SENATE BILL: Emergency Resolution to Authorize Force in Iraq (Withdrawn)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Lumine

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[TNF]

Motion to table.

We have no business in Iraq.

[Lumine]

Of course, this is mostly intended to mean the use of drones and not combat troops, as the administration has stated. I believe the next administration has also showed a degree of interest in using the drones, so I believe we should not tie the hands of both administrations and allow them to intervene in Iraq as long as the government there requires our help. We can help them avoid a takeover by religious fanatics and we can avoid killings based on religion by merely using the drones and assisting the Iraqi military, so I say we have to step in and finally make a common-sense based move in the Middle East. Superique saved Palestine, we can save Iraq.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Motion to table.

We have no business in Iraq.

Do we have business anywhere outside of Atlasia?

[President Tyrion]

The Senate has the power to Declare War, not to Authorize Force. I don't think there's anything for the Senate to do here. If the President wants to increase combat operations in Iraq, it is going to have to be a top down policy.

[Deus Naturae]

This is a Declaration of War, right?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Senate has the power to Declare War, not to Authorize Force. I don't think there's anything for the Senate to do here. If the President wants to increase combat operations in Iraq, it is going to have to be a top down policy.

Why wouldn't the Senate have the power to authorize force?

This is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war on ISIS.

[Adam Griffin]

The Senate has the power to Declare War, not to Authorize Force. I don't think there's anything for the Senate to do here. If the President wants to increase combat operations in Iraq, it is going to have to be a top down policy.

Why wouldn't the Senate have the power to authorize force?

This is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war on ISIS.

Are we acknowledging the territories controlled by ISIS as a sovereign entity at this point? Otherwise, we're effectively declaring war on Iraq (or at least a portion of that, however that'd work). Can we actually make a formal declaration of war on a non-sovereign entity?
I oppose any intervention. These people are savages who cannot appreciate civilization, and certainly won't if it is not they who earn it for themselves. I'm very much a dove until I'm a super-hawk; until this faction causes some form of direct harm to our domestic interests, I see no reason to intervene. If that happens, though, then I will be perfectly fine with turning the entire country into one big sheet of glass.

If we're going to send a message through force, then we need to do so only when it is justified and send one so resoundingly epic and nondiscriminatory in nature that entire cultures learn what comes when they attack us. As far as I'm concerned, what is unfolding and may unfold is just as much on the hands of the civilians for allowing these sentiments to fester and breed as it is anyone else. These cultures will proactively lynch these extremists on their own once they discover that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mere blips on the radar compared to what we will do to them if it's discovered that attacks on our homefront originated from their own backyards. These little airstrikes and other half-ass 21st century forms of warfare only serve to antagonize and stoke resentment in the region; we shouldn't engage in them unless we are prepared to commit the most atrocious of acts to end the conflict.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Senate has the power to Declare War, not to Authorize Force. I don't think there's anything for the Senate to do here. If the President wants to increase combat operations in Iraq, it is going to have to be a top down policy.

Why wouldn't the Senate have the power to authorize force?

This is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war on ISIS.

Are we acknowledging the territories controlled by ISIS as a sovereign entity at this point? Otherwise, we're effectively declaring war on Iraq (or at least a portion of that, however that'd work). Can we actually make a formal declaration of war on a non-sovereign entity?
I oppose any intervention. These people are savages who cannot appreciate civilization, and certainly won't if it is not they who earn it for themselves. I'm very much a dove until I'm a super-hawk; until this faction causes some form of direct harm to our domestic interests, I see no reason to intervene. If that happens, though, then I will be perfectly fine with turning the entire country into one big sheet of glass.

If we're going to send a message through force, then we need to do so only when it is justified and send one so resoundingly epic and nondiscriminatory in nature that entire cultures learn what comes when they attack us. As far as I'm concerned, what is unfolding and may unfold is just as much on the hands of the civilians for allowing these sentiments to fester and breed as it is anyone else. These cultures will proactively lynch these extremists on their own once they discover that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mere blips on the radar compared to what we will do to them if it's discovered that attacks on our homefront originated from their own backyards. These little airstrikes and other half-ass 21st century forms of warfare only serve to antagonize and stoke resentment in the region; we shouldn't engage in them unless we are prepared to commit the most atrocious of acts to end the conflict.

are you alright

[Oakvale]

I oppose any intervention. These people are savages who cannot appreciate civilization, and certainly won't if it is not they who earn it for themselves. I'm very much a dove until I'm a super-hawk; until this faction causes some form of direct harm to our domestic interests, I see no reason to intervene. If that happens, though, then I will be perfectly fine with turning the entire country into one big sheet of glass.

If we're going to send a message through force, then we need to do so only when it is justified and send one so resoundingly epic and nondiscriminatory in nature that entire cultures learn what comes when they attack us. As far as I'm concerned, what is unfolding and may unfold is just as much on the hands of the civilians for allowing these sentiments to fester and breed as it is anyone else. These cultures will proactively lynch these extremists on their own once they discover that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mere blips on the radar compared to what we will do to them if it's discovered that attacks on our homefront originated from their own backyards. These little airstrikes and other half-ass 21st century forms of warfare only serve to antagonize and stoke resentment in the region; we shouldn't engage in them unless we are prepared to commit the most atrocious of acts to end the conflict.

Have you been hacked? What the hell is this?

[President Tyrion]

Presumably he's talking about the terrorists, but it seems like we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to turn all of Iraq into "a sheet of glass".

The Senate has the power to Declare War, not to Authorize Force. I don't think there's anything for the Senate to do here. If the President wants to increase combat operations in Iraq, it is going to have to be a top down policy.

Why wouldn't the Senate have the power to authorize force?

This is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war on ISIS.

Yes, but ISIS isn't a sovereign nation. And I'm sure as hell not going to be on board with recognizing the sovereignty of a terrorist group so we can drone them to death. I mean, we can do the droning, but preferably without the recognizing.

With that said, we need to be very careful what we do here. Drone strikes are imperfect creatures, after all, and it's a guarantee that a widespread drone program will result in innocent lives lost. It's an extreme risk, and we, as a nation, need to understand that before we give Mr. President implicit or explicit authorization to strike.

[Lumine]

I was planning to make the usual lengthy speech, but... what? I mean, I know it's hyperbolic language and irony, but still, that goes too far, and I would ask the Senator to clarify his actual position in the issue instead of resorting to racist comments, even if they are in jest.

Our Constitution is infamously vague in regards to these situations, and the only relevant things I identified are that the President is the Commander in Chief and the Senate has the sole power to declare war, which meant that we could either authorize the use of force (or declare war on ISIS, the language is certainly not the main issue here) ourselves and recommend the President what to do or go with the interpretation of the President as Commander in Chief having the right of using the drones without declaring war. Following the administration wishes (the second option is not viable for obvious reasons), I decided to work with the language regarding the declaration of war to give him the powers to act in the most democratic and open way possible (given the limitations of the Constitution - another reason why we need reform in this front).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The more Georgia evolves, the more it stays the same.

[Potus]

Allow me to pop in and clear a couple things up.

People saying we shouldn't recognize them so we can bomb them are exactly right. That's why this is an authorization of force and not a declaration of war. We aren't going to war with anyone, we are giving the President power to use military force to deal with essentially stateless enemies.

Also, there is a critical national security interest in Iraq. Building a stable, multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq creates an incredible amount of democratic pressure on the region. Look at this map:

As you can see, Iraq borders a large number of countries. In region where infrastructure isn't as developed, having places touch is critical to moving to them. Building a democratic Iraq will expose a lot of citizens in the Middle East to a democratic neighbor, mounting pressure on the regimes in the region to make democratic changes.

Democratic, unified, multiethnic Iraq is our best shot at promoting democracy in the region. If Iraq fails, Middle East democracy fails. Afghanistan, if we allow Iraq to fall, will be next as the wave of foreign fighters sweep the Middle East.

We must also recognize the danger of newer, less democratic, more authoritarian regimes that are forged in bloodshed because of American inaction. Our inaction now will spawn new regimes that despise our country like ISIS or the Taliban while also draining the life from our relationships with out allies. Jordan is close to us, but they won't be as close when they have the Nusra Front and ISIS foreign fighters at their door because we didn't act.

The national security interest in the region is amplified by the fact that we have allowed Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Allowing the ISIS/ISIL advance to continue unadulterated will inevitably lead to deep sectarian divides. Our time spent in Iraq built a national identity that is, at this point, holding together nicely. People are fighting off ISIL for the sake of their country, not their faith. That's great news as long as it lasts.

Whenever conflicts divide along sectarian lines, it leads to certain sets of bedfellows. Al-Sadr, Hezbollah, and other Shi'a terror groups will soon, if they have not already, start receiving aid from Tehran. This aid will come in the form of finanical help, weapons, and conceivably nuclear technology.

While Simfan didn't say this in the state of the world speech, there is a clear, most plausible path that Iran took to acquiring nuclear weapons. Tehran no doubt followed in Saddam's footsteps in working the A.Q. Khan. Khan was the mastermind of previous unauthorized nuclear projects in places like Pakistan. Funding of the A.Q. Khan network is an extremely dangerous thing in the Middle East due to Khan's tendency to work for the highest bidder. Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons no doubt ensures the operation of the Khan network for the time being.

Back to the sectarian conflict, Saudi Arabia is already rumored to be financially supporting ISIL or other Sunni paramilitary organizations. This is, once again, deeply disturbing due to the Khan Network, or similar nuclear group, being active. The flow of money into ISIL from foreign powers could easily be used to seek a nuclear device from these groups that have built a bomb for Iran. Not only is the money coming from foreign powers, ISIL is looting millions of dollars from Iraqi banks on their march toward Baghdad. That money, once again, could be used to acquire a nuclear device from the Khan Network or a similar group.

With the nuclear threat to national security out of the way, we should also address the national security risk of failed states. As we have seen in Somalia, the collapse of the government leads to the rise of warlords and feudal-style clans. Unfortunately, these warlords are able to acquire weapons very easily and wage war against one another. These warlords, though, often pledge their allegiance to international organizations such as al Qaeda to gain access to more weapons, more money, and better equipment. Allowing the state of Iraq to fail inevitably leads to the failure of several other states in the region. Each of these areas will quickly transform into a staging ground for terror, like we see in Syria.

There is also a risk in the opposite direction. A failed state leads to a staging ground for terror and poses grave risks to international security. However, there is another threat. In order to stave off rebellion or radical Islamist invasion, states in the region will take a decidedly more authoritarian position. This will happen because the United States was weak and refused to intervene. Because of our weakness, they are having to shift to a more authoritarian government to combat terrorism.

Authoritarian regimes, especially those with an ax to grind against for not intervening, are more likely to join the axis of evil. They'll take up alliances with Iran and North Korea. Iran's nuclear program, once again, would pose credible risk to these regimes lack of nuclear weapons. We are talking about large scale proliferation on top of failed states and resurgent terrorists.

This part is my opinion. Not doing everything in our power to secure Iraq and devastate ISIL is a step that will lead to the eventual igniting of the powder keg that is the Middle East. The situation is deeply complicated by the Syrian Civil War and Iran's nuclear capability. Atlasia should act to end the civil war in Syria and also diminish Iran's nuclear program. This is the closest to the brink the Middle East has ever been. Don't let it fall, because it's nuclear now.

[Potus]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

The case for intervention needs to be based in a realistic assessment of conditions and plausible goals, not quasi-mystical claptrap. Here are a few questions that we ought to be asking:

• Do we have actionable targets?
• When will we know that our mission is complete?
• How will our action make the region less vulnerable to unrest than it is now, and who will be responsible for keeping the region stable in our absence?
• How will we re-adjust if the situation worsens despite our best efforts?

I'm not saying targeting ISIL will cause democracy to sweep the Middle East. If we don't intervene and crush ISIL, then it renders the possibility of democracy sweeping the Middle East moot. Democracy is done if ISIL wins.

[Lumine]

Dropping bombs on Sunni extremists in northern Iraq will not bring democracy to the Middle East. It would, in effect, support flawed yet relatively stable and rational actors in the region, including not only the incompetent, sectarian Maliki government (the idea that Iraq has been "holding together nicely" was laughable even before ISIS advanced into the country), but also Iran and Bashar al-Assad.

