full Version : Gen Mattis calls for Bi-Partisan Congress Auth for the use of Military Force



UNK
01-24-2017, 10:02 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444147/james-mattis-congress-constitution-warmaking-direction-powers-authorization-use-military-force

fishing
01-24-2017, 11:58 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444147/james-mattis-congress-constitution-warmaking-direction-powers-authorization-use-military-force

I've been guilty of link dropping in the past.

Could you provide a few of your thoughts on the content of the link along with it please?

OlongJohnson
01-25-2017, 09:32 AM
Here are Mattis' thoughts.

http://www.hoover.org/research/using-military-force-against-isis

GuanoLoco
01-25-2017, 11:18 AM
AUMF or get out.

TAZ
01-25-2017, 02:14 PM
I'm obviously a dim bulb here, but didnt we already give the executive branch the ability to deploy troops, shoot bad guys and drop bombs for the past 15 years. Is he asking for more delegation of congressional authority to the executive or what? Seems to me the issue isn't with a lack of ability to kill our enemies due to Congressional stone walling, but a lack of willingness on the previous administration.

UNK
01-25-2017, 05:52 PM
What is link dropping?


I've been guilty of link dropping in the past.

Could you provide a few of your thoughts on the content of the link along with it please?

fishing
01-25-2017, 05:54 PM
What is link dropping?

posting a link and a link alone, especially to start a thread.

this is a forum and not a bulletin board. your opinion may differ. :)

UNK
01-25-2017, 06:16 PM
Here are Mattis' thoughts.

http://www.hoover.org/research/using-military-force-against-isis

I like that article. I'll add Hoover as a link for my daily news source. I took the opportunity to watch the info presented on school choice. Good stuff

UNK
01-25-2017, 06:17 PM
posting a link and a link alone, especially to start a thread.

this is a forum and not a bulletin board. your opinion may differ. :)

It does. I see you just joined. Welcome aboard. Read a lot say a little.

GuanoLoco
01-25-2017, 06:24 PM
I'm obviously a dim bulb here, but didnt we already give the executive branch the ability to deploy troops, shoot bad guys and drop bombs for the past 15 years. Is he asking for more delegation of congressional authority to the executive or what? Seems to me the issue isn't with a lack of ability to kill our enemies due to Congressional stone walling, but a lack of willingness on the previous administration.

No, they have been using and abusing this for anything El Prez wans to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists for Desert Shield/Storm to present.


The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

f you recall, 911 was NOT correlated back to Iraq/Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda / Afghanistan - Seems established, but that is not the same as ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whoever.

But I'm not an expert.

fishing
01-25-2017, 06:25 PM
It does. I see you just joined. Welcome aboard. Read a lot say a little.

im good. thanks.

Robinson
01-26-2017, 11:04 AM
im good. thanks.

Yep you're way ahead of the curve. You're so good in fact, that you've already started telling the rest of us how to think and how we can improve ourselves.

blues
01-26-2017, 11:07 AM
Yep you're way ahead of the curve. You're so good in fact, that you've already started telling the rest of us how to think and how we can improve ourselves.

Maybe that's why his forum name is "fishing"....

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/21645000/ngbbs4c6b8cde57c7a.jpg


Just a coincidence?

Drang
01-29-2017, 01:11 PM
I'm obviously a dim bulb here, but didnt we already give the executive branch the ability to deploy troops, shoot bad guys and drop bombs for the past 15 years. Is he asking for more delegation of congressional authority to the executive or what? Seems to me the issue isn't with a lack of ability to kill our enemies due to Congressional stone walling, but a lack of willingness on the previous administration.
If you read the second dropped link ;) you'll see that General Mattis was saying that Congress should authorize the use of military force, as opposed to just letting the CinC do whatever he wants.
Whether that can be read as a statement of policy of the Trump Administration remains to be seen.

ranger
01-29-2017, 06:36 PM
I suspect that General (R) Mattis (now SecDef) is pointing out that the decision to commit US forces to combat should be fully supported by all the branches of the US government (and therefore the entire US) and not just the action of the Executive branch. One of the challenges of the all volunteer military is that the "weight" of combat is no longer spread across all parts of the US evenly - geographically, demographics, you pick your metric to measure. The US as a complete nation has not felt the "price" or "burden" of combat except in increased taxes. No shortages of fuel, no rationing of materials was felt by the majority of Americans. Many Americans do not know anyone serving from their family or neighborhood. I find it ironic that during the Bush Presidency, the media reported the daily toll of US killed and wounded every night (the families of my unit were glued to the news during our deployment). For the last 8 years during the Obama Presidency, we did not even get that daily reminder of US forces in contact. It used to be that the mobilization of the National Guard was a big deal as an indicator of the size of the "fight" but over the last decade+, the National Guard transitioned from a Strategic Reserve (deploy on a very rare basis in a major conflict) into an Operational Reserve (plan on deploying every 4 years). Not complaining, just providing a point of view that many do not contemplate. Proud to have served!

SeriousStudent
01-29-2017, 09:59 PM
My nephew leaves for pre-deployment training tomorrow. He's a National Guard officer, about to pin on Captain bars before he heads eastward. He'll be assigned to a Regular Army unit on the deployment.

I'll going to get him some quality Beretta time with Wayne and Darryl before he goes OCONUS. We had dinner tonight, along with some really amazing brandy and cigars.

And ranger, you are exactly right. His friends are like "Wow, the war is still on?"

Poconnor
01-30-2017, 02:30 PM
The best meme I ever saw about it said the American military is at war. America itself is at the mall. I deployed twice with the national guard. My coworkers were like WTF? Your part of the army? I would remind them the name is army national guard. When you deploy your not in the guard anymore. Your active duty. Try calling up your guard division and asking for help. My daughter joined the national guard. She's in my old infantry brigade. She was just told she is deploying next year. I gave her a hug and a kiss on top of her head and told her "welcome to the suck". I'm very proud of her. I schooled her up for basic and she shot well. I really wish I could still take her to a pat Rogers class. This summer I will have to teach her some gunfighting. I hope Mattis is given free reign to crush our enemies so bad they never wish harm on any American ever again.