SENATE BILL: End to Imperialism Act (Law'd)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

one possibility might be to decrease funding for Afghanistan and Iraq operations over time while cutting off funding for weapons in Libya.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I object on the grounds that combat troops in Libya were never authorized by the Senate in the first place, so "no longer authorized" is inaccurate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wait, what is it that's the contention about what I said? It's clear the Senate never authorized any action in Libya. The previous and current administration have been acting without any Senate authorization or consultation. There's never been any question that's what they've been doing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

so we are no longer directly supporting the rebels in Libya?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well... we are protecting civilians in rebel-held areas.

I want assurance that goal is not being used carte blanche for arming the rebels or targeting the current regime.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the sponsor originated Amendment

With no objection in the 24 hours following the posting of this, Amendment 44:13 has passed and as such the current text is as below:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object on the grounds that combat troops in Libya were never authorized by the Senate in the first place, so "no longer authorized" is inaccurate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'll remove my objection and let the amendment go forward. However we still need to establish whether we have in Libya what can be considered "combat troops" for purposes of this bill.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'll remove my objection and let the amendment go forward. However we still need to establish whether we have in Libya what can be considered "combat troops" for purposes of this bill.

It would probably be good to define "combat troops" in the bill, perhaps something like, "Atlasian military units currently engaged in combat operations" or something?

I think the general sense of the term is troops deployed for the purpose of combat operations. Based on what the President said about the current mission in Libya, it sounds like there's no reason to authorize any combat troops there for even the next 90 days.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Due to the different circumstances in each country, I submit the following amendment:

End to Imperialism Act
Funding for combat troops in Libya, and transfer of weapons to combatants there, shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 30 days following passage.
Funding for combat troops in Iraq shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 60 days following passage.
Funding for combat troops in Afghanistan shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 120 days following passage.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

To my mind immediate withdrawal form Libya is crucial so we do not get dragged into another long occupation. For me, that's non-negotiable. Iraq and Afghanistan on the other hand, we have already made such an impact and entangled in relationships there, I recognize leaving is a bit more tricky. Iraq is mostly stabilized though so I think we can leave there very soon as well. At this point, I don't see the need for retaining combat troops in Iraq any more than a couple months.
Yes, Afghanistan is the tricky one, though even there it seems like our combat troops have done all they can. I understand the need for an orderly withdrawal and transfer of power, but I don't understand exactly what it is to be accomplished by staying in Afghanistan through next spring. Is there something particular about June?

Really behind all this timetable talk is a question of strategy. If we had a credible strategy for winning the peace, I'd consider allowing our armed service heroes to stay a bit longer to achieve it. But it seems more and more that our best strategy is not going to be mainly a military one. If there's something we can accomplish there in the next year with our combat troops that we haven't already, I'm not sure what it is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think it's reasonable to wait until after the election and the weekend is over and see then if any progress has been made or can be made at reaching an agreement.
I appreciate the President's response to the issues I posed. What I am still wondering is what we would do differently in the next few months in Afghanistan from what we have done so far - as whatever we are doing right now doesn't seem to be working.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The other thing I am considering is that, I believe, we really ought to leave before the end of the training/recruitment season. We need to be handing those duties off to the Afghani forces too before we leave, and once the more active combat season begins again the Afghani forces will already be responsible for all security. If we are still operating there in the Spring the security vacuum when we leave could actually be more severe than if we leave earlier.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't at all like the idea of our troops serving as personal bodyguards to foreign officials. That just furthers the impression that it is we, not the Afghans themselves, who are running their country. But other than that, I think Snowguy's timeframe makes sense.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A bill changes completely during a hurricane, without any explanation about the details, and as soon as I get internet access back we have to vote on it?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I really am confused about this. Whatever happened to the President's proposal to have all forces leave Afghanistan by June 1?
As far as restricting the forces there after May 1 to training, we shouldn't kid ourselves. That doesn't mean they won't be in combat. As long as they are in Afghanistan, they will be targeted. And isn't Winter the training season anyway?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Shua-  If you want to debate the bill, you should call for the vote to stop and reopen debate.

Thank you. Yes, I would like to call for the vote to stop and return to debate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thanks for your efforts here Snowguy.

Does it matter at all that there was no chance for debate between the time the amendment was announced to have passed and the time the vote on the amended version begun?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

to illustrate my confusion with the idea of combat forces staying in Afghanistan to conduct training until October 2012 as a compromise with the President -

Attached to funding cessations
Libya: 1 November (combat) -> 1 January 2012 (peacekeeping)
Iraq: 1 December (combat) -> 15 April 2012 (all remaining forces)
Afghanistan: 1 June 2012 (all forces)

Thirdly, Afghanistan. I thank you for acknowledging that this is a difficult situation. The security situation is not stable, especially with the announcement that President Karzai will not be seeking a third term. We are now at the end of the fighting season, which will give Commanders the ability to take stock of where we are, and the formal withdrawal and handover strategy. Considering our position in the security structure of entire provinces of Afghanistan - we do need to fast-track the recruitment and training of new soldiers for the Afghan Army - the Autumn and Winter period is the peak time for training and recruitment - it's as simple as that. And until we have done that job, it will be necessary for troops to be on the ground.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thank you Polnut, I understand there was a necessary rethinking of the timeframe, but my concern  now is to get an idea of the scope of the project during the summer/fall next year. So, our troops would be not just training, but engaged in stabilization as well; or only in training camps within and around the city? Roughly how many troops are we talking about staying in Kabul then, and how does this compare to the number there currently?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thank you President, for clarifying.

My opinion is that if there is to be a peacekeeping presence in Kabul, that the Senate needs to specify this as being authorized  - otherwise I would read it as saying that our only role would be training.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

so you're not giving the President authority for a peacekeeping presence? okay.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

so you're not giving the President authority for a peacekeeping presence? okay.

The senate is authorizing a training force presence in Kabul.  What that training force does is up to the president and the military.

Then why doesn't it just say "forces" instead of "training forces" if they are doing things other than training?
What is a training force except a force engaged in training?