The case for intervention needs to be based in a realistic assessment of conditions and plausible goals, not quasi-mystical claptrap. Here are a few questions that we ought to be asking:

• Do we have actionable targets?
• When will we know that our mission is complete?
• How will our action make the region less vulnerable to unrest than it is now, and who will be responsible for keeping the region stable in our absence?
• How will we re-adjust if the situation worsens despite our best efforts?

This particular action will not bring democracy and peace to the Middle East, but a good number of actions will and this is a good starting point. Would you rather have Iraq in the hands of ISIS, Mr. President? I should remind the Senate that Maliki is gone and replaced, so we're dealing with a different government for Iraq. In regards to the questions:

1. I believe we do, we know the current positions of the ISIS paramilitary forces and the equipment they have stolen, and with our intelligence assets we can hit their attacking forces without having to go after population centers.
2. We will know the particular mission is complete when ISIS stops advancing and the Iraqi military takes control of the captured zones, but if we want a specific objective, I suggest taking back Mosul and Tikrit to push them back into the desert and out of the major cities and supply centers.
3. This is all about having a stable government in Iraq capable of looking after its own security. The current goverment faces major issues and has failed in several aspects, but I refuse to believe ISIS is a better or a desirable options (they are mass executing prisioners of war, for god's sake).
4. Well, I would trust the next SoEA to draft a contingency plan to deal with this, but my alternative is increased help to Iraq in terms of economic aid and military training (Certainly not American troops on the ground, not for now).

[Deus Naturae]

Wait, so this isn't a Declaration of War? What constitutional authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Since I'm not going to be the next SoEA, I'll have more freedom to be cold blooded and say somethings that I feel... The Iraqi Government and its Armed Forces may be filled of corruption, it maybe not as democratic as we wanted and it may not be the best promoter of democracy in the Middle East, still its a much more stable, reliable and trustable regime than the possible ISIS fundamentalist failed state that is growing. Hence, we shall not have any fear of helping the current Iraqi Government with this situation.

Prime Minister and General Zebari has asked for our help and he is trying to bring more unity for its troops. He is not fighting that war because he wants a Sectarian War, he is fighting that war because he wants that stability and a minimal unity rules over Iraq and that is what I think that should be our target over this issue. I'm pleased of Lumine's Activism because I strongly believe that courageous action is needed. As Riley pointed out, although I disagree in other topics of the same text, ISIS is getting stronger and the chances are big that it creates a strong failed state in the region. The peace that we were bringing with the Israel-Palestine Agreement and the engagement with all the countries of the Middle East that we were aiming will be destroyed if we are lenient and complacent with ISIS.

That's why I'm suggesting technical support, strategical support and the usage of drones. I also believe that we should use our aerial capabilities to harm the ISIS forces and give support to Zebari troops and to the Iranian troops that are helping in ground.  Does Iraqi Sectarianism worry me? Off course but this is not the proper reason to deny helping them. Iraq can have our support to tackle ISIS and it can also have our support to create a more united nation, a more united government and better relations between Sunni and Shia muslims in the region.

Regarding Syria, I wouldn't mind tackling the ISIS capabilities on that region. I believe that it's better to have those stable and undemocratic governments than to have a big and failed terrorist state. Unfortunately, the time for helping the Free Syrian Army is over and now it's time to do this sad but necessary "damage control" of our actions. Bashar Al-Assad is terrible but ISIS is also a horrible option.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Wait, so this isn't a Declaration of War? What constitutional authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war?

The problem is this: our Constitution does not tell us how to deal with that specific situation. ISIS is not a nation, it is a terrorist organization. However, the Duke Administration and its allies on the Senate are concerned with folks like you that will try to sue any military action taken by the Atlasian Government over other countries. Hence, we decided to create this bill to provide us with the necessary legal approval to take our actions. I wouldn't mind calling this a Declaration of War but this is obviously not a traditional Declaration of War. An amendment is needed on that matter but this amendment is easily achievable. Moreover, I'm fine to setting up the objectives of that mission since Averroes Nix gave that idea. My personal objective is to destroy ISIS but we can discuss with our Senators...

[Lumine]

I thank Superique for his comments and his support and I stand by them. I think I will also look into reforming the powers of the Senate and the President in a later amendment just to we don't have to deal with Constitutional dilemmas like this. In the meantime, I insist that this is the best road ahead, this is not the time for doing nothing once again.

