President Fatally Admits Combat Malfeasance

The President has implicitly admitted that he's using combat troops in a reckless manner. Only Congress has the power to raise and support an army.

When the President uses combat troops outside what Congress alone has the power to support, the President has engaged in malfeasance: Not effectively managing the resources he has been given.

The President may not credibly assert that his failed planning and reckless combat results are evidence that Congress should or shold not do something. Congress is not required to give the President anything; the President has the sole duty and obligation to ensure he properly manages the troops and resources he has, not point to dubious plans, or assert Congress cannot question his malfeasance.

* * *

Ref The President does not have the power to deploy troops where the troops are insufficiently trained or equipped; or not prepared to do the mission.

Only Congress has the power to raise and support an Army. WHere the President uses combat troops that are not adequately supported, the President has maladministered the finite combat resources only Congress has the power to provide.

* * *

The President, in asserting that he has made a decision to do something related to using non-prepared combat troops for missions they are not designed to engage [that of fighting a combined insurgency-civil war], the President has fatally admitted that he is making a decision to enagage in malfeasance. This is not a defense, but a fatal defense. Either the President knows the missinos is not a winnable miltary one; or he is delusional in his belief that combat forces can contain something that is not a combat problem: CIvil war-insurgency.

* * *

There is no evidence the President's deployment is linked with a credible plan; nor that the President has vetted this plan with military experts.

Congerss has every power and right to question what is not a bonafide plan, but an assertion of a solution. Asserting someone has a plan is differnt than credibly showing Congress has a workable plan; or assenting to Cnogressional review for that flawed plan.

Indeed, many are correctly questioning and condemning an option which is not linked with a credible plan.

That defeat might be a disaster is no shield to prevent that disaster from happening.

Asserting that the plan "must work" is not evidence that the plan is workable.

Telling a general to, in effect, "make the problems go away" is not leadership nor a plan, but a wish inviting Congressional concern.

Protecging teh troops means ensuring they are only deployed where Congress alone has decided they will or will not be supported.

Once the President uses troops beyond what Congress alone decides they will be supported, the President has engaged in malfeasance and reckless use of combat forces.