[Peace] Al-Monitor: Tulsi Gabbard lays groundwork to force divisive vote on Syria withdrawal

[Robert Naiman]

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/11/tulsi-gabbard-groundwork-force-vote-syria-withdrawal.html

Tulsi Gabbard lays groundwork to force divisive vote on Syria withdrawal
Bryant Harris
November 5, 2019

Presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, quietly introduced
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/70> a
resolution last week that could force the House to vote on a US troop
withdrawal from Syria, potentially dividing Democrats and anti-war
activists.

The resolution follows the same playbook that her presidential opponent,
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., used to force a vote on legislation intended to
end US support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen earlier this year.
While Sanders
succeeded
<https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/contents/articles/originals/2019/03/senate-tie-trump-hands-war-powers-yemen.html>
in
getting that resolution passed, he did not have enough support to override
President Donald Trump’s veto in April.

As Sanders did for Yemen, Gabbard has filed her Syria resolution under the War
Powers Act
<https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/03/senate-tie-trump-hands-war-powers-yemen.html>,
which provides expedited procedures that allow any lawmaker to force a vote
requiring the president to withdraw troops from any conflicts not
authorized by Congress.

Robert Naiman, an independent foreign policy consultant who was heavily
involved in the campaign to pass the Yemen war powers resolution, praised
Gabbard’s legislation as the next logical step in congressional efforts to
claw back war-making authority from the White House.

“If using the War Powers Resolution to challenge unconstitutional US
participation in the Saudi war in Yemen was a one-off, we haven’t set a
meaningful precedent,” said Naiman, a former policy director at the
anti-war activist group Just Foreign Policy. “This opens the possibility of
setting a meaningful precedent.”

Although Gabbard has centered her presidential campaign around opposition
to what she labels “regime-change wars,” she curiously introduced last
week’s resolution with zero publicity or fanfare. Nor did her office
respond to Al-Monitor’s multiple requests for comment. Still, she did tweet
<https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1191105146568114176> about Trump’s
designs on Syrian oil fields as recently as Sunday — albeit without
mentioning her resolution.

“For political reasons, Trump claims he’s against so-called ‘endless wars,’
but he supports [and] is carrying out 19th/20th century-style naked
imperialism,” Gabbard wrote. “This is a disgrace to our men [and] women in
uniform and [a] great recruiting tool for jihadists.”

The Gabbard resolution specifically takes aim at Trump’s stated goal of
“leaving soldiers to secure the oil” in northeast Syria. It aims to force
Trump to abandon the mission by requiring him to withdraw all troops from
Syria not authorized by Congress’ 2001 Authorization for the Use of
Military Force, which the White House has used as the legal basis for its
fight against the Islamic State (IS) since the Barack Obama administration.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters last month that US troops would
primarily guard the oil fields from IS despite the territorial defeat of
the caliphate. However, Gabbard’s resolution notes that “he confirmed that
this includes denying access to the oil from Russian and Syrian forces,”
which would fall outside the scope of the 2001 authorization.

The resolution does not explicitly address the US troops stationed in the
southern Syrian garrison of al-Tanf to counter Iran.

And while Naiman called Gabbard’s resolution “historic,” other anti-war
activists who successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Yemen war powers
resolution are less enthusiastic about her Syria resolution. One activist,
who spoke with Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity to candidly
comment, called it “half-assed.”

The activist argued that framing the resolution around the 2001
authorization creates “a divisive argument within Congress,” noting that
lawmakers otherwise supportive of withdrawing troops from Syria could vote
no because they do not want to concede that the 18-year-old military
authorization covers operations against IS.

“In theory we absolutely support this,” said the activist. “We support the
idea of Congress clarifying that it has not given authority and demanding
that the president withdraw troops from an unauthorized mission. That’s not
what this legislation does, nor was it done with those of us who have been
working on this issue for years.”

Still, Naiman strongly pushed back against the criticism from other
activists, arguing that “this is exactly the structure we used to go after
the Saudi war in Yemen.”

He added, “Anyone who claims that this is problematic now and claims they
supported what we were doing before either didn’t understand what we were
doing before, or more likely just being opportunist hypocrites because
they’re [too] yellow to cross Nancy Pelosi.”

It remains unclear where House Democratic leaders stand on Gabbard’s Syria
resolution.

A spokeswoman for Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Al-Monitor that
the Foreign Affairs Committee is currently considering the legislation. But
the committee’s intentions remain unclear; a spokesman for Chairman Eliot
Engel, D-N.Y., did not respond to Al-Monitor’s repeated requests for
comment. If the Foreign Affairs Committee refuses to advance the
resolution, Gabbard could use the War Powers Act to trigger a floor vote —
whether leadership likes it or not.

But Gabbard has also developed a checkered reputation on Syria due to her
past statements widely viewed as supportive of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. The resolution also has zero co-sponsors and lawmakers involved
in the Yemen war powers push have not yet jumped on board.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who co-sponsored the Yemen war powers
resolution, told Al-Monitor today that while the 2001 authorization does
not cover IS, Congress should pass a new authorization to cover the anti-IS
campaign.

“We should authorize military action against [IS],” said Murphy. “In the
absence of congressional authorization to do so, the president should not
be taking action that he doesn’t have congressional permission for.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20191106/a6a8e818/attachment.htm>