10 Reasons Why Military Force Shouldn't Be Authorized

President Obama has asked Congress for the authizoration to wage war in the Middle East. He specifically wants to use that authorization in Iraq, including if necessary, the authorization to send in ground combat troops (some of which are already there).

I have stated on this blog that I think such an authorization would be a mistake. None of those involved in that conflict (including ISIS and al-Queda) pose any military danger to this country -- and any terrorist danger can best be dealt with by law enforcement.

This is a religious conflict that should be dealt with by the countries most threatened -- those in the Middle East. All the U.S. can do by becoming more involved is to create new enemies in that part of the world.

I am not alone in that view. Former Representative Dennis Kucinich (caricatured above by DonkeyHotey) also believes it would be a mistake for Congress to pass the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- and in an article for Fox News, he lists 10 reasons why Congress should not pass the AUMF. Here are the reasons he gives:

Here are 10 reasons why Congress should not grant the president authority to use military force against the Islamic State, based on fact, consequences and the U.S. Constitution:

1.  ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland.

Writing in The American Conservative, Senior Editor Daniel Larison points out that the U.S. is taking on an unnecessary risk:

“… the U.S. mistakenly volunteers to address a regional security problem that poses no real threat to America, [while] its regional partners do as little as they can get away with, and in some cases stop doing even that in order to get the U.S. to take additional risks on their behalf.”

If the U.S. enters the fray, of course, regional partners will let us do the fighting.

There is no credible information available that indicates ISIS is a direct threat to the U.S. According to a Wall Street Journal article, “Lawmakers Told Islamic State Isn’t Terror Threat on U.S. Soil,” Congress has already been advised by U.S. counterterrorism officials that ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland. Additionally, no new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has been produced alleging ISIS is a direct threat to America. However, an all-out U.S. war against ISIS could expose America to unnecessary threats, without any national security benefits.

2. The AUMF disingenuously calls for a “limited” war, while it is written to guarantee a permanent war, thus nullifying the power of the people’s representatives in Congress.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were vitally concerned with the separation of powers, especially when it came to war. The power to declare war is vested in the Congress, in Article I, Section 8. The AUMF is written to enable the administration to conduct war, unilaterally, against any group, anywhere, at any time, over a period of three years, which opposing combatants will ignore.

If the administration succeeds in gaining approval for this particular AUMF, it will not have to return to Congress for approval as it takes its war from nation to nation. This is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders. It weakens Congress’ constitutional power (checks and balances) and undermines the Constitution.

3. The AUMF is a blank check and a fiscal black hole.

Since the AUMF sets the stage for a worldwide conflict, the cost of action will run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, particularly if ground troops are involved in a war with religious overtones that go back 14 centuries. This war will inevitably require an emergency wartime supplemental appropriation and massive borrowing, adding to the $16 trillion U.S. deficit and weakening the U.S. economy internally while providing great wealth to war profiteers who are already draining America’s wealth.

4. Regional armies appear to be rising to their own defense; U.S. presence will escalate war.

At this very moment ISIS is finally under pressure from Iraqi forces and pro-government militias, without U.S. boots on the ground. Additionally, ISIS is said to be experiencing internal pressures and conflicts. The Washington Post points out: “The Islamic State is battling major offensives waged on at least three fronts — by Kurds in northern Syria, Kurds in northern Iraq and the combined force of Iraqi army and Shiite militia fighters advancing on the central Iraqi city of Tikrit.”

“…the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An [U.S.] invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide … they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims.” — Graeme Wood in the Atlantic Magazine, March 2015.

ISIS desperately needs to draw the U.S. in, to provide a rallying cry “against the foreign invader.” Why should America put our troops in harm’s way to provide this terrorist organization with new life, especially since armies in the region are stepping up to take the fight to ISIS?

In the AUMF, the president wants language that provides for U.S. ground forces to have “flexibility.” Read: “Boots on the ground!” If Congress passes the AUMF, it will have no say in the conduct of this war, except for appropriations.

5. The U.S. could get drawn into a worldwide religious war.

President Obama says, “We are not at war against Islam.” Congressional approval of the president’s request for the AUMF against the Islamic State will change that quickly. The AUMF will become a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. How else will it be interpreted abroad, other than America at war with Islam? The U.S. could blunder into a complex, multidimensional conflict with explicit religious overtones, no matter what the president says.

ISIS wants to draw the U.S. into a religious war, to secure its role as the self-proclaimed defender of Islam against crusading foreign invaders.

Jihadis, anticipating a great war for Islam, have streamed into the region from all over the world to join ISIS ranks. An estimated 20,000 fighters from 90 nations have converged to fight alongside ISIS.

“This is a fight the Islamic State should be denied. And yet we should have learned that it is a bad idea to get into a ground war with people whose idea of victory is martyrdom.” — Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2015.

6. ISIS and Al Qaeda are divided. US re-entry into war could unite them.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are in a deep rift. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri differ on strategy, tactics, methods, religious interpretations and on Baghdadi’s establishment of a caliphate.

An all-out U.S. military attack against ISIS will force Al Qaeda into an alliance it does not want, to join ISIS in a “fight against Western invaders,” creating a united front much stronger and more deadly to America and her allies.

7. A Solution: Follow ISIS’ money, and shut it down.

Where is ISIS getting its money? Up to 100,000 ISIS fighters are funded by Gulf State donors, identified in the past as being from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Fully equipping and providing for one modern combat-ready soldier can cost $850,000 to $1,000,000 a year. ISIS’ army could be gaining $85 billion to $100 billion a year from various sources. We can either commit the U.S. military to another war, and the U.S. to further risk of impending attacks through the genesis of a new crusade, or we can fight this threat with intelligent power and high technology.

The administration must identify the specific sources of ISIS’ money, the individuals, the nations and the means of transfer, and shut them all down. It must sanction countries and individuals, tie up their bank accounts and commercial activities, freeze their assets and cancel their credit cards. Send platoons of accountants from the Treasury Department and the IRS into the fray, not platoons of U.S. soldiers. The U.S. must track oil sales, sales of antiquities and other valuables. Anyone involved in any transactions of any kind with ISIS must be identified and sanctioned. 

8. Solution: Cyber response. 

The U.S. has the ability to identify and disrupt terror networks using digital technology. The CIA, in a major reorganization, has just created a fifth directorate, the Directorate of Digital Innovation, in recognition that intelligent power means using the most technologically advanced tools available. For its part, the NSA, which has admitted gaps, is also strengthening its information collecting. If, as Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” in the 21st century we  have other means to avoid a “boots on the ground” shooting war.

9. Endless wars enable Washington to ignore a domestic agenda.

It has been said that others attack us in order to destroy the way we live. Since 9/11, our own government has been responsible for shredding the Constitution through wars of choice and the imposition of a national security state with a permanent state of emergency.

The U.S. now spends about $1 trillion a year to “defend” America using lethal means. Yet the more money we spend, the greater the peril. Why? Meanwhile, at home, America’s middle class is falling apart, wages and benefits have dropped, retirement savings have vanished and Wall Street and war profiteers clean up. Americans, punished through unwarranted, massive surveillance, have forfeited constitutional rights and civil liberties. The right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, has been destroyed in the name of security.

10. The time has come for the U.S. to review the effects of interventionism.

ISIS grew out of U.S. interventions. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria have disintegrated into chaos and violence. The price tag has been extraordinary in loss of human life and the cost of trillions of dollars. Bad judgments, misinformation and even lies have caused our nation to intervene, inspiring radical elements, stoking the fires of nationalism and engendering religious conflict. A great price has been paid and continues to be paid by our troops and their families.

This is the time for Congress and the administration to rethink the failed national security strategy, the failed doctrine of intervention, the failed “right to protect” doctrine and the abominable intrusion into the private lives of Americans.

Congress must refuse to give up its constitutional power under Article I, Section 8 and hold the executive branch in check on matters of war. It should defeat the AUMF and stop the administration from spreading war around the world. 

Congress has a new opportunity to get control of runaway spending and keep America strong without wasting resources. In my early years in Congress, I was shocked to learn, from the inspector general to the Department of Defense, that DOD had over $1 trillion in accounts that could not be reconciled. According to the GAO, the Army “lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch units.” The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires an accounting. With the national security budget at $1 trillion annually, and trillions spent for wars of choice, and a trillion unaccounted for, and countless billions in cost overruns, the question is who is defending the taxpayers?

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force provides a new opportunity for a much-needed debate over the direction of America, our priorities and the best way to protect our nation from harm. Thank you for considering my views.

Respectfully,

Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich Offers Some Solutions To Police Problems

Those of you who have read this blog over the last few days will know that I consider the main cause of this nation's police problems to be a lack of competent and effective leadership in far too many of the nation's law enforcement agencies -- a lack of leadership that is compounded by the ridiculous militarization of the police, and the nation's continuing racial problems.

But I am willing to listen to other opinions, and a couple of days ago former congressman Dennis Kucinich offered some solutions of his own in an article for The Huffington Post. The entire article is well worth reading (and I urge you to do so), but I bring you here just the solutions he offers. He says we need to:

1. Congress must firmly re-establish the firewall between civilian law enforcement and the military by reinstating the intent of the Posse Comitatus law. As member of Congress I warned in 2007 the dangers of a bill which permitted the government to put troops on the ground in the US.

2. The Department of Defense must stop providing war-fighting equipment to local law enforcement.

3. All equipment provided to local law enforcement by the Department of Defense, must be inventoried and stored, not used except under an executive order from the top civilian authority in a state, the Governor, or under orders of the President of the United States.

4. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of Defense must be asked by Congress to determine the extent to which the training and equipping of local police by the DOD has created a culture in local law enforcement which is adverse to democratic values.

5. The Justice Department needs to fund programs which will train or retrain local law enforcement in racial sensitivity, constitutional protections of suspects, including the right to freedom of speech and right to assemble.

6. The Justice Department must also fund, support and mandate that all local law enforcement receiving any federal funds whatsoever create community programs for dialogue between local police and people in the neighborhood. Local police become an occupying army through emotional distancing, fear and lack of contact with the community. That can change by having police and the community meet regularly to discuss mutual concerns.

Those who serve in local law enforcement are given special trust, special dispensation to serve and protect. Their work is essential. Local police would like to be supported. But we must demand strict adherence to the Constitution and protection of the freedoms given to us by the Bill of Rights.

Let's insist on the following principles:

• Well trained, culturally diverse, de-militarized local police forces to protect our neighborhoods.
• The military to defend our nation.
• And a rule of law which applies to a man with a badge and a gun, just as it applies to an unarmed teenager.

The requirements of freedom demand no less.

(The caricature above of Dennis Kucinich is by DonkeyHotey.)

U.S. Middle East Policy Is Misguided - Unlikely To Change

The holocaust against Jews during World War II was a driving factor in this country's backing of the creation of a homeland for the Jews in what is modern-day Israel. And the United States has continued to be a good friend to Israel -- supporting its right to exist with both cash and military aid.

But that was a while back, and things have changed. Instead of just struggling to survive, Israel has now become the bully of the region -- and instead of negotiating a two-state solution in Palestine, it has imprisoned the people of Gaza and the West Bank in their own huge concentration camp. They are trying to starve these people into subjugation as they steal more of their land for Israeli settlements every year. The nations of the West (including the United States) have condemned this subjugation and land theft, but Israel ignores that and continues down its brutal path.

In a just world, the United States (and other Western nations) would take action to force Israel to stop its land theft and aggression toward the Palestinian people, but they are afraid of being seen as anti-Israel (as the specter of the holocaust that happened more than half a century ago still looms large). The chart above (from information in a survey by the Pew Research Center) illustrates why the United States won't change to a fairer Middle East policy, as all segments of U.S society still have a far greater sympathy with Israel than with the Palestinian people (who are the real victims in the current situation).

The United States needs to change its policy toward the Middle East if there is to be any solution to the killing and oppression there -- but that would require some political courage, which neither of our major political parties seems to have.

Former congressman Dennis J. Kucinich has written an excellent article regarding the latest violence in that part of the world, and I think it's a very good appraisal of the situation. Here is what he had to say:

Israel invades Gaza because it can. Gazans, in the face of an invasion, have no ability to strike back, while Israel strikes forward. Israel has total military superiority, an air force which can knock and then bomb, a navy which can shell Gazans from miles off shore, an army which can roll tanks into Gaza nonstop. Gazans have no army, navy, or air force with which to defend. Israel, as any nation, has a right to defend itself, but it confuses offense with defense. It is on the offensive in Gaza.

Israel, with its overwhelming military strength, is attacking and invading Gaza in violation of international and U.S. law. Its construction of settlements violates the Oslo agreement. Its Central Bank dries up the Gaza economy and blocks payments to Gazan civil servants. Its total control brings the Palestinians to utter subjection and total despair.

Israel can kill, injure, and humiliate Palestinians at will, with impunity, which is exactly what gave rise to Hamas and strengthens Hamas' hold in Gaza, even as the IDF advances. Israel will go door to door in Gaza in the hunt for Hamas, which comprises the government of the Palestinians and is therefore a necessary party to any peace talks. It is axiomatic that if you kill your partner for peace, you will have no partner for peace.

There will be no peace, for now, as Gaza is turned into an abattoir, to collectively punish Gazans for supporting Hamas. Israel, in its attempt to divide Hamas from the Gazans, will actually multiply Hamas' strength in Gaza and elsewhere. Israel may indeed find and kill Hamas officials. But it is not the current individuals who make up Hamas who constitute Israel's deep dilemma, which threatens its long term security. It is Israel's policies which gave rise to Hamas and which, if left unaltered, will spawn increased resistance no matter how many members of Hamas Israel is successful in apprehending or killing.

What is the end game? To cast Gazans to the sea, where they will be met by the Israeli Navy? To push Gazans into Egypt? To eject all Palestinians to... where? This is a question relevant not only to Israelis and Palestinians, but to the entire world.

There will be consequences for this invasion. The cycle of violence will widen. It will draw in friends of the Palestinians and it will affect Israel's allies. In the U.S., as our great friend presses the attack in Gaza, there will be increasing questions among the American people as to whether the $3 billion we give Israel annually is being used to defend our ally, or whether it is buying the U.S. billions of dollars worth of problems because of the manner in which our friend "defends" itself. Since the U.S. is helping to pay Israel's bills, we cannot avoid the consequences of paying the price for Israel's actions against the Palestinians.

This is why America must soon shift our role from giving tacit consent to an invasion to becoming an active partner in a new, honest search for peace in the Middle East.

Judge Won't Put Kucinich On Ballot

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel refused to order the Texas Democratic Party to put Dennis Kucinich on it's primary ballot. The judge said even though the Democrat's loyalty oath was "inartfully worded", the courts should intefere with party rules only very sparingly. Kucinich was denied a place on the ballot because he refused to sign a loyalty oath.

Although I think Kucinich should be put on the primary ballot, I pretty much agree with the judge's decision. I don't think it would be a good thing for judges to start writing party rules. Party rules (regardless of which party) should be made by party members.

But regardless of the judge's decision, Kucinich should be on the Texas primary ballot. Why does the party have a loyalty oath anyway? When I think of a loyalty oath, it brings to mind such undemocratic figures as George Bush, Adolph Hitler and Joe McCarthy -- people to whom loyalty was more important than democratic ideals.

The Democratic Party that I know and love has always prided itself on believing in democracy, equality and fairness. When they fight for these beliefs, they can get the support they need with any oaths. When they don't, no kind of oath will help.

The state party should do whatever they need to do to get rid of this archaic and useless loyalty oath. Call the state committee men and women together and vote this oath out of existence. Then put Kucinich on the ballot, and let the party voters get on with the job of picking a candidate.

