[Alberta's Child]

I'm not letting them off the hook. I'm saying they were wrong. What I am saying is I don't want to rehash that, it does no good and is a pointless debate exercise. We should be concentrating on the situation in 2018. I can't change what Congress should have done in 2014 or 2015.

And it's not a requirement per the constitution. The Constitution says in Artile 1 Section 8 that the Congress has the power to delare war. It doesn't tell them how to do it. However they do it, they should vote on it and be accountable for their votes. If they are smart they put the objectives in the bill so they can hold the President to it.

It's not a question of "rehashing it," and it's ludicrous to just carry on as if nothing is wrong simply because it wasn't done right in the first place.

LEGAL DEFINITION OF WAR DECLARATION: "A declaration of war is an act of national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between U.S. and some other nation. This power is vested in Congress by U.S. Constitution. For declaration of war no ceremony is necessary except passage of the act."

Without a war declaration you are living in a dictatorship where the President has the unfettered authority to exert U.S. military power wherever he damn well pleases. Please tell me where that preposterous attitude belongs anywhere in the mind of a conservative. In addition, you'll note that a declaration of war involves an act of Congress to establish the legal basis of a hostile relationship between the U.S. and another nation. None of this is warfare in any legal context. This is the U.S. taking sides in a civil war in some Third World sh!t-hole.

You know that Obama wanted out of Iraq. The Iraqis wanted anywhere from 10,000 - 20,000 troops to stay in the new SOFA agreement. Obama offered somewhere around 3,500 which was a joke. Maliki knew this would do nothing and he had to look elsewhere for his support and cut the U.S. loose. Obama got to say, hey I tried they didn't want us there and he got what he wanted, troop pullout.

Obama wanted out of Iraq? Sure. I also know that BUSH wanted out of Iraq. And his signature appears on a November 2008 Status of Forces Agreement to prove it. Stop the revisionist history here. Obama withdrew the final U.S. combat troops before the end of 2011 because they no longer had any right to be there. Iraq had a new government and constitution by that time, which meant the U.S. military could not operate as an occupying force in Iraqi territory anymore. Obama got their asses out of there because everyone in the executive branch of the U.S. government with an IQ over 50 told him that a U.S. soldier can no longer operate in a foreign country whose government insisted that these people must be subject to Iraqi law, not the U.S. Code of Military Justice.

Go back to my previous comment about the legalities of war. Those legalities actually mean something.

You are taking my words out of context. I said those 2,000 troops are there to eliminate the last pocket of ISIS resistance, protect and finish training our Kurdish allies and put a check on Iran and ensure they get out. If Iran stayed there, that would destabilize the region eventually. With the Turkey, Russian, Iranian talks going on right now and the Kurds starting to eliminate those last ISIS members, I imagine we could have pulled them out sometime next year. It's like we spiked the ball on the five yard line before going in for a touchdown.

A better analogy would be that we spiked the ball on the field before going in for a touchdown, when everyone in the stands finally figured out that the game they are watching is baseball, not football. The game is over. Trump gave Mattis a year and a half to convince him that he knew what the hell he was doing in Syria, and the troops are leaving because it's obvious he didn't. Mattis was a football coach, not a baseball manager.

It's all a moot point now as the news is out that Saudi and UAE are sending troops in to protect the Kurds and assist them. This is good news and will ensure our national interest objectives are met.

None of which, in fact, is a "national interest" at all.

Syria was in a civil war and gassing it's own people. They had no control over the areas we are in and ISIS claimed itself as a sovereign state there. You could say we weren't going into Syria but the ISIS caliphate. They had large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Iraq wanted us in and after ISIS fled into Syria do you think they would just stay there if we don't go after them? To use your metaphor, if a robber comes in your house and you manage to chase him out and kill one of his friends, they might come back. You're gonna want to ensure that never happens.

Syria has been in a state of civil war for decades. What changed in the last few years?

