http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/asserting-war-powers-hous_b_8679
91.html

 


Robert Naiman <http://huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman> 


Asserting War Powers, House Moves to End Afghanistan, Libya Wars 


Posted: 05/27/11 10:34 AM ET 

Voting on amendments on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the
House of Representatives took action to hasten the end of the wars in
Afghanistan and Libya. 

Afghanistan

By a 204-215 vote [roll call <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll373.xml> ]
- six switchers would have passed the amendment - the House narrowly failed
to adopt a bipartisan amendment from Reps. Jim McGovern [D-MA] and Justin
Amash [R-MI] that would have required the Department of Defense to develop a
plan for an "accelerated transition of military operations to Afghan
authorities."

It may seem counter-intuitive to count narrowly failing to adopt an
amendment as "taking an action," but in terms of consequences, it is taking
action. Getting more than 200 votes sends a signal to the White House: if
you don't move - for example, by announcing a significant drawdown of U.S.
troops from Afghanistan this summer - you could lose the next vote in the
House. And if the Administration lost a vote in the House on the Afghanistan
war, you can bet that would be front-page news in Europe, weakening the
Administration's case to the Europeans for continuing the status quo. It
seems likely that the Administration will want to stay one step ahead of the
House, rather than face a public defeat. That points toward an accelerated
drawdown this year.

If 204 Members were willing to vote yes, it seems extremely likely that 6
House Members who voted no gave a yes vote serious consideration. Indeed,
The Hill reports
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/163517-house-votes-to-limit-mil
itary-effort-in-libya> :

Florida Rep. John Mica (R) voted against both amendments [referring also to
the sharper Chaffetz-Welch amendment
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll364.xml> ], but said he considered
supporting them. 

"I told them I could've [voted for it but] it wasn't specific enough," Mica
said, adding that he's "leaning toward getting" out of Afghanistan.

Mica believes that the sentiment of his conference is growing toward leaving
Afghanistan, "and when somebody comes up with the right amendment, it's
going to pass."

All but eight Democratic Members of the House voted in favor of the
McGovern-Amash amendment, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer [D-MD],
a leader among center-right Democrats in the House on national security
issues. This vote represents, for practical purposes, the House Democratic
Caucus speaking with one voice in favor of an accelerated drawdown. 

Twenty-six Republican Members of the House voted in favor of the
McGovern-Amash amendment, roughly a 200% increase in the number of
Republicans voting against open-ended continuation of the war from the nine
Republicans <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll433.xml>  who voted for the
McGovern amendment on July 1, 2010. As noted by Rep. Mica, there are other
Republican Members of the House who are substantially in the same place, and
are likely to support a future initiative if there is no significant change
in Administration policy.

Libya

By the spectacular vote of 416-5
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll366.xml> , the House adopted an
amendment initiated by Michigan Representative John Conyers prohibiting the
introduction into Libya of U.S. ground troops (that is, uninformed forces,
not Special Forces or CIA that are already there.) 

The House also adopted by voice vote -- meaning, this one is such a
slam-dunk we don't even have to bother having a recorded vote -- an
amendment introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ] affirming that
<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/house-votes-on-libya-indica
te-little-support-for-intervention.html>  "Nothing in this Act or any
amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize military
operations in Libya."

Conyers said
<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/house-votes-on-libya-indica
te-little-support-for-intervention.html> :

"[the] House of Representatives has clearly stated that the current
stalemate in Libya will not escalate into an unaffordable occupation that
would harm our country's national security... I encourage my colleagues in
the U.S. Senate to heed today's vote and join our efforts to ensure that the
conflict in Libya does not become another Afghanistan or Iraq."

Jake Tapper of ABC News reports
<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/house-votes-on-libya-indica
te-little-support-for-intervention.html>  that these lopsided results could
augur well for a resolution in the House next week calling for full US
military withdrawal from the Libya conflict in accordance with the War
Powers Resolution:

Republicans in the House suggest that the two votes are an interesting
indicator of the level of support in the House for ongoing operations over
there. 

Likely to hit the floor next week is a privileged resolution from Rep.
Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, calling for full withdrawal from the action in
accordance with the War Powers Act.

Could that pass? I asked a House GOP leadership aide.

"Honestly we don't know," the aide said.

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to