[Peace-discuss] Fwd: The ISIS War Authorization: A Blank Check

Thu Feb 26 15:33:53 EST 2015

Grayson rocks.

On 02/27/2015 03:01 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
>
>> *From: *"Rep. Alan Grayson" <alangrayson at graysonforcongress.com 
>> <mailto:alangrayson at graysonforcongress.com>>
>> *Subject: **The ISIS War Authorization: A Blank Check*
>> *Date: *February 26, 2015 at 10:29:16 AM CST
>> *To: *<cge at shout.net <mailto:cge at shout.net>>
>>
>> The ISIS War Authorization: A Blank Check
>> Web Bug from 
>> http://cl.exct.net/open.aspx?ffcb10-fe51137673600c7e7013-fdf111757d60017d771c7777-fe5f157071610178711c-fe6411727667007d7c15-fe2b1d7575660475771579-ffcf14 
>>
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>*
>> *
>> *Payable in Dollars, and in Lives. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>*
>>
>> Dear C. G.:
>>
>> So we had a hearing a week ago on ISIS ("we" being the House Foreign 
>> Affairs Committee), and the witnesses were three experts on U.S. 
>> policy in the Middle East, all dues-paying members of the 
>> Military-Industrial Complex. They were James Jeffrey, who was Deputy 
>> Chief of Mission at our embassy in Iraq; Rick Brennan, a political 
>> scientist at the Rand Corp.; and Dafna Rand, who was on the National 
>> Security Council staff. The White House had just released the 
>> President's draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) 
>> against ISIS, and I felt that I needed a good translator, so I asked 
>> them what the ISIS war authorization meant. Their answers were 
>> chilling: the ISIS war authorization means whatever the President 
>> wants it to mean. If you don't believe me, just listen to them:
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Section 2(c) of the President's draft Authorization for 
>> the Use of Military Force reads as follows: "The authority granted in 
>> subsection A [to make war on ISIS and forces 'alongside' ISIS] does 
>> not authorize the use of US armed forces in enduring offensive ground 
>> combat operations." Ambassador Jeffrey, *what does 'enduring' mean? 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *JEFFREY:* My answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one: *"Whatever 
>> the Executive at the time defines 'enduring' as." 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>> And I have a real problem with that.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Dr. Brennan?
>>
>> *BRENNAN:* *I have real problems with that also. I don't know what it 
>> means. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>> I can just see the lawyers fighting over the meaning of this. But 
>> more importantly, if you're looking at committing forces for 
>> something that you are saying is either [a] vital or important 
>> interest of the United States, and you get in the middle of a battle, 
>> and all of a sudden, are you on offense, or are you on defense? What 
>> happens if neighbors cause problems? Wars never end the way that they 
>> were envisioned. And so I think that that's maybe a terrible mistake 
>> to put in the AUMF.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Dr. Rand?
>>
>> *RAND:* Enduring, in my mind, specifies an open-endedness, *it 
>> specifies lack of clarity on the particular objective at hand. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Dr. Rand, is two weeks 'enduring'?
>>
>> *RAND:* I would leave that to the lawyers to determine exactly.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* So your answer is [that] you don't know, right? How about 
>> two months?
>>
>> *RAND:* *I don't know. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>> Again, I think it would depend on the particular objective, 
>> 'enduring' in my mind is not having a particular military objective 
>> in mind.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* So you don't really know what it means. Is that a fair 
>> statement?
>>
>> *RAND:* 'Enduring,' in my mind, means open-ended.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* All right -- Section Five of the draft of the 
>> Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows: "In this 
>> resolution, the term 'associated persons or forces' means individuals 
>> and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or 
>> any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the 
>> United States or its coalition partners." Ambassador Jeffrey, *what 
>> does "alongside ISIL" mean? 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *JEFFREY:* I didn't draft this thing.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Nor did I.
>>
>> *JEFFREY:* Nor did you, but I would have put that in there if I had 
>> been drafting it, and the reason is, I think they went back to 2001, 
>> of course this is the authorization we're still using, along with the 
>> 2002 one for this campaign, and these things morph. For example, 
>> we've had a debate over whether ISIS is really an element of Al 
>> Qaeda; it certainly was when I knew it as Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2010 to 
>> 2012, and these semantic arguments confuse us and confuse our people 
>> on the ground, in trying to deal with these folks. *You'll know it 
>> when you see it 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>*, 
>> if it's ISIS or it's an ally of ISIS.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* How about the Free Syrian Army, are they fighting 
>> alongside ISIL in Syria?
>>
>> *JEFFREY:* No, they're not fighting alongside ISIL, in fact often 
>> they're fighting against ISIL, and ISIL against them in particular.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* What about Assad, is he fighting "alongside" or against? 
>> *It's kind of hard to tell without a scorecard, isn't it? 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *JEFFREY:* *It sure is. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Yes. What about you, Dr. Brennan, *can you tell me what 
>> "alongside ISIL" means? 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *BRENNAN:* *No, I really couldn't. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>> I think that, what, you know, it might be. The 9/11 Commission uses 
>> the phrase "radical islamist organizations." I think maybe if we went 
>> to a wording like that, it includes all those 52 groups that adhere 
>> to this type of ideology, that threaten the United States. But we're 
>> putting ourselves in boxes and as you said Senator - Congressman -- 
>> I'm trying to understand what that means, what the limits are ... who 
>> we're dealing with, and *it's very confusing. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>>
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Dr. Rand?
>>
>> *RAND:* Well, first of all, I believe that the confusion is probably 
>> a function of the fact that this is an unclassified document, so it's 
>> not going to specify exactly which groups are considered associates; 
>> that would be for a classified setting. But second, as I said in the 
>> testimony, the nature of the alliances within ISIL are changing and 
>> are fluid, and those who are targeting, the military experts, know 
>> exactly who is a derivative or an associate or an ally of ISIS, at 
>> any given moment.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Why are you so confident of that? It seems to me that it's 
>> a matter of terminology, not a matter of ascertainable fact.
>>
>> *RAND:* Based on my public service, I've seen some of the lawyers, 
>> and some of the methodologies, and . . . .
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Okay. Here's the $64 billion question for you, Ambassador 
>> Jeffrey, and if we have time, for you others. *If you can't tell us 
>> -- you three experts can't tell us -- what these words mean, what 
>> does that tell us? 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>> Ambassador Jeffrey?
>>
>> *JEFFREY:* That it's very difficult to be using a tool basically 
>> designed to declare war or something like war on a nation-state, 
>> which has a fixed definition, against a group that morphs, that 
>> changes its name, that has allies, and other things. Do we not fight 
>> it? We have to fight it. Are we having a hard time defining it? You bet.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Dr. Brennan?
>>
>> *BRENNAN:* I'd agree with the ambassador. I think the issue we that 
>> need to be looking at is trying to broaden terminology and understand 
>> that it is a tenet, or organizations and groups that adhere to this 
>> ideology, and make it broad enough that if one pops up in a different 
>> country that is doing the same thing, that is a sister of this 
>> organization, the President has the authority to act.
>>
>> *GRAYSON:* Dr. Brennan, *I think that you just described a blank 
>> check, which I'm not willing to give to the President or anybody 
>> else. 
>> <http://cl.exct.net/?qs=41eecffb5c32f009e85bbeb001486a418283348879ac3dfdcb5320d62bcb73cc>* 
>> But thank you for your time...
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150227/2cd9a413/attachment-0001.html>