A better analogy is that a robber breaks into your neighbor's house, and you manage to chase him out and kill one of his friends. When the neighbor comes home, YOU don't tell HIM when you're leaving. You get your ass out the door as soon as he asks you to leave. He might even have a beer with you if you help him bury the body in the back yard.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"It's not a question of "rehashing it," and it's ludicrous to just carry on as if nothing is wrong simply because it wasn't done right in the first place."

For the purposes of what we do now in December 2018, yes it is not worth rehashing what happened 3 - 4 years ago. I know how we got into this situation and agree with you on it. The President should have got a declaration/authorization put forth in Congress, Congress should have debated it and Congress should have voted on it. This is good for a debate society but will not fix the problems we have in December 2018 which is what I'm concerned about. This is like having a discussion on how to fix the Social Security problems we have today by continuously harping on the fact that FDR should have never created it in the first place. Fine, I agree with you. But arguing about what happened in 1936 is not going to resolve the SSN problems we have in 2018.

"LEGAL DEFINITION OF WAR DECLARATION"

Can you share with me where in the Constitution or a Supreme Court Case ruling (which would be binding because of Marbury vs. Madison) that this paragraph is to bind us by law? The Constitution that I've read only says:

"The Congress shall have Power"
And then goes on to list all of the powers we the people give to Congress. One of them is:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Someday perhaps I'll get a letter of Marque from them. I'll start my career as a Pirate. But the one part of this that everyone overblows is those first three words, 'To declare War'. It doesn't tell Congress how to do it. It doesn't say any of what you wrote, it says 'To declare War'. I believe in the constitution, therefore I believe that Congress can declare war however they want, by Declaration of War, or by granting the President the use of authorization of Force. Unless you can share with me somewhere in the Constitution, a Supreme Court precedent or even something from the Federalist papers where the founding Fathers specifically binded the lawmakers/executive to the 'LEGAL DEFINITION OF WAR DECLARATION' you are incorrect and doing what the left does all the time. Reading into the laws what is not there.

"Obama got their asses out of there because everyone in the executive branch of the U.S. government with an IQ over 50 told him that a U.S. soldier can no longer operate in a foreign country whose government insisted that these people must be subject to Iraqi law, not the U.S. Code of Military Justice"

This was all negotiations and a poison pill. The Iraqi government offered that after Obama said he was only going to have 3,500 troops stay. That's when Al Malaki knew that Obama wasn't serious. It was a way for both of them to get out of it. Was it in the previous SOFA agreement in 2008? No and it was the same Prime Minister. What changed? The President and his aims. The SOFA agreement was signed in 2008 with the full intention at the time of renewing it in 2012. It had an end date because unlike other SOFAs that last for 50 years we knew that the mission would change in 2012 and therefore a new SOFA was needed.

"Syria has been in a state of civil war for decades. What changed in the last few years?"

Simply not true. Syria has been in civil war since the Arab uprising in 2011. That's 7 years. Heck, the old man Haffez was our ally in the first Gulf War! You might be thinking of Lebanon that was in civil war for decades. It started in 1975 and I got to go through courtesy of Uncle Sam in 1983. Their's ended in 1990 or 1991 and the bad guys won. It's basically run by Iran. It's really sad because before the war as I understand it was a lovely place and huge tourist destination. I specifically remember as a kid in Middle School reading about the middle east and the textbook calling Lebanon the Jewel of the Middle East. As for what changed? In a word, ISIS's caliphate.

Well, we are really rehashing old ground now and have both made our good points. We probably won't come to an agreement on why our troops need to be in Syria a little longer and it's a moot point now since the Gulf States seem to be taking up our mission and it will be accomplishing our objectives. I think our basic point of disagreement comes down to this. I still believe that the post WWII world order matters. After the war our country was forced into the position of leadership of the free world. There have been no world wars since then. We have kept the worlds waterways free and open for the transit of world trade. Under our umbrella, the free world has made the most amazing technological, social and economic changes. I think if we were to retreat and abdicate, we risk all of that and more death and misery. Where it's in our National Interests we should be involved militarily if that is the last choice. Eliminating ISIS's caliphate was/is in our national interest. For the rest of the worlds problems that are not in our national interests we should intervene using our other national instruments of power where possible (Diplomatic,Informational and Economic). Thank you.