Iraq's president nominated a new prime minister on Monday, further complicating the country's intense power struggle amid a dire humanitarian crisis and a militant threat strong enough to draw U.S. air power back to the fray.
President Fuad Masum nominated Haider al-Abadi to succeed a defiant Nuri al-Maliki, who had earlier vowed to hang on to power.
The new Prime Minister-designate, al-Abadi, is the deputy speaker of the Iraqi Parliament and a former aide to al-Maliki.
Masum appointed the prominent Shiite politician as prime minister on Monday despite al-Maliki's pronouncement earlier in the day that he intends to stay in office for a third term.
On Sunday, Iraqi forces and tanks surged into some Baghdad neighborhoods as a wave of troops swarmed Baghdad's green zone, the secure area where many government buildings and the U.S. Embassy are located, two Iraqi police officials said.
Exactly what led to the surge remains unclear. But some believe the beefed-up military presence was part of a power struggle between al-Maliki and Masum.
Al-Maliki has accused Masum of violating the country's constitution by extending the deadline for Iraq's biggest political coalitions to nominate a candidate for prime minister.
Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.
Rip wrote:
I'm thinking there are problems far beyond dealing with ISIS.
ISIS's success is in large part due to the mess that is Iraq.
And Syria.
Really, I think the biggest problem is that while it's plausible to drive ISIS from Iraq via air strikes and allied ground forces, we can't do the same in Syria. We can't operate planes in Syria without being willing to shoot down Syrian government jets (and bomb Syrian anti-air), and we can't do that without being willing to go to war with Syria (at which point we would actually be at war with both sides of a conflict).
BUT without exterminating ISIS from Syria too, ISIS can then hunker down in Syria and just cross back over into Iraq whenever it wants. I guess we can hope that their losses in Iraq would wind up hurting their military position in Syria too.
El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.
Well, it's pretty clear that he's a dead-man walking once he steps down, so I'm not surprised he's not inclined to relinquish power. Isn't this the sort of situation where he needs to be granted safe passage out of Iraq? So many issues with that, though. What a mess.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.
Well, it's pretty clear that he's a dead-man walking once he steps down, so I'm not surprised he's not inclined to relinquish power. Isn't this the sort of situation where he needs to be granted safe passage out of Iraq? So many issues with that, though. What a mess.
I don't think that's clear. Maliki's got his enemies and rivals, but he also has his friends (including his political party) and he would still have influence in the Iraqi Parliament. Maliki's got his issues, but he's not a dictator, and I really don't think it's the kind of situation where he would need to go into exile.
I think it's just that very few people enjoy giving up power.
Rip wrote:
I'm thinking there are problems far beyond dealing with ISIS.
ISIS's success is in large part due to the mess that is Iraq.
And Syria.
They were stalemated in Syria.
Another way to put that is that they've managed to take and control a significant amount of territory within Syria.
The Syrian Civil War allowed ISIS to organize a fighting force. So when they came into Iraq, they weren't going around recruiting green fighters into a new insurgent force. Rather, they were able to come in as an existing force that had been trained and hardened via actual conflict. Without the anarchy of the Syrian Civil War giving them room to organize, they would've had a much harder time in Iraq (they would've been a new green insurgency, not an organized invading army).
Rip wrote:I guess we are just lucky they are only a JV team.
Depends. Where are their arms and other methods of support coming from? In my mind, this circles back to Putin and Russia, but I haven't done the research to put much weight into that thought.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Rip wrote:I guess we are just lucky they are only a JV team.
Depends. Where are their arms and other methods of support coming from? In my mind, this circles back to Putin and Russia, but I haven't done the research to put much weight into that thought.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.
The US can't openly back the Iraqi army as long as Iraqi Sunnis see it as a Shiite occupation force, as it will be for as long as Maliki's in the saddle. That's why we're backing the Kurds instead of the army that we spent all those years and dollars building up.
El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.
The US can't openly back the Iraqi army as long as Iraqi Sunnis see it as a Shiite occupation force, as it will be for as long as Maliki's in the saddle. That's why we're backing the Kurds instead of the army that we spent all those years and dollars building up.
El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.
Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.
Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.
The US can't openly back the Iraqi army as long as Iraqi Sunnis see it as a Shiite occupation force, as it will be for as long as Maliki's in the saddle. That's why we're backing the Kurds instead of the army that we spent all those years and dollars building up.
The Iraqi President is a Kurd.
...and he just replaced Maliki hours ago. Maliki responded by mobilizing the forces that are loyal to him and refused to leave. It's looking like a potential coup.
The Hill wrote:Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Tuesday that open-ended military actions, like President Obama's airstrikes in Iraq, should require congressional approval and that a bill he's proposed would ensure that is the case.
Kaine said that while he supports the U.S. humanitarian mission underway in Iraq, "it is now up to the administration to receive Congressional authorization for the current air campaign against” the group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“This is especially the case since the president has indicated that our renewed military engagement in Iraq could be a long-term project,” Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, said in a statement.
“I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action,” the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee added.
Kaine joins a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers who have warned the president that he must get their stamp of approval if he chooses to expand the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.
NYT wrote:WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has sent an additional 130 military advisers to northern Iraq to help plan the evacuation of thousands of displaced people trapped by Sunni militants on Mount Sinjar, Defense Department officials said Tuesday, raising the possibility that a larger American force may eventually be needed in the rescue attempt.
While military officials said the Pentagon planned to continue aid drops of food and water, United States officials said they believed that some type of ground force would be necessary to secure the passage of the stranded members of the Yazidi group. The military is drawing up plans for consideration by President Obama that could include American ground troops in what is expected to be an international effort to rescue the refugees, a senior administration official said.
Mr. Obama has insisted, most recently on Monday, that he will not send American ground troops back to Iraq. But as the Yazidi crisis has deteriorated, American officials say they have become increasingly convinced that a humanitarian corridor will have to be established soon, with troops on the ground to help ensure safe passage for the displaced.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
And how is the president supposed to get Congressional approval? They're only holding those wonderful pro forma sessions until the week after Labor Day.
Isgrimnur wrote:And how is the president supposed to get Congressional approval? They're only holding those wonderful pro forma sessions until the week after Labor Day.
Buggered if I know. Perhaps he should discuss it with Sen. Kaine and the other Democratic lawmakers who favour the notion of seeking congressional approval before expanding the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
Isgrimnur wrote:And how is the president supposed to get Congressional approval? They're only holding those wonderful pro forma sessions until the week after Labor Day.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
As Isgrimnur pointed out earlier, if nothing else Obama has clear statutory authority to commit armed forces to action there for 60 days. So there's no need to get congressional approval before Labor Day. If the air strikes are still ongoing after that, however, he should introduce a congressional authorization bill.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
The President has already stated the military action against ISIL "is going to be a long-term project." He claims to be protecting the American diplomats and military personnel in the U.S. consulate in Erbil, and that protecting American embassies is a constitutional responsibility, which is what gives him the authority to continue the air offensive. But realistically, there are American citizens and/or American embassies in practically every war zone on the face of the planet. So if that's all it takes to justify long-term military action, then the POTUS essentially has a free hand to mount military campaigns anywhere, anytime, and for any reason without seeking congressional approval.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
Are you arguing that the President should be required to obtain congressional authorization before committing U.S. military forces to protect U.S. government personnel? You're admitting that there is an imminent threat to U.S. personnel, it just sounds like you think that shouldn't be enough.
Also Obama's remarks about this being a long-term project is not directed solely at military action against ISIS, but about fixing the broader situation in Iraq (of which these military strikes are one part).
This level of parsing really speaks for itself. I can't point at actual illegality so I'll just throw out generalized complaints that indicate it could be illegal if only looked at through a particular POV. I will repeat the same old lazy remarks about how in the past he was a constitutional lawyer and he *should know* better but all it really is a tired old dog whistle. I will stamp my feet and complain and no one will give a shit - why oh why do they not give a shit?
Being a professor/Senator/President lends itself to completely different outlooks based on what you want to accomplish and also, the facts that become known to you that come with the new job.
El Guapo wrote:Are you arguing that the President should be required to obtain congressional authorization before committing U.S. military forces to protect U.S. government personnel?
No.
El Guapo wrote:You're admitting that there is an imminent threat to U.S. personnel, it just sounds like you think that shouldn't be enough.
The Hill wrote:Most constitutional law experts say Obama acted within his authority to defend Americans in Erbil from immediate danger. But critics say Obama should have sought congressional approval before expanding a fight with ISIS that could last months or even years.
“I think any conflict of a couple days in nature could be justified,” said Louis Fisher, a scholar at the Constitution Project, “but as President Obama said last weekend, this is not going to be for just a couple days or weeks, it could go on for a year or two.
“For anything of that scope, he should come to Congress for their approval,” Fisher added.
Fischer and other constitutional scholars believe Obama is toeing a fine line by engaging ISIS forces in Iraq.
“Defensive power is limited to an immediate response to an attack,” said Peter Raven-Hansen, a national security professor at George Washington University’s law school.
“No one would doubt that President Roosevelt could order the Navy to shoot back at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but that doesn’t mean he could wage a war for five years without congressional authority,” he continued.
