Frontpage

03/10/2010 - Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (left) and Defense Minister of Afghanistan Abdul Rahim Wardak are escorted by Commanding General, Combined Training Advisory Group Brig. Gen. Simon Levey during a visit to the Combined Fielding Center at Camp Blackhorse, Afghanistan, on March 10, 2010. Photo: DoD, Cherie Cullen.

HOUSE CALLS FOR REMOVAL OF US TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN

TheWeekInCongress.com - March 10, 2010 - The House agreed 225 to 195 to HCR 248, a concurrent resolution directing the President to withdraw US military troops from Afghanistan. The resolution, that must be agreed to by the Senate, would require the withdrawal within 30 days but offers an extension to December 31, 2010 if the President determines the withdrawal cannot be safely done.

HCR 248 invokes Section 5c of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a legislative action of the 93rd Congress in 1973 attempting to diminish any president's power to commit troops to war. As most presidents resist such restrictions the constitutionality of the resolution remains undetermined.

Troops were committed to Afghanistan with congressional approval shortly after the 911 attacks. That approval does not necessarily trump section 5c of the WPR.

Floor debate was divided. Supporters of the resolution who question if the history of other country's unsuccessful attempts to occupy Afghanistan is an indicator that the US, too, will spend years, money, and lives to the same end. Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) said, "We are bogged down amidst a longstanding civil war between feuding Afghans of differing tribes, classes, and regions whose goals have little to do with our own. Moreover, our very presence in Afghanistan has fueled the rising insurgency and emboldened those who oppose foreign intervention or occupation of any kind, who see us as foreign invaders."

Resolution sponsor Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) explained his reasons for the resolution, "in 2001 I joined the House in voting for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In the past 8 1/2 years, it has become clear that the Authorization for Use of Military Force is being interpreted as carte blanche for circumventing Congress' role as a coequal branch of government" adding "Regardless of your support or opposition to the war in Afghanistan, this is going to be the first opportunity to evaluate critically where the Authorization for Use of Military Force has taken us in the last 8 1/2 years."

Those who opposed the resolution held that progress is being made through President Obama's strategies and that Afghanistan and Pakistan have become the center of the US War on Terror.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), citing signs of areas won and cleared of Taliban control, said that the President's December strategy to commit an additional 30,000 troops was showing signs of success. "Even with just a fraction of these reinforcements in place, we already see signs of success," he said and warned, "If we vote to pull out now and abandon those Afghans who have only recently been freed from the Taliban, I have no doubt that the Taliban would be able to reestablish their hold on southern Afghanistan, if not the entire country. "

Focusing on the Kucinich's purpose for the resolution, supporter Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said, "This war started 9 years ago. It's about time we talked about it."

"The war was started and justified by quoting and using the war powers resolution written in 1973." Paul said. "Yet that resolution in itself was unconstitutional because it literally legalized war for 90 days without Congressional approval...so here we are, the 90-day permission for war at that time now is close to 9 years," Paul said. He added, "But I want to quote the first line of the resolution passed back in 2001, explaining the purpose for giving the President the power, which was an illegal transfer of power to the President to pursue war at will. It said, ``To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.'' The Taliban didn't launch an attack against the United States. The Government of Afghanistan didn't launch it. "

But Paul's position on the 2001 authorization was countered by Rep Gary Ackerman (D-NY), ". It says, quote, ``That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.''

Kucinich summarized his position, " So the war powers resolution is properly the subject of a debate and properly serves as a vehicle to bring this debate to the House of Representatives, and we don't need to cede our right under article I, section 8 at any time to determine whether or not we go to war. This is clearly a constitutional issue...Our Founders said in order to restrain the dog of war, they would put the ability to declare war in the legislative branch. They were very clear about that....Remember, the War Powers Act specifically was mentioned in the resolution that was passed on September 14, 2001. It was not superseded. And I might add that while I voted for the authorization for the use of military force because I believe America has a right to defend herself, I didn't give any President carte blanche to go and carry or prosecute a war wherever he or she, in the future, determines necessary."

HCR 248 bill report and votes

Congressional Research Service Report on War Powers Resolution

The War Powers Resolution.

No reproduction, language translation or distribution of all website content without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

Bills Direct debt relief for Haiti; Aim at Harmful Algae; Increase Bankruptcy judges.

Relief for Haiti

US weight to be levied on international lenders.

HR 4527

Algae Scourge Challenged

Programs to center on countering coastal and estuary algae blooms.

HR 3650

Stable of Bankruptcy Judges Increased

The number of bankruptcy judges will be increased in 13 states.

HR 4506

The House and Senate are in session.