SENATE BILL: Emergency Resolution to Authorize Force in Iraq (Withdrawn)

[Lumine]

Of course, this is mostly intended to mean the use of drones and not combat troops, as the administration has stated. I believe the next administration has also showed a degree of interest in using the drones, so I believe we should not tie the hands of both administrations and allow them to intervene in Iraq as long as the government there requires our help. We can help them avoid a takeover by religious fanatics and we can avoid killings based on religion by merely using the drones and assisting the Iraqi military, so I say we have to step in and finally make a common-sense based move in the Middle East. Superique saved Palestine, we can save Iraq.

[Lumine]

I was planning to make the usual lengthy speech, but... what? I mean, I know it's hyperbolic language and irony, but still, that goes too far, and I would ask the Senator to clarify his actual position in the issue instead of resorting to racist comments, even if they are in jest.

Our Constitution is infamously vague in regards to these situations, and the only relevant things I identified are that the President is the Commander in Chief and the Senate has the sole power to declare war, which meant that we could either authorize the use of force (or declare war on ISIS, the language is certainly not the main issue here) ourselves and recommend the President what to do or go with the interpretation of the President as Commander in Chief having the right of using the drones without declaring war. Following the administration wishes (the second option is not viable for obvious reasons), I decided to work with the language regarding the declaration of war to give him the powers to act in the most democratic and open way possible (given the limitations of the Constitution - another reason why we need reform in this front).

[Lumine]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

The case for intervention needs to be based in a realistic assessment of conditions and plausible goals, not quasi-mystical claptrap. Here are a few questions that we ought to be asking:

• Do we have actionable targets?
• When will we know that our mission is complete?
• How will our action make the region less vulnerable to unrest than it is now, and who will be responsible for keeping the region stable in our absence?
• How will we re-adjust if the situation worsens despite our best efforts?

This particular action will not bring democracy and peace to the Middle East, but a good number of actions will and this is a good starting point. Would you rather have Iraq in the hands of ISIS, Mr. President? I should remind the Senate that Maliki is gone and replaced, so we're dealing with a different government for Iraq. In regards to the questions:

1. I believe we do, we know the current positions of the ISIS paramilitary forces and the equipment they have stolen, and with our intelligence assets we can hit their attacking forces without having to go after population centers.
2. We will know the particular mission is complete when ISIS stops advancing and the Iraqi military takes control of the captured zones, but if we want a specific objective, I suggest taking back Mosul and Tikrit to push them back into the desert and out of the major cities and supply centers.
3. This is all about having a stable government in Iraq capable of looking after its own security. The current goverment faces major issues and has failed in several aspects, but I refuse to believe ISIS is a better or a desirable options (they are mass executing prisioners of war, for god's sake).
4. Well, I would trust the next SoEA to draft a contingency plan to deal with this, but my alternative is increased help to Iraq in terms of economic aid and military training (Certainly not American troops on the ground, not for now).

[Lumine]

I thank Superique for his comments and his support and I stand by them. I think I will also look into reforming the powers of the Senate and the President in a later amendment just to we don't have to deal with Constitutional dilemmas like this. In the meantime, I insist that this is the best road ahead, this is not the time for doing nothing once again.

How is this a good starting point for promoting liberal democracy in the Middle East? Both ISIS and the groups with which it is in conflict are functionally non-democratic. I had forgotten about the military coup in Iraq, but this only reinforces my point. There is no reason to believe that the spread of democracy in the Middle East is a plausible consequence of this intervention.

Our policy goals for the region should be stability and avoiding the hatred of its residents. (You acknowledge this yourself in your answers.)  I do not object to intervening with those outcomes as our guide. But we need a better strategy than one in which the first step is dropping bombs and the second one is a series of question marks.

The Senate should ask the GM for information first rather than assuming this is the case. IRL most of the insurgents have occupied populated areas.

This is a reasonable objective, but how will we achieve it without ground forces? Will we work with the same military that fled poorly-equipped insurgents whom they outnumbered ten to one?

The trouble with this framing is that the Senate is not voting on who will control northern Iraq; it is only deciding whether to aid one side in the hope that this will bring about the retreat of ISIS. If this were a guaranteed consequence of this action, I would support it. But it is not, and we ought to establish its likelihood prior to reaching a decision.

Under what circumstances should we commit troops?

