Obama ISIS Authorization Includes Ground Troops For Syria
President Barack Obama has asked Congress to formally authorize war against Islamic State militants. Within the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) is a provision for not allowing “enduring offensive combat operations.”
What counts as “enduring?” No one really knows. The obfuscating language is supposed to pacify concerns by members of Congress who are hesitant to send more US combat troops into the Middle East – there are already 3000 service members in Iraq. But a vote for the AUMF will be a vote for sending US forces into the Syrian civil war something President Obama attempted to do previously to overthrow the Assad government. Now he is asking for the authority to do it to perform a mission that will, in part, save the Assad government.
Obama asking for authorization at this point is kind of odd as he has already been launching military attacks against ISIS under the highly controversial 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. So was he conducting unauthorized warfare before now?
The new AUMF would revise the old AUMF but keep the most controversial provisions such as giving the president a de facto blank check on the use of military force.
The new request to conduct military operations would repeal that authorization. But it would leave in place the broad authority to counter terrorism that Congress granted Mr. Bush in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks, which many Democrats now believe is being interpreted too broadly to justify military actions that were never intended.
After more than a decade of war and 7,000 American military lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama will face doubts not only from Democrats who want stricter limitations set on where he can send troops and how long his authority will last, but also from Republicans, who are dubious of the administration’s strategy for defeating the Islamic State extremist group.
Broad authority for a dubious strategy – that sounds familiar. This would certainly not count as the change many were hoping for in 2008 – staying the course on perpetual war and continuing the war on clear language.
This entire debate begs the question – if President Obama is not already authorized to go to war with ISIS, how is he already at war with ISIS? The new AUMF seems less about authorizing a military operation and more about looking for political cover from Congress for an incoherent strategy.
Obama ISIS Authorization Includes Ground Troops For Syria
{!hitembed ID=”hitembed_1″ width=”500″ height=”281″ align=”none” !}
President Barack Obama has asked Congress to formally authorize war against Islamic State militants. Within the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) is a provision for not allowing “enduring offensive combat operations.”
What counts as “enduring?” No one really knows. The obfuscating language is supposed to pacify concerns by members of Congress who are hesitant to send more US combat troops into the Middle East – there are already 3000 service members in Iraq. But a vote for the AUMF will be a vote for sending US forces into the Syrian civil war something President Obama attempted to do previously to overthrow the Assad government. Now he is asking for the authority to do it to perform a mission that will, in part, save the Assad government.
Obama asking for authorization at this point is kind of odd as he has already been launching military attacks against ISIS under the highly controversial 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. So was he conducting unauthorized warfare before now?
The new AUMF would revise the old AUMF but keep the most controversial provisions such as giving the president a de facto blank check on the use of military force.
The new request to conduct military operations would repeal that authorization. But it would leave in place the broad authority to counter terrorism that Congress granted Mr. Bush in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks, which many Democrats now believe is being interpreted too broadly to justify military actions that were never intended.
After more than a decade of war and 7,000 American military lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama will face doubts not only from Democrats who want stricter limitations set on where he can send troops and how long his authority will last, but also from Republicans, who are dubious of the administration’s strategy for defeating the Islamic State extremist group.
Broad authority for a dubious strategy – that sounds familiar. This would certainly not count as the change many were hoping for in 2008 – staying the course on perpetual war and continuing the war on clear language.
This entire debate begs the question – if President Obama is not already authorized to go to war with ISIS, how is he already at war with ISIS? The new AUMF seems less about authorizing a military operation and more about looking for political cover from Congress for an incoherent strategy.
