Vote to repeal 2002 Iraq war authorization coming up

GOP Hawks Warn against Repealing Iraq War Resolution ahead of Vote | National Review

So goes the headline:

In a little-noticed development on Friday, a House panel scheduled a vote to repeal the Congressional resolution that authorized the Iraq war.

National Review has learned that the House Foreign Affairs Committee will vote next Thursday on a measure to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This resolution to eliminate the Iraq War AUMF is expected to pass, likely with the support of all of the panel’s Democrats and Representative Peter Meijer (R., Mich.).

Repealing the 2002 AUMF and the 2001 AUMF that authorized force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks has gained widespread popularity in both parties, as a war-weary public and top politicians have called for an end to the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But ahead of the vote on repealing the 2002 measure, some Republicans say they aren’t convinced, warning of ongoing threats from Iran, which backs proxies and operates in Iraq.

Flashback:  Here is what happened when it was feared that Trump was causing a “premature withdrawal” from Afghanistan:

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell warned against a potentially “humiliating” withdrawal that threatens to undo Trump’s “tremendous” work in the region. The GOP leader said a “premature exit” would be reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975. Leaving Afghanistan now “would be broadcast around the world as a symbol of U.S. defeat and humiliation and a victory for Islamic extremism,” McConnell said.

Our man Mustang responds to the upcoming vote on the war resolution:.

The problem with open ended congressional authorizations are several.  The power to declare war is constitutionally within the purview of the Congress; we seem not to do “declarations of war” anymore – and the reason, I suppose, is to prevent “war” affecting the way citizens behave.  A declaration of war doesn’t just put our troops in a war situation, it places the entire nation in a war situation, and could even result in government imposed rationing – of petroleum products, for example.  And once “war” affects the people in a negative way, they become unhappy voters, which is a seat-threatening situation for presidents and members of congress.

I think the AUMF should expire.  We’ve been in the sandbox for far too long and beyond the horrendous expenditures, in terms of money, material, and human lives, have achieved next to nothing.  In fact, going to Iraq made Iran the regional king pin – which if nothing else, tells us what a bunch of nitwits we have running the show inside the beltway.

I’m a professional officer.  I have no objection to whacking the bad guys.  The problem is that the nitwits send us out to face dangerous enemies in pursuit of poorly contrived objectives.  No one tells us what our national interests were/are in Afghanistan or Iraq.  I suspect that’s because there are no national interests, beyond whacking Saddam Hussein, who tried to have Bush the Elder assassinated.  The US military shouldn’t be carrying out personal vendettas.

Still, a president has the authority to conduct limited military operations without a declaration of war – for up to sixty days before having to obtain congressional authority (in reality, a spending authorization).  I’m fine with that, but if congress does “authorize” operations beyond sixty days, there should be a specified “end date” and a specific, clearly defined “national interest.”  In both instances, war planners know what they are trying to accomplish, why, and they know that it has to be accomplished within a specific time frame. 

And if I could have my way, not only would the president have a specified end date to non-declared wars/conflicts, but he would also have to commit to asking congress for a formal declaration of war if the time frame was inadequate to achieving the national interests/objectives.  That way, it wouldn’t only be the troops who go to war while the rest of the country goes to the mall – it would be a national effort to win.

War is a terrible event.  We should not be involved in them unless every other possible effort has failed.  War is a “failure in diplomacy” … and there are times when diplomacy must fail (mostly on account of the fact that the US has the world’s worst-diplomats).  When that happens, the US should, as a nation, with clearly defined national objectives, go to war; the US should then be committed to beating the living crap out of everyone on the other side (men, women, children, their armies, their leaders, their infrastructure, their economy) and do that in the most conspicuous way possible.  Two clearly discernible results will present themselves: we defeat a nationally declared enemy, and we send an important message to all others – do not mess with the USA.  Fewer major wars is better that dozens of smaller ones.

I will conclude by observing that none of this matters when the purpose of the US military is social engineering.  Not sure a “Tranny Brigade” would accomplish much that make the enemy fall down laughing.  The other day, the SecDef (Austin) publicly announced to North Korea that we could go to war with them “tonight.”  I understand General Austin (who could be a moron) caused much levity in the North Korean Officer’s Club.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar