Imaginos
07-27-2010, 06:13 PM
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich Force Afghanistan Debate (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/27/kucinich-paul-force-afghanistan-debate/)
(I know it was a hard fight but I want to praise Ron and Dennis for their joint effort. In the end, we'll win!)
Source: The Wall Street Journal Blog
The House this afternoon engaged in a full-throated debate over the U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a debate heavily colored by the release earlier this week of 92,000 war-related secret documents obtained by the group WikiLeaks.
The congressional debate was prompted by an unlikely alliance of Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ron Paul (R., Texas), two impassioned lawmakers at different ends of the political spectrum who have run quixotic campaigns for their parties’ presidential nominations. The two congressmen offered a resolution ordering President Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Pakistan, saying their presence violates the War Powers Act since it was not approved by Congress.
The resolution failed by a wide 38-372 margin, as several lawmakers argued that the War Powers Act only covers troops engaged in hostilities, not those engaged in training. (Voting for the amendment were 32 Democrats and six Republicans.)
But the debate provided a rare venue for lawmakers to voice impassioned views on the war in Afghanistan, and it highlighted divisions within the Democratic Party over the wisdom of a war prosecuted by a president of their own party.
The debate also sounded echoes of the Vietnam era. Some compared the secretive operations in Pakistan to those in Southeast Asia in the 1960s, which they said led to an unpopular and unsuccessful war. Others rejected that comparison, saying times are very different and there is much greater transparency about U.S. military operations these days.
Paul said Congress has been abdicating its responsibility to oversee military activities. “We just capitulate and give them the money and do whatever,” he said. “The American people don’t know about it until we get deep into these quagmires.”
The debate scrambled the usual partisan alliances, with a Democrat and Republican sponsoring the resolution, which served in part as a proxy for views on the war itself, and other Democrats and Republicans opposing it. Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.) argued that the U.S. must rely heavily on Pakistan, especially given the lack of precision in the Afghan-Pakistan border.
“If we cut military ties with Pakistan—it’s crazy,” Burton said. “It’s extremely difficult to know where those borders are, and we must not allow the enemy to have sanctuary.”
Rep. Howard Berman (D., Calif.), added that none of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan are engaged in hostilities; there are 120 U.S. trainers aiding the Pakistani military on counterinsurgency techniques. The War Powers Act, he said, “doesn’t deal with the presence of military forces without an authorization of Congress. It deals with the engagement in hostilities.”
Paul dismissed that distinction. “It’s true there are no armies facing each other killing each other, no tanks, not those types of hostilities,” he said. “We don’t live in a conventional era, and there aren’t that kind of conventional activities going on. But there are hostile actions going on.”
(I know it was a hard fight but I want to praise Ron and Dennis for their joint effort. In the end, we'll win!)
Source: The Wall Street Journal Blog
The House this afternoon engaged in a full-throated debate over the U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a debate heavily colored by the release earlier this week of 92,000 war-related secret documents obtained by the group WikiLeaks.
The congressional debate was prompted by an unlikely alliance of Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ron Paul (R., Texas), two impassioned lawmakers at different ends of the political spectrum who have run quixotic campaigns for their parties’ presidential nominations. The two congressmen offered a resolution ordering President Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Pakistan, saying their presence violates the War Powers Act since it was not approved by Congress.
The resolution failed by a wide 38-372 margin, as several lawmakers argued that the War Powers Act only covers troops engaged in hostilities, not those engaged in training. (Voting for the amendment were 32 Democrats and six Republicans.)
But the debate provided a rare venue for lawmakers to voice impassioned views on the war in Afghanistan, and it highlighted divisions within the Democratic Party over the wisdom of a war prosecuted by a president of their own party.
The debate also sounded echoes of the Vietnam era. Some compared the secretive operations in Pakistan to those in Southeast Asia in the 1960s, which they said led to an unpopular and unsuccessful war. Others rejected that comparison, saying times are very different and there is much greater transparency about U.S. military operations these days.
Paul said Congress has been abdicating its responsibility to oversee military activities. “We just capitulate and give them the money and do whatever,” he said. “The American people don’t know about it until we get deep into these quagmires.”
The debate scrambled the usual partisan alliances, with a Democrat and Republican sponsoring the resolution, which served in part as a proxy for views on the war itself, and other Democrats and Republicans opposing it. Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.) argued that the U.S. must rely heavily on Pakistan, especially given the lack of precision in the Afghan-Pakistan border.
“If we cut military ties with Pakistan—it’s crazy,” Burton said. “It’s extremely difficult to know where those borders are, and we must not allow the enemy to have sanctuary.”
Rep. Howard Berman (D., Calif.), added that none of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan are engaged in hostilities; there are 120 U.S. trainers aiding the Pakistani military on counterinsurgency techniques. The War Powers Act, he said, “doesn’t deal with the presence of military forces without an authorization of Congress. It deals with the engagement in hostilities.”
Paul dismissed that distinction. “It’s true there are no armies facing each other killing each other, no tanks, not those types of hostilities,” he said. “We don’t live in a conventional era, and there aren’t that kind of conventional activities going on. But there are hostile actions going on.”