| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama’s push for military authorization to fight ISIS won’t go anywhere in Congress, and why. |
| 2016-07-18 |
| Sunday night was just the most recent example this year of President Obama asking Congress to authorize his use of military force to fight the Islamic State. Obama has been calling for Congress to get behind his limited military action in Iraq and Syria for more than a year now; he even sent a draft of an authorization of use of military force — or AUMF in D.C. parlance — over to Congress back in February. There are some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who agree with Obama that Congress needs to vote one way or the other. It's the legislative branch's constitutional duty, they say. But the president's draft is collecting dust on Capitol Hill, and his pleas are falling on party leaders whose minds are already made up not to act. That's because lawmakers have little to gain but plenty to lose by voting on whether to authorize military force that is, oh by the way, already underway and progressing with or without their say-so. Here are three big reasons why: 1. Both sides have something to dislike about it. Should the U.S. only focus on taking out Islamic State? What about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? Is what Obama wants too expansive or too narrow? Bringing up an AUMF for a vote would most certainly invite a messy debate about expiration dates, boots on the ground, drones, the legacy of the Iraq War — all without the guarantee anything would get passed. In other words, even as Congress seems to be okay with Obama's actual use of force, coming up with a specific use of force resolution that assuages concerns of and satisfies both sides would be a difficult trick. 2. Who wins the White House in 11 months is very much an open-ended question, and that's a disincentive for both parties to avoid this whole AUMF debate. For Democrats, what good is handing over authority to engage in Iraq and Syria if the next president is a Republican? For Republicans, what good is it giving Obama wide latitude to fight terrorism when their presidential candidates are on the campaign trail every day criticizing the president's effectiveness? With just 40 percent of the public approving of Obama's handling of terrorism of late, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in the days after the attacks in Paris, Republicans have a solid political argument to make for why they should be in the White House. A Republican Congress voting to expand Obama's powers to fight the Islamic State might deflate that and/or change the course of an issue that isn't helping his party. And as the threat of the Islamic State constantly evolves, it can be tough to predict what powers a president might need. Will we need to engage on the home front? Expand outside Iraq and Syria? Will we need to have this debate all over again and get a new AUMF in a year or two? There are just too many uncertainties for a Congress that doesn't cope well with them. 3. There's no immediacy. It'd be nice, Obama has said — and repeated Sunday from his office — to have a renewed AUMF. But it's also not necessary. Obama and his cabinet officials have argued they already have the authority to conduct air strikes and send in special forces in non-combat roles based on a 2001 AUMF enacted in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Having a new one wouldn't change their plans, the Obama administration has said. Sure, passing an AUMF would put them on a marginally better legal and political footing in the future. But the real reason the administration wants it is to send a message to the world that the U.S. is united in defeating the Islamic State." That's hardly a bad thing. But the problem with that argument is that Congress acts best — or, one could argue, acts at all — when it's under pressure. It's how the 2001 AUMF and another authorization of force in Iraq a year later both got passed; President George W. Bush argued engaging abroad were matters of imminent national security. This time around, a president arguing 'it'd be nice, but isn't necessary' isn't exactly the motivator Congress needs to take a vote on a politically troublesome and uncertain authorization of use of military force. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #7 Champ is asking for permission? Then it's a political stunt. Nothing more. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2016-07-18 11:06 |
| #6 I don't recall the Russians giving the Germans any way out of Stalingrad. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-07-18 10:17 |
| #5 Sun Tzu was referring to surrounding and destroying. Unfortunately destruction of the enemy does not appear to be the goal. "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century BCE. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-07-18 09:49 |
| #4 Does anybody see the irony of fighting ISIS in Syria while allowing ISIS members to immigrate to Europe and America? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2016-07-18 09:41 |
| #3 Sorry wrong thread. Oh well, appears to fit here as well. Come to think of it, it fits with the domestic cop shootings also. Just modify 'Islamic' to... well you know. I'll just reduce the font to save space, and leave it. With some rather high-cost skin in the game with a critical [moderate Islamic] NATO member, faithful Russian antagonist, and nifty Incirlik Air Base. Did I mention moderate Islamic NATO member ? It would seem even more odd that, if they did have some indication, even the slightest, that they would not have instantly alerted Erdogan. Tell me, how many thousands of people were involved in the plot again ? Of course if they (USI) knew, false flag or no, the best thing to do would be to sit back and say nothing. No Embassy evacuation, no US Citizen warning, no evacuation of Insirlik, just claim ignorance and let the kabuki dance play out. All that's gone missing is the ring leader. Ah yes, good old Fethullah Gülen, 'living the dream' in self-imposed exile in Pennsylvania. Pakistani Dr. Shakil Afridi and filmmaker Nakoula Nakoula must be pounding their fists. But unfortunately, USI knew nothing of the events unfolding. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-07-18 09:04 |
| #2 Hmmmm...."We didn't start the fire" Yes you did. Not us. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-07-18 08:43 |
| #1 It's not yet a crisis, so no political hay for the Champ to mow. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2016-07-18 07:13 |