How is this a good starting point for promoting liberal democracy in the Middle East? Both ISIS and the groups with which it is in conflict are functionally non-democratic. I had forgotten about the military coup in Iraq, but this only reinforces my point. There is no reason to believe that the spread of democracy in the Middle East is a plausible consequence of this intervention.

Our policy goals for the region should be stability and avoiding the hatred of its residents. (You acknowledge this yourself in your answers.)  I do not object to intervening with those outcomes as our guide. But we need a better strategy than one in which the first step is dropping bombs and the second one is a series of question marks.

The Senate should ask the GM for information first rather than assuming this is the case. IRL most of the insurgents have occupied populated areas.

This is a reasonable objective, but how will we achieve it without ground forces? Will we work with the same military that fled poorly-equipped insurgents whom they outnumbered ten to one?

The trouble with this framing is that the Senate is not voting on who will control northern Iraq; it is only deciding whether to aid one side in the hope that this will bring about the retreat of ISIS. If this were a guaranteed consequence of this action, I would support it. But it is not, and we ought to establish its likelihood prior to reaching a decision.

Under what circumstances should we commit troops?

I do acknowledge it, stability is key here, and I remain convinced by evidence and events that ISIS is a force that could be much more detrimental to stability in the Middle East than Atlasia using drones to contain them. They will not stop with Iraq and Syria, they have plans to expand. You may very well argue that they don't have the capabilities to launch major offensives or take over entire nations, but look at what's going on in Iraq. The mere intervention of ISIS in other conflicts could make things much worse for us and for our allies in the region, which is why I have marked them as the enemy. I'm not a fan of using authoritarian people to defeat other authoritarian people, but as flawed as Iraqi democracy is, it's still democracy, and it's still a thousand times more liberal and more reasonable than religious extremists focused on killing their enemies.

I believe we can count on Iraqi military forces as well, air power makes a hell of a difference and another bill soon to be discussed involved military aid for them, which is bound to help. Since I have a committment to go and help Iraq, it's either Atlasian troops or Iraqi troops, which is why I prefer to use them. I have no intentions of sending Atlasian troops there unless the country completely collapses, and even in that case it's a big if that I will have to properly analyze. So far, this is about military and intelligence aid and the use of drones.

[Deus Naturae]

Wait, so this isn't a Declaration of War? What constitutional authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war?

The problem is this: our Constitution does not tell us how to deal with that specific situation. ISIS is not a nation, it is a terrorist organization. However, the Duke Administration and its allies on the Senate are concerned with folks like you that will try to sue any military action taken by the Atlasian Government over other countries. Hence, we decided to create this bill to provide us with the necessary legal approval to take our actions. I wouldn't mind calling this a Declaration of War but this is obviously not a traditional Declaration of War. An amendment is needed on that matter but this amendment is easily achievable. Moreover, I'm fine to setting up the objectives of that mission since Averroes Nix gave that idea. My personal objective is to destroy ISIS but we can discuss with our Senators...

So you admit that this "authorization of force" is unconstitutional and requires a constitutional amendment, yet you support it anyway?

[Sec. of State Superique]

Wait, so this isn't a Declaration of War? What constitutional authority does the Senate have to "authorize force" without declaring war?

The problem is this: our Constitution does not tell us how to deal with that specific situation. ISIS is not a nation, it is a terrorist organization. However, the Duke Administration and its allies on the Senate are concerned with folks like you that will try to sue any military action taken by the Atlasian Government over other countries. Hence, we decided to create this bill to provide us with the necessary legal approval to take our actions. I wouldn't mind calling this a Declaration of War but this is obviously not a traditional Declaration of War. An amendment is needed on that matter but this amendment is easily achievable. Moreover, I'm fine to setting up the objectives of that mission since Averroes Nix gave that idea. My personal objective is to destroy ISIS but we can discuss with our Senators...

So you admit that this "authorization of force" is unconstitutional and requires a constitutional amendment, yet you support it anyway?

LOL... I was saying to ammend the current text of the Authorization of Force and make it a declaration of War.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I urge the Senate to reject any resolution that declares war.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What exactly is meant by the recommendation for "aerial support"?