“The longer the conflict goes on, the broader the intervention, the greater the need for congressional approval.”
El Guapo wrote:Also Obama's remarks about this being a long-term project is not directed solely at military action against ISIS, but about fixing the broader situation in Iraq (of which these military strikes are one part).
And yet there's sufficient cause for concern that Sen. Kaine, along with "a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers," felt the need to warn the President about it, as did the experts on constitutional law cited in the above piece from The Hill.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
The Iraqi government asked us to act, and it was a humanitarian crisis that also threatened the lives of US citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan. That's exactly the sort of situation the 90 day window in the War Powers Act is made for. Expect Congressional approval of action in Iraq to be on the agenda in September when Congress reconvenes.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Fireball wrote:The Iraqi government asked us to act, and it was a humanitarian crisis that also threatened the lives of US citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan. That's exactly the sort of situation the 90 day window in the War Powers Act is made for. Expect Congressional approval of action in Iraq to be on the agenda in September when Congress reconvenes.
90 days? When are you guys going to stop rewriting laws?
Fireball wrote:The Iraqi government asked us to act, and it was a humanitarian crisis that also threatened the lives of US citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan. That's exactly the sort of situation the 90 day window in the War Powers Act is made for. Expect Congressional approval of action in Iraq to be on the agenda in September when Congress reconvenes.
90 days? When are you guys going to stop rewriting laws?
Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
Obama defers action against Russia and the Republicans call him a pussy. Now he acts like a cowboy, engaging Muslim terrorists, and now the Republicans complain? During a recess...er, a pro forma session? Pick a complaint and stick with it. Stop waffling.
Or were you for it before you were against it? Because Kerry is still waiting for an apology.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
Zarathud wrote:Obama defers action against Russia and the Republicans call him a pussy. Now he acts like a cowboy, engaging Muslim terrorists, and now the Republicans complain? During a recess...er, a pro forma session? Pick a complaint and stick with it. Stop waffling.
Or were you for it before you were against it? Because Kerry is still waiting for an apology.
I'm not sure how seeking authorization from congress for military action is inconsistent with wanting the President to do more against Russia. That's what I assumed they would be complaining about, based on this thread.
Republicans blasted President Obama’s decision to launch airstrikes against the International State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) Sunday, calling them too soft. They warned that the group posed a dire threat to the United States.
Zarathud wrote:Obama defers action against Russia and the Republicans call him a pussy. Now he acts like a cowboy, engaging Muslim terrorists, and now the Republicans complain? During a recess...er, a pro forma session? Pick a complaint and stick with it. Stop waffling.
The Hill wrote:Kaine joins a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers who have warned the president that he must get their stamp of approval if he chooses to expand the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
Uh, the republicans are throwing everything against the wall to see what'll stick. If you think there is a principled approach to their criticism, you haven't been paying attention for the last 6 years. The fact that they occasionally get one right is random luck.
GreenGoo wrote:Uh, the republicans are throwing everything against the wall to see what'll stick. If you think there is a principled approach to their criticism, you haven't been paying attention for the last 6 years. The fact that they occasionally get one right is random luck.
edit: directed at defiant.
That's just politics in the US I'm afraid. It isn't based on any true ideology. Republican is in office, Democrats throw what they can at them to see what sticks. Democrat in office, Republicans throw what they can. Rinse and repeat. It's enough that I have become rather disinterested in politics in general. I like keeping up with the hot topics, but the actual political bickering, eh I try to ignore it because It's all just a bunch of talk.
As to the current issue at hand, I think that President Obama is well within his authority to authorize the air strikes. Congress is just making a stink because they want to protect their jobs and their own authority. I think congress should be filled in and allowed to vote to authorize the action but President Obama is well within his authority right now. I'm no expert on the issue but I agree with his actions and have seen similar actions taken for decades now.
GreenGoo wrote:Uh, the republicans are throwing everything against the wall to see what'll stick. If you think there is a principled approach to their criticism, you haven't been paying attention for the last 6 years. The fact that they occasionally get one right is random luck.
edit: directed at defiant.
In general, that's their strategy, sure. But that doesn't mean that every criticism is wrong on it's face. Sometimes, their criticisms are valid or at least worthy of consideration.
Even broken clocks are right twice a day.
And given that some of the criticism - about not seeking congressional approval or that airstrikes might not be sufficient - are bipartisan, that suggests that it isn't just partisan attacks.
Also, the complaint was that Republicans weren't being consistent - by alternatively calling him a cowboy and a wimp. That isn't the case. They're just calling him a wimp.
