Utah Veterans Democratic Caucus

Secretary Hegseth needs to explain exactly what he meant when he said “no quarter." It's well established that it means to take no prisoners — to kill them instead of accept their surrender. That is illegal under U.S. and international law, would put our servicemembers at greater risk, and erodes the good order and discipline of the best military in the world. My letter to the Secretary of Defense:

MARINES FOR THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ? Now, Trump wants just 2,500 Marines, likely to seize the Islands in the Strait of Hormuz, They are 2 weeks away at the fastest. The problem is that Middle East Force commanders gamed this out 40 years ago and estimated we'd need 6,000 Marines plus all equipment spread across multiple Islands. The plan was to first take Larak, Hormuz and Qeshem (the Shark shape- one)/Hengam to box in Bandar Abbas. Break through the denied SOH then small landing parties to raid, Greater/Lesser Tumb, Abu Musa, Sirri, and then Kish. It would have a HUGE, detectable signature. Why didn't we do this in 1988 when they tried to sink our ships with mines? BC IT WOULD BE THE USA INVADING IRAN. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian Rev Guard and Basji would come out and bombard/suicide attack these islands from the mountains that hover over them. Also, resupply would be from UAE/Qatar bases, which will get hit again. They may not agree to do it. Then that means a supply chain that would have to come through a hotly contested SOH!? Madness. The MEU would have to launch Assault craft/LAVs/Hovercraft from off east of the Mussandam peninsula under view of the Iranian mountains, under fire from Shaeds, submarine drones, drone suicide boats or the mines we have not detected in the SOH. We don't have enough tracked amphibious armor, LCU landing craft or LCAC-100 Hovercraft to bring in the right size force to the beach ... and that force would be bombarded and suicide drones day and night. If the Pentagon would deign to bring the Expeditionary Sea Base ship from Italy to the Indian Ocean, SOF at least would have a secure platform ... but no movement so far. Add in the silly proposal of having the 82nd parachute jump into islands. If the IRGC wants it would have the makings of an American Battle of Hostemel. All of this is a STUPID concept that appears to be a hasty clean-up for lack of planning. BECAUSE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE MONTH AGO!

Seeing some confusion about numbers and roles related to the Marine Corps deployment in the news today. Here's a crack at explaining. This deployment appears to include: -- A Marine expeditionary unit, a foundational force for the Marine Corps that typically deploys on ships but also go ashore as needed. The U.S. has deployed MEUs in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. A MEU typically has an infantry battalion, an aviation unit with jets and helicopters, and a logistics component. In this case, it's the 31st MEU from Okinawa, Japan. The infantry battalion training with this MEU is 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, of Camp Pendleton. They are assigned on a rotational basis. Total number of personnel in the full MEU: About 2,200 to 2,400. - The Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group, the Navy complement to the same task force. Its leadership is aboard an amphibious assault ship by the same name. Its personnel will be spread across the USS Tripoli and two other vessels (in this case, USS San Diego and USS New Orleans). Navy personnel in an ARG typically number about 2,000, though it can vary. Counting the Marines, that's 4,200 to 4,400 total additional deployers. They work hand-in-hand. - Some are saying this deployment isn't that significant because MEUs are "always" in the Middle East. While that often was the case over the last 25 years, it's way less common now due to both a shortage of amphibious ships dating back several years and the Trump administration more recently prioritizing South America. - Reality is, this particular MEU typically moves through the Pacific. There will be at least a short-term MEU "gap" there now. - This unit, and others like it, train for a wide array of missions. Unclear if something specific is in mind here, or if the Pentagon simply wants more "optionality" available for what might develop with Iran.

Trump: "Mark Kelly is not a smart man. He's terrible. What he said is terrible about leadership. Leadership. Follow him. You follow him into a grave. He's terrible. He's a pathetic guy. But they're pathetic."

Hegseth: No quarter, no mercy for our enemies. Yet some in the press just can't stop. More fake news from CNN reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the strait of hormuz. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.

We've lost 13 Americans in less than two weeks of this war. These are sons, daughters, and parents. The American people deserve to know why our country rushed into another war without a strategy or a goal.

Hegseth: No quarter, no mercy for our enemies. Yet some in the press just can't stop. More fake news from CNN reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the strait of hormuz. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.

Trump: The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties — that often happens in war.

The paid grifters, partisan hacks, and bots are out in force—misleading people about the Constitution and the law—to defend Trump’s unconstitutional war. Here’s an important Iran war PSA: Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1550), it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60–90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours. Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly: “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress’s approval) offensive military action. The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress’s express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress’s approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans. It’s for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there’s an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account. The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the “power to repel sudden attacks” but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack. The fact that previous presidents have violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution does not—and cannot—change the law or make any present military action lawful.