I'm watching Pompeo on Meet the Press right now and it shouldn't raise any confidence. It seems pretty clear that this is a political decision considering how many shots he's taken at the Obama Administration. This whole thing started because Trump and many members of the GOP couldn't stand that the previous Administration had a treaty.
as the link @fchowd0311 provided explains, the previous Administration had an executive agreement, not a treaty: The pact, established during the tenure of President Barack Obama, is an executive agreement, not a treaty, which means it isn’t formally approved by Congress. Republicans oppose the deal and question its legality.
Seems like a good excuse to go down the rabbit hole that leads to war. Executive agreements have already been deemed Constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Pink (1942), held that international executive agreements validly made have the same legal status as treaties and did not require Senate approval. Also, in Reid v. Covert (1957), while reaffirming the president’s ability to enter into executive agreements, the court held that such agreements cannot contradict existing federal law or the Constitution. The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the president to inform the Senate within 60 days of any executive agreement being made. No restriction was placed on presidential powers to make such agreements. The notification requirement enabled Congress to vote to cancel an executive agreement, or to refuse to fund its implementation. At the end of the day, it was a policy disagreement between Trump and the GOP against the Democrats and Obama. The take the Trump administration had is what is leading to another potential long drawn out proxy war or at worst another regime change going up against the world's 13th largest military. They could have simply agreed with Obama's executive agreement. But they didn't because Obama did it. Your excuse is irellevent.
also I should say I appreciated your posting that summary at USA Today, I thought it was clear and very helpful to have it organized in such a way in one place
reminder that when the trump admin decided to get out of the way for the Turks invasion in Syria and attacks on the Kurds, they repositioned the troop to Iraq to continue the fight against Isis from there. next up - Saudi Arabia ? Talking about a coherent chaos plan.
This is not an intended consequence of the Trump administration. They literally just deployed multiple infantry battalions of 3000 troops just a few days ago. The worst case scenario is the administration just ignoring the current Iraqi government's wishes and essentially invading Iraq again. The best case scenario is that hat Trump agrees and just leaves. But I doubt that given the amount of investment we have put into the region.
the move to Saudi Arabia was a joke. Unintended consequences is a hallmark of this admin. Iraqi gov still need to approve Iraqi parliament. Only downside from here concerning the fight against Isis.
Honestly, if this is the move that will avoid another decade long ultra violent proxy war that costs the US trillions and American lives, I'm all for agreeing with the Iraqi government, and moving out. It's the best course of action to ease tensions. Defense contractors might be pissed though. I really hope Trump abides by whatever the Iraqi government agrees to.
thats my whole thing, he made withdrawing and not having anything to do in the region so important that he turned his back on the kurds. WTF did you think was gonna happen in vacuum like that? Basically creates this environment and then does this crap
I think there should be a balance. Special ops should be officially allowed and maybe that’s what the negotiation will be about - we get out but we can maintain a special ops inside. And if this admin want to do this, fine. But then they should actually do it and not continue the proxy and public fight against Iran. You know that’s not going to happen. Faces got to look tough. There is no coherent strategy other than maybe to undo what previous admins did.
I strongly oppose standing troops staying in Iraq and Afghanistan but being completely kicked out by the Iraq government and losing their support for good is a massive loss to American interests. If we need to operate in the region to go after ISIS or other terrorist targets we will have far fewer abilities to do so... at least legally where we won’t be able to do so without overthrowing their government AGAIN which is always an option for the GOP. The bigger issue is that this puts Iran and Russia as now likely the two most influential military forces in the region. Those here who are pro oil/anti climate change should be quite pissed at this. This is terrible news for the GOP who are backed by the fossil fuel industry. To me, this creates what should be a moonshot initiative in our government to have the US dominate the clean energy industry. However I don’t see that happening unfortunately which means almost all of our partnerships rely on the Saudis and Israel. Two administrations who do not reflect the values of most Americans. Iraq was a massive failure in nation state building in our image. The GOP had complete control from the onset and thought it should be a libertarian experiment of corporate greed... basically what they want the US to be, and that failed massively. What a foreign policy disaster. Also there’s no indication we still aren’t heading into a much more hot war just because the Iraqis are kicking us out, or making it illegal for us to be there. I think it makes war much more likely actually.
he knows better. He is pleasing a president that doesn’t understand or know bound. I said we seen this before - the danger is trump will act on it. These people are as responsible for not doing what they know to be right for short term political gain. It’s the fire that keep burning larger until one day there isn’t anything else to burn.
