Hacker News Reader

Comment by seatac76 | Hacker News Reader

If Dems win next time around they should repeal the AUMF at the very least. We cannot be at war at all times.

The problem is that "being at war" isn't really the problem, it's a symptom. A lawless and destabilized gulf region is the result of incomplete and inneffective military action, and in a darkly hilarious way is only treatable by more whack-a-mole warfare.

It wasn't a war we could win. We fought it anyway. Now we're stuck trying to lose in a tolerable way. Which requires more fighting.

At some point the balance will tip and China will take over patronage of the right selection of powers to push us out, which will disentangle western involvement (and make it their problem, of course). But at this stage there really is no hope for genuine stability.

One of the best solutions would have been doing what we can to get off oil.

Luckily, we reversed that policy and have been using as much oil as possible.

All hail the great barrel of goo.

well duh... oil companies dude. You think those executives are going to accept declining profits?

While it is hard to say, all signs point to China not wanting to take over. That isn't to say they could, but China seems content to rule their corner of the world and let the US rule the ocean. (their corner includes Taiwan which the US is not content to allow China to rule)

People talk disparagingly about the US acting as world police but maybe we need something like a real world police that follows agreed laws and avoids violence where possible.

Welcome to the quintessential problem of human society. There is no "god police" coming to save us.

I was thinking more Peelian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles) though not quite sure how you apply that to stopping Russia vs Ukraine or Iran vs Saudi proxies.

There is no AUMF, and I believe Congress already repealed previous ones?

I thought the remaining issues were a dispute related to the timing requirements in the War Powers Resolution, plus unsettled Constitutional law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

The 2001 AUMF hasn't been repealed. It was used as recently as 2025 to justify attacks on Venezuelan ships.

Which is completely insane. The Venezuelan ship attacks have zero to do with what force was authorized for. The AUMF was for the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Were people on the boats in Venezuela? No. Then it's not force authorized by that AUMF.

But Trump found a smokescreen to hide behind. And Congress is too spineless to impeach him for unauthorized use of military force. And here we are.

It was 1991 and 2002 AUMFs that were repealed in December 2025. I appreciate the correction.

(That said, the 2001 AUMF hasn't been invoked against Iran.)

I think USA has not been at war like less than 5 years in total since its creation.

source: https://www.raffaellocortina.it/scheda-libro/piergiorgio-odi...

I don't have the book here with me so I cannot check the exact amount of years but it's ridiculously small.

Do please tell me what years we were at war between Vietnam and Desert Storm...

Kosovo and Grenada, to name two.

but to suggest the country was 'generally at war' in that stretch of time is ridiculous

Why do you put quote marks around something I didn't write?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...

Plenty to consider there

Reply on news.ycombinator.com