A primary is not supposed to be where party leaders decide who's a "good" Democrat and who's not. It's supposed to be held to determine who the voting party members want as a candidate.

It's time for the Texas Democratic Party to live up to its ideals.

Kucinich Should Be On Texas Ballot

The Texas Democratic Party says Dennis Kucinich will not be on the party's primary ballot in March. Kucinich did file the necessary paperwork, but would not sign a loyalty oath to support the party's nominee in November. This whole thing seems rather silly to me.

Is it really the business of the party in Texas to demand loyalty from a national candidate? To me, that would seem to be more a matter for the national party leadership, if such an oath is proper at all.

The party needs to do away with this loyalty oath nonsense. That sounds more like something George Bush would do anyway. I have a long history with the Democratic Party, having been an elected precinct chair and a delegate to the state convention 5 times, but I would never sign a loyalty oath to any party.

Once in a while a nutjob slips through the primary process (LaRouche supporters, etc.) and no one should be forced to support them just because they're running on the Democratic ticket.

What is the purpose of a primary anyway? Is it so the state leaders can tell voters who they can and can't vote for? Or is it to determine who the rank-and-file voters of the party want as their candidate? I hope most of us would agree that it's the latter.

I urge the Democratic leaders to do away with the archaic loyalty oath, and place Kucinich on the ballot. It would be the fair and democratic thing to do -- and isn't that what Democrats are supposed to stand for?

Cheney Impeachment Sent To Judiciary Committee

There is at least one Democrat will a full set of balls and a backbone -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Yesterday, he introduced and read into the House record three articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney. Kucinich charged Cheney with:

1. Purposely manipulating the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.

2. Deceiving the nation about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Queda.

3. Openly threatening agression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States.

I think any honest person would have to admit that Cheney is obviously guilty of all three charges. But it looks like Kucinich is one of the few Democrats with the afore-mentioned bits of human anatomy. Speaker Pelosi and the other Democrats successfully avoided a vote on the matter, and sent it to the Judiciary Committee.

I think they're hoping the matter will die in that committee, or at least linger there until after the next election. Instead of doing the right thing, they have decided to take the "politically safe" route.

This is very troubling. They weren't elected to protect their own asses, but to do the right thing for the citizens of the United States. If we put them in chage of the White House and both arms of Congress in the next election, will they find the courage to do what is right for America or act to protect their jobs in the next election?

Over 75% of Americans think this country is headed in the wrong direction. We know the Republicans won't change that direction. Do the Democrats have the political courage to do so?

Clinton and Obama Still Don't Get It

It looks like Hilary Clinton still wants to sit on the fence when it comes to withdrawing our troops from Iraq. A lot of progressives want her to admit she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war. I personally don't care about that. A lot of Democrats at the time were either duped by Bush's lies, or were too gutless to stand up against a stupid and unneccessary war.

But that is all water under the bridge now. What bothers me about Clinton are her current views on Iraq. She still doesn't seem to know which side of the fence she wants to be on.

On one hand, she says we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Then she turns around and says she would leave some U.S. troops in Iraq PAST the year 2009. She doesn't seem to understand that taking the middle road on this war will not get votes from both sides - it will lose votes from both sides.

Pulling most troops out and then leaving a smaller force still in Iraq is a sure prescription for disaster. We are barely holding our own with the number of troops that are there now. A smaller force would not even be able to defend itself, let alone fight terrorists as she is suggesting.

There are only two options that have any kind of political viability - send more troops or pull them all out. Her plan smacks of Bushism - that is, trying to do too big a job with too few troops.

Sadly, the other Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, agrees with Clinton. He has also come up with a plan to withdraw most troops, but leave a small force there. These two just don't get it. This is not the time to continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq.

Fortunately, there are a couple of candidates who do understand the situation, and are not afraid to say we should get out of Iraq and not prolong the disaster. They are Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. I am on the Richardson bandwagon, but I must give Kucinich his due - he was one of the few who opposed the war from the very beginning.

If you are an anti-war Democrat, perhaps it is time to give up on Clinton and Obama and find a candidate who agrees with you.