I do acknowledge it, stability is key here, and I remain convinced by evidence and events that ISIS is a force that could be much more detrimental to stability in the Middle East than Atlasia using drones to contain them. They will not stop with Iraq and Syria, they have plans to expand. You may very well argue that they don't have the capabilities to launch major offensives or take over entire nations, but look at what's going on in Iraq. The mere intervention of ISIS in other conflicts could make things much worse for us and for our allies in the region, which is why I have marked them as the enemy. I'm not a fan of using authoritarian people to defeat other authoritarian people, but as flawed as Iraqi democracy is, it's still democracy, and it's still a thousand times more liberal and more reasonable than religious extremists focused on killing their enemies.

I believe we can count on Iraqi military forces as well, air power makes a hell of a difference and another bill soon to be discussed involved military aid for them, which is bound to help. Since I have a committment to go and help Iraq, it's either Atlasian troops or Iraqi troops, which is why I prefer to use them. I have no intentions of sending Atlasian troops there unless the country completely collapses, and even in that case it's a big if that I will have to properly analyze. So far, this is about military and intelligence aid and the use of drones.

[Lumine]

Hostile, needless to say, specially in light of the continued use of the supposed "conspiracy" about going to Iraq for oil.

[Lumine]

What exactly is meant by the recommendation for "aerial support"?

The potential (emphasis in potential) use of planes and some assets of the airforce, but since I have envisioned the drones as the assets that will attack, this is just intented to provide further aid in terms of scouting or supplying.

Does the President have the ability to unilaterally act for a specific time-frame like in real life? If so, then our involvement here surely isn't needed - like hell we're getting bogged down in this country's nonsense for a third time and anything we can do from the perspective of "authorizing force" surely can be handled within a 90-day time-frame, giving international authorities the time to intervene if they so choose.

That is the problem, Griffin, our constitution is not prepared to deal with this kind of situation by being incredibly vague. Perhaps we could give the president a specific time frame for the support and the use of drones if the Senate feels so desperate, but I'm not sure if that's consitutional as well. Any thoughts?

[Lumine]

Jesus Christ... Maybe we should give up of this whole thing...

Not a chance, I will not cease this effort even if the Senate is unlikely to pass it. It's about time we take the responsibilites we have ignored in foreign policy, and that needs time, effort and discussion.

[Lumine]

I wonder if someone is willing to offer a reasonable amendment (not TNF, please) to address the concerns of some of the Senators, or at least a few guidelines. I remain convinced this is the best course of action, hence why I'm hesitant to amend it for the time being...

[Lumine]

I wonder if someone is willing to offer a reasonable amendment (not TNF, please) to address the concerns of some of the Senators, or at least a few guidelines. I remain convinced this is the best course of action, hence why I'm hesitant to amend it for the time being...

You could just withdraw the bill, because it's awful and no one in this chamber but you has a hard-on for bombing Iraq.

Being alone and sending awful pieces of legislation has never stopped you, Senator, I'm just following the kind example you have given all of us for the past months. Once again, I'm rather surprised that not even drones could be considered as a legitimate force to use. I understand the hesitance to send troops, I truly do, and I don't wish to see Atlasians dying in Iraq once again. But drones seemed like a measured response to be, although it pretty obvious the Senate doesn't necessarily share my views on the subject.

[Lumine]

Well, I feel encouraged at seeing Tyrion agreeing in some regards to this approach. I wonder if by setting more specific goals (I admit mine are vague in comparison to what we want to do) we could get the support we need from a majority of Senators.

[Lumine]

Looks like I really need to start working on a War Powers Act to prevent this mess. But so far it seems Deus may be right in the President having the constitutional right (or loophole, as your prefer), to deploy military assets and bomb places as long as he's not in war with a sovereign nation. While this may undercut the original argument of this resolution, I still find it important for the Senate to give authorization (even if the term has lost formality). I think I will consult with the Supreme Court today as well to see if I can get some opinions on the constitutional legality here.

[Lumine]

Not even drones, Mr. President? I would find that decision to be incredibly dissapointing and in the wrong direction in regards to how we should act in the Middle East, but if true it would make this effort somewhat pointless (although I would still move forward with my other bill to provide assistance).

[Lumine]

I agree and I was going to insist on insertion of clear restrictions of the mission and objectives to be attained, to prevent mission creep, but then we got entangled with the constitutionality aspect, which is importnat don't get me wrong.

I believe we're into a crucial issue in regards to the constitutionality, but as the administration will not make use of this and they are still monitoring the situation, I wonder if it might be better for me to withdraw this and instead get to work on a new War Powers Act. Any thoughts?

[Lumine]

Very well then, I'll get to work on a War Powers Act (or Amendment) right now and see if I can introduce it before taking my leave of absence. Much as I remain convinced of most of the objectives of the bill, I ask it to be withdrawn.