Jim McGovern on War & Peace
Democratic Representative (MA-3)
Switching Afghan generals? "Same menu, different waiter"
The McChrystal affair [in which the General commanding all US forces in Afghanistan had his war assessment report leaked] brought to the fore the larger question of how the US was doing in
Afghanistan and how long the war would last. In Congress, liberal Democrats threatened to hold up further appropriations for Afghanistan. Speaking of the change from Gen. McChrystal to Gen. Petraeus,
Massachusetts representative Jim McGovern quipped, "Same menu, different waiter." From the political right, libertarian congressman Ron Paul said, "That McChrystal thing is just a symptom of what we won't face up to, which is that
[Afghanistan] is a totally failed policy. If we were on the verge of a great success, do you think we'd fire the general?"
Source: The Obamians, by James Mann, p.223
, Jun 14, 2012
OpEd: Time to just quit and go home in Afghanistan
One of West's two colleagues on the trip was a Democrat, Jim McGovern of MA. McGovern, West believed, "went over with a preconceived notion, and nothing was really going to change it--that we just need to quit, and go home. He doesn't care about
success." West did. He believed that the US needed at minimum to maintain its troop strength in Afghanistan. He also believed that victory in that country was impossible unless America also dealt with Pakistan.
Source: Do Not Ask What Good We Do, by Robert Draper, p.189
, Apr 24, 2012
Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.
RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy: The President shall transmit a report describing in detail US security interests and objectives, and the activities of US Armed Forces, in Libya since March 19, 2011, including a description of the following:
- The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
- The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
- The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the US Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the US States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.
Reference: Resolution on Libya;
; vote number 11-HV410
on Jun 3, 2011
- The President's
justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
- US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
- Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
- Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
- The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
- The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
- The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.
Voted YES on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.
Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:
- by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
- if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Kucinich, D-OH]:The American people oppose this war by a margin of two to one. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say the war isn't worth fighting. We are spending $100 billion per year on this war. There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay.
The counterintelligence strategy of General Petraeus is an abysmal failure, and it needs to be called as such.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
Reference: Resolution on Afghanistan;
; vote number 11-HV193
on Mar 17, 2011
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation's security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.
Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This vote is on referring the impeachment resolution to a Congressional Committee to decide further action (not on impeachment itself).
Congressional Summary: Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for committing the following abuses of power:
Proponents' arguments for voting YEA: Rep. Kucinich: Now is the time for this Congress to examine the actions that led us into this war, just as we must work to bring our troops home. This resolution is a very serious matter and I urge the Committee on Judiciary to investigate and carefully consider this resolution.
- Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
- Article VI & VIII--Invading Iraq in Violation of H.J. Res. 114, the U.N. Charter and International Criminal Law
- Article X--Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
- Article XI--Establishment of Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq
- Article XII--Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
- Article XVII--Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both US Citizens and Foreign Captives
- Article XXIV--Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the
- Article XXVI--Announcing the Intent To Violate Laws With Signing Statements, and Violating Those Laws
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz: Impeachment is a lengthy process which would divide Congress and this nation even more deeply than we are divided right now. Referring this resolution to the House Judiciary Committee is the constitutionally appropriate process that should be pursued.
Rep. Ron Paul: I rise, reluctantly, in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
Reference: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution;
; vote number 2008-401
on Jun 11, 2008
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.
To provide for the redeployment of US Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. Requires within 90 days to commence the redeployment; and to complete such redeployment within 180 days after its commencement. Prohibits the use of DOD funds to increase the number of US forces serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, unless specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizes retaining in Iraq US forces for providing security for diplomatic missions; for targeting al-Qaeda; and for training Iraqi Security Forces. Requires the President to transfer to the government of Iraq all interest held by the US in any military facility in Iraq.
Proponents support voting YES because:
This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people.
It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.
Reference: Out of Iraq Caucus bill;
Bill H R 2237
; vote number 2007-330
on May 10, 2007
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
Voting YES would support the following resolution (excerpted):
- Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
- Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
- Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
Reference: Resolution on Prevailing in the Global War on Terror;
Bill HRES 861
; vote number 2006-288
on Jun 12, 2006
- Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;
- Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
- Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of
the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
- Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops.
States that the House of Representatives:
Reference: War in Iraq Anniversary resolution;
Bill H Res 557
; vote number 2004-64
on Mar 17, 2004
- affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
- commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
- commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
- commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq: Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the US military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It would be required that the president report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomatic options or other peaceful means would not guarantee US national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of UN resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution would also give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. Every 60 days the president would also be required to report to Congress on actions related to the resolution.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Hastert,R-IL;
; vote number 2002-455
on Oct 10, 2002
Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.
Vote on an amendment to the "Kosovo and Southwest Asia Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act" which would prohibit the use of funds for any invasion of Yugoslavia with U.S. ground forces except in time of war.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Istook, R-OK;
Bill HR 1664
; vote number 1999-119
on May 6, 1999
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.
McGovern co-sponsored the Resolution on bigotry against Sikh Americans:
Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR255 on Oct 4, 2001
- Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
- Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.
Member of the Out-of-Iraq Congressional Caucus.
McGovern is a member the Out-of-Iraq Congressional Caucus
The Out of Iraq Caucus was created in June 2005 to unite members of the House in favor of returning American troops from Iraq. The group's chair, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the following when announcing its formation:
"The Out of Iraq Congressional Working Group is a newly formed effort whose sole purpose is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our efforts will include the coordination of activities and legislation designed to achieve our goal of returning our troops home. Through floor statements, press conferences, TV and radio appearances and other actions, we will provide leadership for the American Public who has been waiting too long for our collective voices against the war."
