Ben Quayle on War & Peace

Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.

The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy:
1. The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
2. The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
3. 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.

1. The President's justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
2. US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
3. Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
4. Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
5. The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
6. The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
7. The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.

Voted NO 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:
1. by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
2. 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:
[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.

Supports a continued presence in Afghanistan.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 16% did so in the 2010 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'International Policy Issues: Do you support United States military action in Afghanistan?'

No contact & enforce sanctions on Iran until threat is gone.

Congressional Summary:

1. Iran Energy Sanctions: Compelling Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and other threatening activities can be achieved most effectively through full implementation of all enacted sanctions. Declares that it is US policy to deny Iran the ability to support acts of foreign terrorist organizations and develop unconventional weapons.
2. Iran Freedom Support: States that specified sanctions regarding Iran shall remain in effect until the President certifies to Congress that the government of Iran has dismantled its nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons, and ballistic missile development programs; and ceased its support for international terrorism.
3. Iran Regime and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Accountability: Prohibits any US person from knowingly conducting any commercial transaction with any IRGC-owned entity or any foreign entity that conducts any transaction with the IRGC.
4. Iran Financial Sanctions: Divestment from Certain Companies that Invest in Iran; and Prevention of Diversion of Certain Goods, Services, and Technologies to Iran.

Opponent's Comments (Robert Naiman on Huffington Post, Dec. 13, 2011):This bill would restore as policy the "Cooties Doctrine" of the early Bush Administration--US officials can't meet with officials of the adversary, because our officials might get contaminated. It seems highly doubtful that the provision is constitutional, since it tries to micromanage the executive branch in its conduct of foreign affairs. But putting the legal issuesaside, isn't the logic of this provision completely counter to the argument that we voted for in Nov. 2008: that it's ok--indeed, it is wise, prudent, and preferable--for the US to be able to talk to its adversaries?

Result: Bill passed the House on Dec. 15, 2011, by a vote of 410-11 (rollcall vote #927). Referred to Senate, where there was no vote before adjournment.

Counter Iran's growing presence in Latin America.

Congressional Summary:A BILL: To provide for a comprehensive strategy to use all elements of national power to counter Iran's growing presence and hostile activity in the Western Hemisphere.

Congress finds the following:
• Iran is pursuing cooperation with Latin American countries by signing economic and security agreements in order to create a network of diplomatic and economic relationships to lessen the blow of international sanctions and oppose Western attempts to constrict its ambitions.
• According to the Department of Defense, Iranian government agencies were involved in some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past two decades, including the 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, by supporting the groups that actually executed the attacks.
• Reports since the early 1990s suggest direct Iranian government support of Hezbollah activities in the Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, and in the past decade, Iran has built 17 cultural centers in Latin America.
• Iran has used its proxies in Latin America to raise revenues through illicit activities, including drug and arms trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering, forging travel documents, pirating software and music, and providing haven and assistance to other terrorists transiting the region.

Rep Jeff Duncan's Sponsor comments:Congress has spent trillions of dollars for military operations in the war on terror, yet we have neglected to protect ourselves from the threat that looms just beyond our own borders. We know that Iran has been building diplomatic, economic, and security relationships with Latin American countries for years. The US possesses vital political, economic, and security interests in the Western Hemisphere. I am concerned that our nation's vulnerability to this growing threat on our Southern border is not being adequately addressed."