SENATE BILL: End to Imperialism Act (Law'd)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm disappointed by the lack of engagement with the White House on this matter over the last fortnight - I have offered considerable concessions.

If it passes in it's current form, I will be vetoing it - but I will offer a new proposal with combines strict withdrawal dates and funding deadlines.

If the Senate wishes to override my veto without even entering into functional negotiations with the White House, they're of course within their rights, but I don't think it really helps anyone's cause

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No responses by tomorrow will lead to a final vote being initiated.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Iraq: All combat troops home by 31 January 2012  - all remaining support troops out by 1 April 2012
40% back from Afghanistan by 31 December - up to 65% by April and all combat troops out by 30 June 2012.

As for Libya - people really have missed that I ordered that Atlasian forces were to act ONLY to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure in rebel-held areas. So troop numbers have dropped already - 60% will be home by 1 November - my expectation is that our forces for civilian defense as well as intelligence and logistical support would be roughly 25% of our original deployment and we can get that done by 1 November also.

In spite of my personal feelings on these conflicts, I think this is a reasonable compromise.

Attached to funding cessations
Libya: 1 November (combat) -> 1 January 2012 (peacekeeping)
Iraq: 1 December (combat) -> 15 April 2012 (all remaining forces)
Afghanistan: 1 June 2012 (all forces)

I understand that there are many who have long-held views about these conflicts that are now able to be expressed and acted on - but whether I think these conflicts are good/bad just/unjust etc etc is not important. My responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and a coalition leader is to do what I must do.

I believe I have given a lot of ground here but I cannot do more without acting irresponsibly.

Libya: I have already scaled back our involvement, and the further draw-down will be logistically the easiest - which is why we can withdraw here with the most speed.

Iraq: the process of exchanging the authority to the Iraq forces is proceeding well - there remains some pockets which will remain in coalition hands. 31 January is the earliest we can withdraw without causing any destabilisation.

Afghanistan: this is a messy military and political situation. Our transfer to local forces will take longer here, this is a cold hard reality that I really hope the Senate will appreciate.


 
My administration has outlined a withdrawal policy from the very early days of my Presidency, I have been prepared to work with the Senate to develop a workable compromise. I am willing to use my veto because I believe the current proposal is militarily reckless, which we are not.

This gets virtually all of our combat troops out of these conflicts in less than 9 months, this is by modern standards, a very rapid draw-down.

I really hope that the Senate will look again at the proposals before you, and makes a determination of what is actually achievable and will not result in massive power vacuums.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was referring to the sponsor, or atleast a Senator, just in case you thought I was prodding you Mr. President.


As it stands right now, I think the President has a good handle on a way to responsibly draw the conflicts to a close and thus at this point, I plan to vote no on the bill and to uphold a veto if necessary.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I've already stated that I believe 90 days was enough time to get our troops out of there.  There is no reason to be all "moderate hero" about this.  Do you really think keeping them there until next June is going to make a bit of difference? 

If you were arguing that it will take that long simply to get the troops out, I could understand... but you're not.  You're just picking dates and times that are arbitrarily longer than what the sponsor of the bill offered because you have Obama Fever.  You can't/won't take sudden actions because that could maybe be seen as rash.  You're afraid to take those risks... so instead you push for a compromise that nobody likes at all.

When this bill comes to a vote, I will vote aye.  And when you veto it, Mr. President, I will vote to override your veto.

It's well past the time that Atlasian troops need to come home.  Not because we're defeated or we're losers or anything... but because we need to bring them home and focus on defending ourselves while ending the bottomless moneypit that "defense" has been.  We've screwed with enough peoples' lives and it should stop ASAP.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sadly, you've completely misjudged my intentions.

I had a timetable in place before the Senator's Bill was before the Senate - I tried to negotiate with the Sponsor to find a compromise position, unfortunately the Senator has not made the results of those negotiations part of these discussions.

I'm not interested in taking risks with our troops, the time lines I have offered are based on the situations in each of the theatres and military advice.

You are entitled to vote to override my veto should I have to use it.

[Bacon King]

For what it's worth, I do agree that we shouldn't stick to an arbitrary timeline but should rather focus on an exit strategy that ends these costly military ventures without leaving a quagmire in our wake. I trust that the President is acting under the best advice of Atlasia's military commanders (i.e., the GM)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Senator, you have (hopefully accidentally) completely ignored what I've been saying.  For us to withdraw now, hastily, would do far more damage to the people we are trying to help than following the President's timeline.  Withdrawing just to withdraw, which is what you and Senator Napoleon are arguing for, is dangerous.  It doesn't give the people left time to prepare themselves; it will lead to the collapse of anti-Gaddafi resistance in Libya, it will strengthen the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and will fuel instability in Iraq.  These are all outcomes that must be avoided, and so this bill must be defeated, and the President's timeline must be the absolute shortest we can have this process take.

