Obama Wants Congressional Authorization for Unlimited War
by Stephen Lendman
What do you call a nation permanently at war with invented enemies? An asylum run by lunatics.
They infest Washington. Many influence policies. Others make it. Obama already risks the unthinkable. Possible war with Russia.
Using Ukraine as a dagger at its heartland. Positioning thousands of US-led NATO troops near its borders. Recklessly risking nuclear war.
Daily events should scare everyone. "NATO Boosts Rapid Reaction Strike Force For War With Russia," Stop NATO headlined
Claiming growing threats doesn't wash. Invented ones stoke fear-mongering. Provoking Russia irresponsibly risks the unthinkable.
America and Israel alone threaten world peace and stability. Go-along NATO partners share blame.
Positioning their forces in so-called "front line" states near Russia's borders risks serious trouble.
On February 5, The New Times featured an AP report
headlined "Obama Poised to Ask Congress for New War Authorization."
Allegedly to fight IS terrorists. A pretext for unconstrained war his discretion. Against any designated adversary.
With almost certain congressional support once both sides of the aisle agree on language.
A previous article suggested possible US boots on the ground in Donbas. Maybe Obama plans bombing rebels.
Given continued anti-Russian policies, direct confronting looms increasingly possible. Maybe a major false flag away.
AP said House Speaker John Boehner said it's up to Obama to rally public support for his agenda.
"His actions are going to be an important part of trying for us to get the votes to actually pass an authorization," he claimed.
"This is not going to be an easy lift." White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is committed to getting bipartisan support. Even though he believes he can do what he wants with or without congressional authorization.
At the same time, he claims fighting America's enemies "sends a very powerful signal to the American people, to our allies, and even to our enemies, that the United States of America is united behind (a) strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL" or other designated adversaries, said Earnest.
"That across branches of government and even across political parties, even in this divided time in our nation's political history, at least, that Democrats and Republicans are committed to this very important task."
According to AP, Earnest declined to explain how long a war authorization will last. What geographical areas will it cover.
Will US ground forces be involved? Party leaders are discussing details, said AP.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said talks focus on a three-year timeframe. Easily extended if agreed on.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement," said Pelosi. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
Thursday developments followed video footage showing Jordanian warplane pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh's immolation. Hypocritically used to arouse public anger. A typical Washington stunt.
Pelosi urged increased US military aid for Jordan. Hawks dominate Republican ranks.
Most Democrats support them. Duopoly power endorses permanent wars. Expect broad authorization for use of military force to follow.
"I have always believed that when it comes to fighting a war that Congress should not tie the president's hands," said Boehner.
John Kerry told Senate Armed Services Committee members earlier that any new war authorization shouldn't be restricted to Iraq and Syria alone.
Or prevent Obama from using ground forces wherever he wishes to send them. A House Democrat aide said lawmakers were told to expect Obama's request next week.
Try recalling when Congress ever opposed a president's request for authorization to use military force?
The only time in recent memory was in 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War. Obama claims he can wage war at his own discretion.
International and constitutional law explain otherwise. WW II was America's last legal war.
Current US direct and proxy wars are lawless. Without congressional objection. Or mass public opposition.
Things now head perilously closer to direct US/Russia confrontation. Ukraine represents a hugely dangerous flashpoint.
Washington continues getting increasingly more involved. Granting Obama virtual carte blanche war-making authority risks far greater conflict than against IS alone.
Full-scale US involvement in Ukraine may be one major false flag away. Both sides agreed to a temporary Debaltsevo ceasefire to let civilians leave the embattled area.
Junta forces are surrounded. Effectively defeated. Civilian de facto human shields are their only protection.
Rebel forces restrained their firepower to minimize civilian casualties. Imagine a possible scenario.
Civilian convoys leave Debaltsevo. Perhaps accompanied by OSCE representatives. Assuming they're safe under ceasefire conditions.
Junta forces renege like after Geneva and Minsk. Launch a major false flag attack. Perhaps causing hundreds of casualties. Falsely blamed on rebels.
Obama uses it as a pretext for greater US involvement. Maybe deploying US troops on the ground. Or bombing rebel positions.
How will Russia react? Will it do nothing while US involvement in war rages on its border?
Knowing it's Washington's real target. Ukraine is a pretext for long sought regime change in Moscow. How much will Putin permit before acting in Russia's defense?
He and Medvedev aided America's Afghan war. Permitted Libya to be ravaged and destroyed. Did nothing against Iraq wars II an III.
Perhaps won't intervene to help Syria if push comes to shove. What will it take to get Putin's attention? To get him to act decisively. A red line he won't let be crossed.
America is no partner. It's a dangerous, ruthless, unprincipled adversary.
Stopping at nothing to achieve its aims. Including marginalizing, containing, weakening, isolating, and ultimately toppling Russia's government.
Obama wants unconstrained congressional authorization for war. Fighting IS is the pretext. Syria, Donbas and Russia are the targets.
Unchallenged US dominance the objective. Permanent dirty wars without mercy won't stop until achieved. Russia and China are the only world powers able to confront Washington effectively.
Especially united against a common threat. It's high time they acted in their own self-defense. Decisively short of military confrontation.
A Final Comment
Kiev long ago proved it can't be trusted. It violated earlier agreed on peace initiatives. Straightaway it spurned agreed on temporary Debaltsevo ceasefire terms.
reported "Russian journalists including (its own) crew" fired on near Debaltsevo. They were reporting on civilians being evacuated.
According to Rossiya TV correspondent Artyom Kol:
"We became witnesses to the fighting which started during evacuation of civilians from the village of Cheernukhino."
"We weren't hurt, but a Chernukhino resident received a leg injury. He is now" hospitalized.
RT correspondents Roman Kosarev and Anna Knishenko were close to where Debaltsevo civilians were to leave by bus. Junta forces attacked the area.
A text message sent RT said: "We got under fire. All safe. Hiding." Connection to its journalists was then lost.
On February 6, ceasefire began at 9:00AM local time. A corridor was agreed on for civilian evacuations.
To last three days so everyone wanting to leave could do so. Transportation provided for residents needing it.
It bears repeating what other articles stressed. Washington wants war, not peace. So do Kiev putschists.
Expect escalated conflict ahead. The risk of greater war remains huge.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.