Read Time:3 Minute, 36 Second

PICTURED: U.S. Senator Rand Paul speaking with attendees at the 2015 Iowa Growth & Opportunity Party. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore. CC 2.0.

WASHINGTON D.C., December 10th, 2020. Libertarian-leaning Senator Rand Paul (R – KY) has held up passage of the Senate version of the annual Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $740 billion plus add-ons bill funding the armed forces.

Paul’s objection is based on the strict conditions imposed on President Trump for pulling troops out of Afghanistan, what could be the last significant act of his presidency, that were added to the bill after a debacle in September when anonymous sources from an anonymous intelligence agency told the Washington Post that Russian agents were paying bounties to the Taliban for American soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

These measures were swiftly imposed in the House version of the NDAA by the hawkish daughter of former-Vice President Dick Cheney and were passed in a veto-proof bill, even after intelligence and military chiefs testified before Congress that they had been aware of the claims since February, but considered them of low confidence.

Pentagon staff at the time reported that no American GIs had been killed by the Taliban in 2020, and that the intelligence gathered to suggest these claims were little more than hearsay.

The measures Paul opposed state that reports must be made to Congress, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence agencies on how each progressive withdrawal of troops, from 3,200 to 2,000 slated for January, as well as similar reductions in Iraq, would effect American counter terrorism measures and negotiating power with the Taliban.

Senator Paul filibustered an attempted passage of the Senate bill on Thursday, claiming that: “They (the bill’s supporters) believe that a president has the power to go to war anywhere anytime. But when a president tries to remove troops, they say ‘Oh no no. What we really want are 535 generals in Congress to tell him he can’t leave a war”.

Shutdown in a lockdown

The tactic is typical Paul, who has deeply Libertarian sentiments but few allies in Congress. Reporting from Politico notes several previous examples of Paul using deadlines and filibusters to make up for the lack of small government voices in Congress.

Without funding past Friday, the government would shutdown in a lockdown, delaying other priorities for Congress such as a sequel to the CARES Act. Paul’s maneuvering would be withdrawn, he said, if GOP leaders allowed for a final vote of the NDAA on Monday, allowing Senate to go through procedure, and to give an opportunity for the reporting provision to be potentially removed.

War-loving Republicans and Democrats alike have been interested in ways to keep America’s longest war going since Trump announced that Washington, Kabul, and the Taliban would spend the year trying to make peace.

For all the brouhaha over the bounty story, the Taliban have fought harder this year than in any since Trump took charge, while their demands have remained largely unchanged — all foreign forces must leave. Furthermore, Taliban and Kabul have been making progress in determining what Afghanistan looks like post-conflict.

“(The Taliban) for its part is fully prepared and committed to resolving the issues through negotiations,” said Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, deputy leader of the Taliban, according to Tolo News, while Kabul negotiators said a ceasefire was their highest priority in yet another round of peace negotiations which have been progressing since December 1st.

In an adaptation of his speech on the floor published at the Quincy Institute, Senator Paul quotes Liz and Dick Cheney, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, James Inhofe, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and others as noting that the idea of having “535 generals in Congress” is absurd and unacceptable.

“But the moment a President advocates to end war or lessen overseas troop deployments, he or she must be shackled by 535 generals,” he concluded.

Donate

If you think the stories you’ve just read were worth a few dollars, consider donating here to our modest $500-a-year administration costs.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter