BILL NO: 20140427-NO001 – Bill to Authorize U.S. Military Forces in Ukraine
Revised: 5/16/14. All changes are underlined and highlighted in red.
PURPOSE: To address the threat posed to the United States and its European allies by Russia’s recent incursion into Ukraine.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION: Authorizes the President to send U.S. military forces into Ukraine, subject to Ukraine’s approval, to stop Russia’s advance into the country.
FACTS:
- Ukraine is recognized by most countries as a sovereign nation.
- Ukraine is situated between Russia and Europe.
- Russia has recently established a military presence, including thousands of troops, in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine.
- Many European countries are heavily dependent upon Russian oil and trade.
PROS:
- Establishing a U.S. military presence in Ukraine will send a very strong message to Russia that its behavior is totally unacceptable, and is a very demonstrative show of support for the U.S.’ European allies.
- History has shown that incursions such as Russia’s into Crimea, often lead to full-scale military invasions of a country.
- Sending military forces is a show of strength that will help the U.S. maintain its reputation as a world power.
CONS:
- After very lengthy and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. public may not support sending troops so soon to another potential combat zone.
- A military presence in Ukraine would require a huge funding commitment, which may be particularly difficult in lieu of the Defense Department cuts required under sequestration.
- While establishing a U.S. military presence in Ukraine would show support for our European allies, it could escalate tensions in the region and possibly result in Russia reducing the amount of oil it provides Europe and its trade with Europe. This could have major implications for the global economy.
- U.S. military involvement in Ukraine could trigger a world war.
DETAILS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
- In support of diplomatic efforts, authorizes the President to send military forces to Ukraine to stop Russia’s incursion into the country.
- The term “military forces” includes all branches of the military.
- Rules of engagement for these forces will be developed.
- The U.S will only use conventional weapons, and will not use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
- For the time in which U.S. military forces are in Ukraine, the President will report to Congress annually on the diplomatic and military progress that has been made in getting Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine.
- U.S. forces will leave Ukraine upon Russian forces leaving the country.
YOUR VOTE:
If you have not read the tab “How To Play” please do. As a reminder, you are an elected Senate or House Representative assigned to this committee. It is your responsibility to represent your hypothetical constituency and the values espoused by them and your party hypothetical of choice. [Help?]
Straw Vote as of 5/20/14
YOUR TURN TO PLAY:
Again, please review “How To Play” if you need help. Now that you made your Straw Vote, it is your turn as your role of elected individual assigned to this committee, to decide what changes are needed. Begin by reviewing all of the latest comments offered by your fellow players. If none were posted as of yet, or after your review of comments that exist today, you are to offer your own recommendations to add, modify, or delete content in the Bill Sections of: PURPOSE, FACTS, PROS, CONS, or DETAILS. Additional comments in support of those who may have already made suggestions you like can be added consistent to your values or political viewpoints and those of the pretend constituency and party of choice.
The Bill Sponsor will review all comments and recommendations modify the Proposed Legislation and a new round of play for this legislation will begin noted on the Legislative Calendar and Up-Coming Events. [Sequence of Play]
Please proceed to the Comments Area.
We Legislate 
Cons:
1. Passing this Bill might cause World War III.
2. Americans will not want to send more forces into another region given the burdon of our over deployed troops and support personel.
Pros:
1. This will confirm our resolve to stop Putins bullying of the world.
DETAILS to be amended:
1. Offer a supervised referendum election of East Ukraine with 5 observers from Russia, US, Asia, Europe, South America and Africa for possible establishment of a new independent country. If conflict results then proceed with Item 2 below.
2. After signed agreements with all of the EU, key allies in Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East, after current diplomatic efforts fail, the President is authorized to send military forces to Ukraine to stop Russia’s incursion into the country, without the use of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons. No incursions to other countries beyond a 10 mile perimeter.
Great Idea and I would encourage the Sponsor to include your details
I agree with the two details which maybe amended.
Details 1 and 2 might be feasible; however I believe that, in view of the failed so-called “wars” that the US has engaged in during the recent past, e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and that have been proven pointless and based on false premises, no US military personnel should be put in harm’s way without an express and definitive Congressional Declaration of War. This will prevent presidents from continuing to engage in conflicts of opportunity and will require congress to adhere to its constitutional mandate.
I disagree with the suggested amended detail #1. It could encourage citizens of other countries to rebel in an effort to secede from their country, with the hope their new country would be recognized by the international community. I agree with including a reference in the bill to no use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Disagree with the other 2 parts of #2.
I stand torn at the moment, however:
-World War III is certainly a huge and imperative con, so I certainly agree with that as an addition.
-A pro suggestion is that having a military presence may reduce the chance of spreading a bit.
-Also, I read up about the Budapest Memorandum and that shed some light on the issue. Others may find it helpful to understand.
Thanks for supporting this. Please feel free to add comments to the other pieces of legislation
After the tragic, unnecessary, and failed so-called “wars” in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is madness to trust any president with any further military “misadventures.” US presidents will vary rarely admit mistakes, especially when it comes to “wars” of opportunity, and even with careful guidelines in place as in the proposed bill. Presidents lie as a matter of course and policy, and should not be trusted when it comes to the life of even a single member of the US military. As I stated in a previous comment to this proposed bill, if an issue is important enough for US military to be involved, it is important enough for Congress to get off its duff and declare war instead of passing the buck to a President.
If the US were to intervene, more people will hate us especially if our soldiers or our drones cause accidental civilian deaths. So I ask the sponsor not to add your suggested pro.
I am against this bill all the way. Even with our allies so close to Ukraine, would it be wise to send in more troops to stop another invasion that technically doesn’t have much to do with us anyway. The public would not support it, and sending in forces against what the public thinks could cause a lot of uproar and possibly a mutiny.
The way I look at it is, would it be our allies’ responsibility to send in troops to, say, Guatemala or Nicaragua if a foreign power invaded them? It seems a bit hasty to want to intervene so early when it hasn’t affected us personally; especially with our current intervention history.
We’ve been in enough wars and have too much of a standing army around the world as it is. Time to cut back our troops and let the rest of the world step it up for once.
Agreed. Cutting back is something that is much needed! Some support from other countries would be extremely beneficial.