Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun May 22, 2011 6:50 pm

MSimon wrote:
NATO and Europe are my particular bette noire
Ramstein is important as a support base for our kinetic adventure in the ME.

[snip]

What is the old saw?

Amateurs study battles, professionals study logistics.

I've read it as: "Amateurs study tactics, enthusiasts study strategy and professionals study logistics." Are you referring to me?

Ramstein AB is the current replacement for Rhein-Main AB which was co-located with the large civilian airport. If the U.S. left NATO and Deutschland decides to end the lease on Ramstein, perhaps the Poles would oblige, or another. Lots of good foreign exchange and business opportunties from having a large US base on your soil. Lots of problems, too.

Oh, don't forget the large hospital at Landstuhl and...and...

Before I left after the end of the Cold War, an German acquaintance asked if I thought the U.S. would leave Deutschland. I answered, "No." I still think the answer is "No." But that doesn't meaning I think "No" is the correct answer.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:04 pm

We are not leaving Stuttgart any time soon. And Ramstein is not far away.

The current truth regarding professional military officers is that one needs to study operational art and design which includes Operational Sustainment, as well as the other Functions, C2, Fires, Intel, M2 and Protection. These all underpin the considerations for factors of Time, Space and Force.
You can not focus to one area, as all have play.
Operational War is arguably the heart of the matter, as it lays between strategy and tactics, but with the caveat that there is always a give and take between them. That is normally called the "Strategic Corporal".

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:34 pm

ladajo wrote: The current truth regarding professional military officers is that one needs to study...

[Snip]

You can not focus to one area, as all have play.

My favorite quotations are from T. E. Lawrence:

"...When I took a decision, or adopted an alternative, it was after studying every relevant - and many an irrelevant - factor. Geography, tribal structure, religion, social customs language, appetites, standards - all were at my finger-ends. The enemy I knew almost like my own side. I risked myself among them a hundred times, to learn."

And:

"So please, if you see me that way and agree with me, do use me as a text to preach for more study of books and history, a greater seriousness in military art. With 2,000 years of examples behind us we have no excuse, when fighting, for not fighting well. "

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon May 23, 2011 8:18 am

rjaypeters,

So you want to leave Germany but Poland would be an acceptable alternative?

I don't think I understand your point.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Mon May 23, 2011 10:30 am

I want the United States to leave NATO as I believe it has outlived its usefulness to the United States. I wish the Europeans well, they may keep NATO if they wish.

I don't want to leave behind the logistics facilities which exist, mostly because of the costs involved and disruption entailed in changing locations and existing arrangements. I do want the combat forces and headquarters personnel to be re-assigned.

However, if the U.S. left NATO and the Deutsch (and others) found a continuing U.S. presence unacceptable, other arrangements can be made. Sure, it would be costly and disruptive, but doable. The State Department and DoD know lots about Status of Forces agreements.

But don't worry, what I want matters not one whit. Momentum of the political kind will conspire to keep the U.S. in NATO, well, probably forever. Machiavelli had something to say about change and how hard it is to bring it about...

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Mon May 23, 2011 11:22 am

President Obama answers Congress:

"White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... autho.html

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon May 23, 2011 9:40 pm

rjaypeters wrote:President Obama answers Congress:

"White House on War Powers Deadline: 'Limited' US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... autho.html

Well he does have a point - sorta. Compare fighting piracy vs fighting Libya. At what point between those two does it cross the line?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon May 23, 2011 9:40 pm

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think."

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Mon May 23, 2011 9:45 pm

"or the horse may learn to sing!"

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Tue May 24, 2011 10:55 am

The Illegal War in Libya By Glenn Greenwald

Does President Obama want to create an imperial Presidency? It sure looks like it. Vice-President Cheney must be smiling.

Quote: "When President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval (even though, to use his words, it did "not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"), the administration and its defenders claimed he had legal authority to do so for two reasons: (1) the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) authorizes the President to wage war for 60 days without Congress, and (2) the "time-limited, well defined and discrete" nature of the mission meant that it was not really a "war" under the Constitution (Deputy NSA Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Obama OLC). Those claims were specious from the start, but are unquestionably inapplicable now.

