well and good, but that smells like a military pact which needs ratification by the Senate if we are to be obligated by treaty.
not there aren’t reasons to act against Iran, but the executive can’t just obligate us by itself in such a way with such a precedent.
after all it could well be Nicaragua next time an i wouldn’t want to be sending our sons and treasure fighting for the sandinistas.
This is an unusual commitment, or pledge or whatever it is. The Congress seems to be promising, in advance, to commit American military forces in support of an ally, should that ally choose to launch an attack on an adversary. Ordinarily, mutual military treaties commit one party or both to come to the defense of the other, if the other party is attacked by an adversary.
The language here seems vague, but it could reasonably be interpreted as pledging - in advance - that US troops will be deployed on behalf of another country, if that country decides to go to war. So the decision to send US troops into war - under this interpretation - is vested in the leaders of another country.
Is this really a promise that should be embraced with no debate? Nearly every Republican member of the Senate has signed off, without any discussion of the implications that I have heard. Is this truly responsible - and truly consistent with their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution?