Kyrsten Sinema on War & Peace

2003: Led multiple protests against Iraq War

MCSALLY: Well, it's her words. It's totally out of step with American values.

Q: Sinema says this talk show host was going off presenting all kinds of hypothetical ideas, and she was just trying to shut him down and get back to the fact that she opposed the Iraq War, which was just about to start in 2003.

MCSALLY: This is a pattern from my opponent. Right after 9/11, Kyrsten Sinema was protesting any military action against terrorists. She was protesting later in a pink tutu. She was leading multiple protests, handing out flyers at her protest depicting American soldiers as skeletons and saying we are the ones conducting terror in the Middle East. Very much against our military.

2002: Bush's movement to wage war in Iraq was unjustified

Within a few days, President Bush had made statements that I felt polarized our world and pushed away those who sought to join us in grieving. As he began to talk about war, a small group of Phoenicians began to organize. The group started meeting regularly, and we eventually formed a coalition called Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice. Our reason for existence was simple: to advocate for a diplomatic solution to the problems facing us and prevent, as much as possible, any war that would hurt civilians and the innocent. While we very strongly supported efforts to find and root out terrorism, we were worried that President Bush's movement to wage war in Iraq was unjustified, based on false information, and bad for our country and our world.

Opposes combat operations in Afghanistan.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Afghanistan: Do you support United States' combat operations in Afghanistan?'

Aid the Syrian opposition with training & equipment.

Congressional Summary: H Amdt 1141 authorizes training and equipping appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition; requires detailed reports (including progress reports) on the plan, vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end-use of provided training and equipment; and permits the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign contributions.

Statement in support by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA-25): I offer an amendment to HJ.124 to provide authority to train and equip elements of the Syrian opposition in order to defend the Syrian people from attacks by ISIL and to protect the US and our friends and allies. ISIL is a clear and present threat to our allies across the Middle East and to the US. The President has requested the authority to train and equip nongovernmental entities fighting in the non-U.S.-led operation in Syria. There is no doubt that any strategy to defeat ISIL must contain a Syrian component. I believe that there are options to defeat ISIL in Syria short of a major U.S.-led combat operation. But the window of opportunity is closing.

Statement in opposition by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY-13): I don't see where the President needs authority to do what we are about to allow him to do because of a threat to the US. I haven't come close, in convincing [myself or my constituents] that training people overseas, that we don't know, to fight ISIS is in their best national interest. Already we have lost trillions of dollars and over 6,000 lives in this area, and I don't think we have yet to declare war. This honorable body [should] determine whether or not any enemy is a threat to the US and that we are going to go to war with them, that we should force every American to evaluate whether or not they believe that they are prepared to make sacrifices.

Legislative outcome: Amendment passed House 273-156-9 on 17-Sep-2014.

Ground troops plus drone strikes to destroy ISIL.

The strategy to destroy ISIL shall include the following elements:
• An update on the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL and specific actions being taken to destroy and eliminate ISIL.
• A strategy for the deployment of United States military assets, including ground combat forces, to train and equip allies, as well as potential direct confrontation with ISIL fighters and its affiliates.
• A strategy for airstrikes and drone strikes in Iraq and Syria against ISIL senior leaders and infrastructure, as well as the viability of the use of airstrikes in conjunction with regional partners that face a significant threat from ISIL and its affiliates.
• A plan to strengthen the capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Jordanian Armed Forces, the Afghanistan Security Forces, and others to counter gains by ISIL and its affiliates.
• A plan to provide humanitarian assistance and relief, governance, and rule of law to regions previously impacted by ISIL and its affiliates.
• Prevention of a reconstitution of ISIL or its affiliates in the region.
• Use of social media and other communication technologies to counter ISIL’s propaganda, influence, and ability to recruit fighters domestically and internationally.

No military force against Iran without Congress approval.

Axios.com summary: The House passed a symbolic war powers resolution directing President Trump to halt the use of military force against Iran unless he obtains approval from Congress.

The big picture: A classified briefing on the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani [by the US military] left Democrats and even some Republicans deeply skeptical, with many claiming that officials did not provide evidence that there was an "imminent" threat from Iran. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said they will vote in favor of a similar resolution in the Senate [S J Res 68].

What opponents are saying: Former national security adviser and notorious Iran hawk John Bolton tweeted: "The 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress. The Resolution should be repealed." Pres. Trump quote tweeted Bolton and added: "Smart analysis, I fully agree!"

What supporters are saying: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was one of the few Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, stating on the House floor: "Killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation that would block funding for offensive military force against Iran without congressional authorization. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) is also seeking to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used repeatedly to justify war in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in 2001, criticizing it as a "blank check."

Legislative outcome: H Con Res 83 Passed House 224-194-13 on 1/9/20; S J Res 68 passed Senate 55-45-0 on 2/13/20. Vetoed 5/6; Senate veto override failed 5/7/20.