From the start, the WPR provided no such authority. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's why Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman -- in an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Obama's Unconstitutional War" -- wrote when the war started that the "The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing" and that "in taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

This article links to: Obama's Unconstitutional War
By unilaterally going to war against Libya, Obama is bringing America closer to the imperial presidency than Bush ever did. BY BRUCE ACKERMAN

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... r?page=0,0

bcglorf · Post by **bcglorf** » Tue May 24, 2011 9:05 pm

By unilaterally going to war against Libya, Obama is bringing America closer to the imperial presidency than Bush ever did.

By just exactly what measure is participation in a UN approved action in Libya unilateral action and Bush's war in Iraq NOT unilateral?

I support both actions for the record. I don't think it's fair for America to be the one always stuck doing the dirty work of fighting genocidal dictators abroad, but I am very glad that they are.

If Saddam's main threat to America was his willingness to support and co-operate with terrorists and pursuit of WMD programs, surely Gadhafi meets that bar? Pakistani made nuclear centrifuges bought by Gadhafi are sitting on American soil right now. His history of support for terrorists is unquestioned. Oh, and he was on the verge of executing a genocide too, if that counts at all in ones assessment.

I'm very glad Obama supported the Libyan action, I just wish he'd get off the cursed fence on more global issues already. The president of the USA doesn't get to say "I can see both sides have valid points" when America's enemies and allies are squaring off against each other. It emboldens your enemies and weakens your alliances, and it's Clinton all over again.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Tue May 24, 2011 10:17 pm

bcglorf wrote:By just exactly what measure is participation in a UN approved action in Libya unilateral action and Bush's war in Iraq NOT unilateral?

Quote: "When President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval..."

Emphasis mine.

President Bush sought and got Congressional approval. President Obama's actions against Libya are unilateral from the perspective of the separation of powers listed in the Constitution and further clarified in the War Powers Resolution.

bcglorf wrote:I don't think it's fair for America to be the one always stuck doing the dirty work of fighting genocidal dictators abroad, but I am very glad that they are.

Any one else you'd care to nominate?

bcglorf wrote:If Saddam's main threat to America was his willingness to support and co-operate with terrorists and pursuit of WMD programs, surely Gadhafi meets that bar?

Cooperate with terrorists? Oh, yeah, he certainly did, the record is clear. But recently? I don't know.

Mr. Gaddafi gave up his WMD programs after the United States attacked Iraq the second time, IIRC. So, no, Mr. Gaddafi does not meet the WMD standard, now. Once upon a time he did. Why was he not attacked and removed from office before? The work was certainly worth doing.

A problem I have with attacking the dictators of the world is there is no end to the mission. Where would you have the U.S. military stop? Where would you draw the line, above here, he's out; below this line, we won't attack?

Then there is the matter of resources. At the end of the Cold War it was noted the United States could do anything, being the sole super-power. It was also noted the United States could not do everything. Since the United States is not done disentangling itself from Iraq and Afghanistan, we read about how the U.S. military is stretched.

Finally, General Powell is quoted as saying: "If you break it, you own it." What of the people, possibly not involved in the former regime's evils, who must live with the aftermath of regime-change? Should the conqueror just ignore the humanitarian disaster likely after a military conquest?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed May 25, 2011 12:22 am

Mr. Gaddafi gave up his WMD programs after the United States attacked Iraq the second time, IIRC.

Not true.
He gave up his program because he was cornered with exposure. The man is all about having an immortal legacy. Anything that threatens the immortal legacy is a primary threat.

Look up the saga of the M/V BBC China. That is why Gaddaffi gave up his weapons program.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Wed May 25, 2011 2:10 am

ladajo wrote:Not true.
He gave up his program because he was cornered with exposure. The man is all about having an immortal legacy. Anything that threatens the immortal legacy is a primary threat.

Look up the saga of the M/V BBC China. That is why Gaddaffi gave up his weapons program.

I won't argue the causal factors, because I don't even know why I do some things. I'm just remembering the order of events. Do I have that wrong?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed May 25, 2011 3:43 am

ladajo,

Is this what you mean?

http://www.acheraviation.com/?m=3&s=2&idkey=568