The President consulted all the top foreign policy and military advisers before making his decision (I know, I was there).  His explanation is solid, and backed up by fact.  It appears, Senator, you are choosing to follow your own instincts as opposed to expert advice, and that is a mistake - one which I hope the Senate will not follow.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Senator, you have (hopefully accidentally) completely ignored what I've been saying.  For us to withdraw now, hastily, would do far more damage to the people we are trying to help than following the President's timeline.  Withdrawing just to withdraw, which is what you and Senator Napoleon are arguing for, is dangerous.  It doesn't give the people left time to prepare themselves; it will lead to the collapse of anti-Gaddafi resistance in Libya, it will strengthen the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and will fuel instability in Iraq.  These are all outcomes that must be avoided, and so this bill must be defeated, and the President's timeline must be the absolute shortest we can have this process take.

The President consulted all the top foreign policy and military advisers before making his decision (I know, I was there).  His explanation is solid, and backed up by fact.  It appears, Senator, you are choosing to follow your own instincts as opposed to expert advice, and that is a mistake - one which I hope the Senate will not follow.

10 years in Afghanistan was plenty of time to affect change.  You've made it clear in your statements that we should be there "until the job is done"... unfortunately, you cannot explain what job it is that needs to "get done"... only that it is some far off, pie in the sky goal that will require lots more money and troops to achieve.

We should not have gotten involved with Libya.  While I vehemently oppose Ghadaffi and his murdering of his own people, I do not believe any good will come from our supporting the rebels.  At the very best, it will create yet another nation completely dependent on us for long term survival, and at the worst, sour those people and turn them against us.  This has been tried so many times before that you'd think the military establishment would get it through their thick skulls... but alas, they do not.

As far as Iraq is concerned:  It is time they carried their own water.  I believe they can do it.  There is no reason to drag things out any longer there.


I'm not "acting with my instincts" here.  And I'm not endangering the troops by bringing them home in a timely manner.  I'm only endangering the warmongers' ability to keep waging pointless wars and the profit margin of defense contractors.  And I have a feeling that is what scares this administration most.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have had responses from several people and it doesn't appear that any further movement will be engaged in regarding modifications or compromise. Therefore, shall I bring this to a vote or is there more going on here then meets the eye?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Unfortunately Senator, you've yet again misjudged this Administration's priorities.

On Libya, I had the same general thoughts as you. It was not our job to fight their war for them, a point I made during the speech in which I first brought up a withdrawal from all of these conflicts, again, before this Bill appeared. We had a small contingent who were not part of the command structure. I ordered the combat troops to withdraw and to serve only as a peacekeeping force in the Benghazi itself. Our force is small in number, and it will be the first to be fully withdrawn, because it can be easily withdrawn.

On Iraq, yet again, the point is missed, but we will have almost 70% of our troops out by November, with a slow trickle as training is increased and command handed over to the Iraqi forces until January - this is not a slow withdrawal - this is a very rapid withdrawal.

On Afghanistan, this is the one over which we seem to have the greatest disagreement. But it is the one where the situation is the most precarious, so yes, we do have to take longer to extricate ourselves - I won't apologise for doing what I feel is the right thing to do.

I do understand the Senator's points, I have been prepared to give a lot more ground than my advisers have wanted me to, but because I hoped that the Senate was interested in a constructive dialogue - I pushed the military to give me the most swift but militarily responsible dates for exits.

The problem now is that some Senators are just repeating the same points over and over about how 10years in Afghanistan is too long - I completely agree, which is why I highlighted withdrawal in my first foreign policy speech as president  - which is why I have been prepared to work with the Senate to get this done... but get it done properly. Which is why I have proposed a time line for both withdrawal AND for the cessation of funding.

I want our troops out, but I don't want to create situation that could necessitate them being sent back at some point in the future.


In that end, I think the Senate should just vote on it let what will be, be.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

10 years in Afghanistan was plenty of time to affect change.  You've made it clear in your statements that we should be there "until the job is done"... unfortunately, you cannot explain what job it is that needs to "get done"... only that it is some far off, pie in the sky goal that will require lots more money and troops to achieve.

The goal in Afghanistan is creating a stable nation that can defend itself, as well as eliminating the Taliban, our mortal foe.  And yes, that goal will take some time.  But it's imperative that we achieve that goal.

We should not have gotten involved with Libya.  While I vehemently oppose Ghadaffi and his murdering of his own people, I do not believe any good will come from our supporting the rebels.  At the very best, it will create yet another nation completely dependent on us for long term survival, and at the worst, sour those people and turn them against us.  This has been tried so many times before that you'd think the military establishment would get it through their thick skulls... but alas, they do not.

The Libyan people want Gaddafi gone.  We are strengthening the only viable resistance to him.  To leave now would be giving the middle finger to those who hoped we could help them.

As far as Iraq is concerned:  It is time they carried their own water.  I believe they can do it.  There is no reason to drag things out any longer there.

We're not asking for years; we're asking 5 months.  There's a difference.

I'm not "acting with my instincts" here.  And I'm not endangering the troops by bringing them home in a timely manner.  I'm only endangering the warmongers' ability to keep waging pointless wars and the profit margin of defense contractors.  And I have a feeling that is what scares this administration most.

A ridiculous and, frankly, insulting comment.

[Junkie]

I'm not "acting with my instincts" here.  And I'm not endangering the troops by bringing them home in a timely manner.  I'm only endangering the warmongers' ability to keep waging pointless wars and the profit margin of defense contractors.  And I have a feeling that is what scares this administration most.

A ridiculous and, frankly, insulting comment.
[/quote]

As completely worthless as my opinion might be, I felt the need to chime in.  I served (but before the war), and most of my friends have as well (both before and during), a few who never came back.  I know this was not intended, but I did find it a little insulting.  Snowguy, you have my respect, although we probably rarely agree on an issue.  I know you did not mean it that way, but "warmonger" is right up there with some terms that are really insulting to those in uniform.  I get your point, and agree with you on some of your points, although I disagree with the manner.  In that regard I support the President in his withdrawl scheme, although it is quicker than I would like.  I just felt you should know, and I hope you understand that I am not attacking you, just asking you to consider this in the future.  And Ben, you are my hero...although I don't think he meant to be insulting.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

To my mind immediate withdrawal form Libya is crucial so we do not get dragged into another long occupation. For me, that's non-negotiable. Iraq and Afghanistan on the other hand, we have already made such an impact and entangled in relationships there, I recognize leaving is a bit more tricky. Iraq is mostly stabilized though so I think we can leave there very soon as well. At this point, I don't see the need for retaining combat troops in Iraq any more than a couple months.
Yes, Afghanistan is the tricky one, though even there it seems like our combat troops have done all they can. I understand the need for an orderly withdrawal and transfer of power, but I don't understand exactly what it is to be accomplished by staying in Afghanistan through next spring. Is there something particular about June?

Really behind all this timetable talk is a question of strategy. If we had a credible strategy for winning the peace, I'd consider allowing our armed service heroes to stay a bit longer to achieve it. But it seems more and more that our best strategy is not going to be mainly a military one. If there's something we can accomplish there in the next year with our combat troops that we haven't already, I'm not sure what it is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

My comment about warmongers was not in any way an insult to the troops, and to be honest I'm surprised anyone would see it as such.  The SOEA clearly wants endless war policing the world and forcing other nations to bend to our will in the classic neocon way.  Shua brings up an excellent question that has yet to be answered... What will the extra six months bring to the table?  I'm aware that the "military" advisors think the presidents compromise is too short... But any compromise to them that doesn't allow endless funding and throwing the lives of our young men and women away for unachievable objectives is not enough.

I've no doubt that in the end, the moderate hero neocons will win out and we'll consign countless more Atlasian troops to death in the quest to achieve an unachievable objective against a vague and I'll defined enemy.  But again, Halliburton will be elated!

Yelnoc:  I also have many friends serving, including two that are in Afghanistan right now.  I still think the top brass are warmongers who glorify war and use our chicken hawk politicians to get their way.  Im sorry if I've offended you...but nothing offends me more than sending good men to die for nothing.

[Napoleon]

Stop calling yourselves experts.

It is clear the Senate will have to act on its own for this.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It is clear the Senate will have to act on its own for this.

Yes, you've made it quite clear that you and your cronies will do whatever possible to destroy the good work Atlasia has done and is trying to do, in order to satisfy some wrongheaded grudge.

[Napoleon]

Are you implying that war is good for the world?

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is clear the Senate will have to act on its own for this.

Yes, you've made it quite clear that you and your cronies will do whatever possible to destroy the good work Atlasia has done and is trying to do, in order to satisfy some wrongheaded grudge.

Grudge?  I have nothing against you or Polnut, Ben.  I just don't agree with you on foreign policy.  I think you're the one turning this into some kind of personal grudge.

You think warring is good for Atlasia and good for the rest of the world.  I think it's expensive and unnecessarily deadly.  We have international organizations that can handle peacekeeping and a thing called diplomacy.  If our "enemies" don't want to talk it out, then I think Atlasia can easily make a case to international bodies that these people are a threat and action should be taken... at an international level.  And diplomatic routes should always be exhausted first.. including military and economic sanctions on an international scale that cripples our "enemy" governments' ability to stay in power.

[Ban my account ffs!]

oh, and I was referring to Junkie in my previous post.. not Yelnoc.  Sorry about that, Junkie.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I want to stress that this is NOT personal, this is a policy difference - although I do reject the suggestions that my decision is being manipulated by arms manufacturers et al.

I know that there are Senators for whom my withdrawal plan will never be swift enough, I really have made efforts to do the right thing across the board. It's a very difficult balance to strike, and those considerations include the political situation on the ground... whether or not I agree with the War, I do believe in responsible government, so I believe we do have a responsibility to not leave a vacuum in our wake.

I don't like War, I consider it one of the greatest evils we can inflict on one another, but sometimes it is a necessary evil - but this is not a debate about the pros and cons of war... it's about how and when we get our troops out.

I came into office with a promise to have a plan in train to get all of our troops out, I have stretched our Commands to get the earliest date possible for all three theatres. I presented, what I believe is a very fair compromise position, I went into discussions in good faith, and I was prepared to work with the Senate, but I'm not sure those same considerations have been reciprocated.  

Those dates were not picked arbitrarily, they are carefully considered to account for all reasonable eventualities.

I think we are doing ourselves more damage by shouting over what in essence are details - our aims are the same, but the methods by which we do are slightly different.

Again, I think there needs to be a final vote on this and just let what will be, be.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To my mind immediate withdrawal form Libya is crucial so we do not get dragged into another long occupation. For me, that's non-negotiable. Iraq and Afghanistan on the other hand, we have already made such an impact and entangled in relationships there, I recognize leaving is a bit more tricky. Iraq is mostly stabilized though so I think we can leave there very soon as well. At this point, I don't see the need for retaining combat troops in Iraq any more than a couple months.
Yes, Afghanistan is the tricky one, though even there it seems like our combat troops have done all they can. I understand the need for an orderly withdrawal and transfer of power, but I don't understand exactly what it is to be accomplished by staying in Afghanistan through next spring. Is there something particular about June?

Really behind all this timetable talk is a question of strategy. If we had a credible strategy for winning the peace, I'd consider allowing our armed service heroes to stay a bit longer to achieve it. But it seems more and more that our best strategy is not going to be mainly a military one. If there's something we can accomplish there in the next year with our combat troops that we haven't already, I'm not sure what it is.

Those are some constructive issues, thank you.

Firstly, we are now operating in Libya as a peacekeeping mission - not combat. I have said many times that our exit from Libya will be the fastest, because we are not entrenched nor is stability or fundamental security dependent on us.

Secondly, Iraq. I understand that the general view is that all is going well and we should just be able to walk out with little consequence. However, there are pockets where our troops are a significant part of the security structure. Part of the withdrawal - especially post-November will be to increase the training for those replacing the Atlasian security forces. Those training will still require security and support. I feel very strongly, that in this theatre we do owe the Iraqi people some stability.

Thirdly, Afghanistan. I thank you for acknowledging that this is a difficult situation. The security situation is not stable, especially with the announcement that President Karzai will not be seeking a third term. We are now at the end of the fighting season, which will give Commanders the ability to take stock of where we are, and the formal withdrawal and handover strategy. Considering our position in the security structure of entire provinces of Afghanistan - we do need to fast-track the recruitment and training of new soldiers for the Afghan Army - the Autumn and Winter period is the peak time for training and recruitment - it's as simple as that. And until we have done that job, it will be necessary for troops to be on the ground.

In relation to your question about the strategy - I believe I've outlined our reasoning - and I don't want to sound glib here, but I believe considering that we now have a policy of withdrawal, the goal to winning the peace is to leave those nations prepared to win their own peace and not to create a de-stabilisation by our exit.

Again, we could go in circles in this - I am currently in a period of final negotiations - while I hope something constructive will come out of it... I'm not expecting it and I think this situation is not helping us at all - and Senate needs to vote as soon as is practicable so our forces have some idea of what they'll be doing.

[Napoleon]

Mr. President you have repeatedly dodged Senator Shua's question. I would like to see a straightforward answer. EDIT: answered thanks.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I motion to bring cloture to debate on this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Finally.


A vote is now open on the motion for cloture of debate and proceed immediately to a final vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. This will require 2/3rd's support of the entire Senate to pass.