I've been wondering what purpose the new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) really serves. For the last year, the Obama administration has told us that it already has authority to fight ISIS under the original AUMF to hit al Qaeda that was passed in the wake of 9-11 in 2001. ISIS, they point out, is a renamed version of al Qaeda in Iraq. So what is the point of a new AUMF? Specifically, what is the point of an AUMF that was clearly drafted by a legion of lawyers? After all, this would be the first authorization for the use of military force in American history that banned offensive operations. It would also be the first AUMF with an expiration date. What is the point of all that?
President Obama says that he wants the world to see that America is united in the fight against ISIS. Obama, being Obama, is not, however, telling the truth. There is nothing in this resolution that will unite the country. There will be discussion and debate about the terms of the resolution, but none of that is uniting.
I may be too cynical, but I think that the AUMF is designed for political benefit for Obama and the Democrats. Think about it. Three years from now, there will need to be another AUMF is the fight is ongoing (which is most likely). If the next president is a Democrat, Obama knows that the Congress will approve an extension since the Democrats will vote on party loyalty and the Republicans will support the fight against ISIS. If the next president is a Republican, then the Democrats can go back to their supposed anti-war routine and oppose any extension. It is a way to bring back the positioning that the Dems took with regard to the Iraq War during the second Bush term. The AUMF will also be usable by the left to criticize a new Republican president if he or she authorizes military policies that actually might beat ISIS rather than the lackadaisical air campaign that Obama is following.
In my opinion, Congress should not fall into the Obama trap. It should take out all the qualifiers in the proposed AUMF. A declaration of war would be best, but, failing that, a resolution that authorizes the president to take all necessary measures to defeat ISIS would be fine. All the rest of the language is an unnecessary complication and an unnecessary trap.
President Obama says that he wants the world to see that America is united in the fight against ISIS. Obama, being Obama, is not, however, telling the truth. There is nothing in this resolution that will unite the country. There will be discussion and debate about the terms of the resolution, but none of that is uniting.
I may be too cynical, but I think that the AUMF is designed for political benefit for Obama and the Democrats. Think about it. Three years from now, there will need to be another AUMF is the fight is ongoing (which is most likely). If the next president is a Democrat, Obama knows that the Congress will approve an extension since the Democrats will vote on party loyalty and the Republicans will support the fight against ISIS. If the next president is a Republican, then the Democrats can go back to their supposed anti-war routine and oppose any extension. It is a way to bring back the positioning that the Dems took with regard to the Iraq War during the second Bush term. The AUMF will also be usable by the left to criticize a new Republican president if he or she authorizes military policies that actually might beat ISIS rather than the lackadaisical air campaign that Obama is following.
In my opinion, Congress should not fall into the Obama trap. It should take out all the qualifiers in the proposed AUMF. A declaration of war would be best, but, failing that, a resolution that authorizes the president to take all necessary measures to defeat ISIS would be fine. All the rest of the language is an unnecessary complication and an unnecessary trap.
No comments:
Post a Comment