In a speech on the floor of the House shortly after the group's first meeting, Waters emphasized that the group was not calling for an exit from Iraq on any specific date. Rather, she said it more generally opposed a continued U.S. presence in the country. Waters promised that the caucus would do the following towards this aim:
Source: Out-of-Iraq Caucus website 07-OIC0 on Jan 23, 2007
- Provide support to other members of Congress and caucuses who wish to leave Iraq.
- Provide support to citizens and organized national groups who wish to leave Iraq.
- Organize workshops and seminars for the purpose of encouraging an exit from Iraq.
- Travel across the country to explain the rationale for their position.
- Be available to meet with the families of service members who have been killed or injured in Iraq.
Terminate funding for Iraq War on Dec. 31, 2011.
McGovern signed Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act
A BILL: To prohibit the use of funds to maintain United States Armed Forces and military contractors in Iraq after December 31, 2011.
Congress makes the following findings:
- The Agreement Between the US and the Republic of Iraq states that the deadline for withdrawal of US Armed Forces from Iraq is December 31, 2011.
- The American people support the withdrawal of US Armed Forces from Iraq by the agreed upon deadline of December 31, 2011, and during the campaign of then presidential candidate Barack Obama, the President stated that he would end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.
- It is estimated that the US will save tens of billions of dollars by bringing all US Armed Forces and military contractors safely home from Iraq by the agreed upon deadline of December 31, 2011.
Leaving US Armed Forces in Iraq beyond the deadline is not in US security interests, strategic interests, and economic interests.
STATEMENTS OF POLICY:
Source: H.R.2757 11-HR2757 on Aug 1, 2011
- It is the policy of the US to withdraw all US Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
- No funds may be used to maintain US Armed Forces or military contractors in Iraq after December 31, 2011.
- No funds may be used to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of US Armed Forces in Iraq.
- No funds may be used to exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq.
- Exceptions: shall not apply to the use of funds for US Armed Forces for protection of the US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.
Intervene in Iraq to protect persecuted Christians.
McGovern signed Relief to Nineveh Plain of Iraq
Calling for urgent international intervention on behalf of Iraqi civilians facing a dire humanitarian crisis in the Nineveh Plain region of Iraq.
Whereas recent extremist attacks have had a particularly severe effect on ethnic and religious minority communities in the region;
- Whereas the UN Security Council on July22, 2014 denounced the persecution of Iraqi Christians, including Yazidis and Mandeans;
- Whereas reports indicate that some 150,000 Iraqi people in the Nineveh Plain region are now facing ethnic and religious cleansing and have been targeted for retribution by ISIS;
- Resolved that Congress--
- Condemns the religious bigotry, property destruction, and violent attacks on, and intimidation of, Iraqi civilians by armed extremists.
- Calls upon the government of Iraq to protect the safety and constitutional rights of all Iraqi citizens.
- Calls on the President, Secretary of State, and the Permanent Representative to the
UN to implement a humanitarian intervention to protect civilians, stabilize the security situation in the Nineveh Plain region of Iraq, and facilitate humanitarian assistance in the Kurdistan region to help absorb the influx of refugees.
Argument in opposition: (by The Christian Post)
ISIS has asked minorities to flee, convert to Islam, or be killed. H.Con. Res. 110 makes it a priority to protect Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and create safe havens for them. Yazidis are viewed by the ISIS as "devil worshipers."
Argument in opposition: (by Baltimore Nonviolence Center, July 26, 2014)
[We're seeking] action to keep us from sliding back to war in Iraq. On July 25, the House passed H. Con. Res. 105, the proposal to keep U.S. troops out of Iraq, by an overwhelming vote of 370-40. By passing the Iraq War Powers Resolution, Congress made clear that they stand with the American public, who do not want to go back to war in Iraq.
Source: H.C.R.110 14_HCR110 on Jul 24, 2014
Work with Iraqi government to fight ISIL.
McGovern signed Resolution on ISIL
RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the current situation in Iraq and the urgent need to protect religious minorities from persecution from the Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) as it expands its control over areas in northwestern Iraq.Whereas ISIL has a stated mission of establishing an Islamic state and a caliphate across the Levant through violence against Shiites, non-Muslims, and unsupportive Sunnis;Resolved, That the House of Representatives--calls on the US Department of State to work with the Kurdistan Regional Government, the Iraqi central government, neighboring countries, the diaspora community in the US, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to help secure safe havens for those claiming amnesty in Iraq; andrequests the addition of a Special Representative for Religious Minorities to [the Iraqi] government.
Reporting pro & con by Politico.com, Sept. 17, 2014:
Secretary of State John Kerry said arming the moderate opposition in Syria was the "best counterweight" against ISIL and emphasized to lawmakers: "ISIL must be defeated. Period." However, "US ground troops will not be sent into combat in this conflict," Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Instead, they will support Iraq forces on the ground as they fight for their country."
Protesters from the anti-war group Code Pink stood up, held signs and chanted "No more war!" Kerry turned his attention to the protesters, and told them that while he was sympathetic to their opposition to war, if they believed in the broader mission of Code Pink, "then you ought to care about fighting ISIL." Stressing that the Islamic State was "killing and raping and mutilating women" and "making a mockery of a peaceful religion," Kerry told the protesters: "There is no negotiation with ISIL."
Source: H.RES.683 14_HRes683 on Jul 24, 2014
Page last updated: Feb 03, 2017