National Security & Defense

An Authorization for Failure

(Pool Image/Getty)

President Obama has sent Congress a proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the Islamic State, and it’s not immediately clear why. His administration says it already has said authority via at least three different channels. Indeed, although the president’s proposal contains limits, he would still have ample legal authority to do whatever he wants against the Islamic State.

So why is he proposing this legislation at all? Because it would constrain our politically realistic options in the war against the Islamic State and Islamism in general, and he wants a congressional imprimatur for waging a constrained war.

An instructive example of his motivations is the bill’s repeal of the 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq. The president’s declaration of the end of our war did  not, obviously, mark the end of said war. There is no obvious reason, besides putting an artificial coda on our war in Iraq, to repeal the authorization. Should the now Iran-friendly Iraqi government begin violating U.N. Security Council resolutions or become a threat to the U.S., or should some new terror threat arise within Iraq’s borders, the 2002 AUMF would give the president clear power to act. This president prefers the power to boast of putting a legal end to George Bush’s Iraq War.

Worse, the president also would like Congress to prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations” against ISIS and for the resolution to expire three years hence. These two restrictions are unprecedented and dangerous limits on the war powers of the executive, the most expansive prerogatives the Constitution gives him. In the Korean War, some American troops planned to be home by Christmas 1950, but it wasn’t because President Truman was going to lose his authority to keep them there on Boxing Day. Never before have such restrictions been written into an authorization of force. Restrictions on the conduct of a war are an inappropriate directive for Congress to give to the commander-in-chief, and the only kind of president who would ask for them is one who hopes to share the blame for failure.

The three-year limitation gives reason for optimism to the Islamic State, that they can wait out our half-hearted efforts, and sets up a messy congressional fight when it expires. The ground-troops stricture, while theoretically  meaningless, could still as a political matter limit our commander-in-chief’s and military’s ability to do their job properly. The war on Islamic terror is not like many of America’s past wars, and  requires more flexibility, not less.

The restrictions have to go. Yet a clean authorization of war against the Islamic State is a good idea — if it buttresses and legitimizes our war rather than weakens and limits it.

The 2001 resolution that authorized actions against al-Qaeda and affiliated entities does authorize any actions necessary against ISIS, because of the connection between those two groups. But as ISIS acquires affiliates and allies around the world — militants from Benghazi to Pakistan have pledged their loyalty — it would make sense to have an authorization specifically targeting it and its affiliates, or even an authorization authorizing the president to make war on the global forces of Islamist terror.

Of course, such a declaration should not be passed only to ring hollow. This president’s conduct of all three wars in which he has been engaged — in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and against ISIS — suggests that it would. We need a serious reassessment of American strategy against Islamic terror and a commensurate restoration of defense spending, but these almost surely will have to come from a new president.

Until then, we hope President Obama will conduct the war against the Islamic State vigorously and responsibly. News this week that our best allies in the region, the Kurds, are pleading in vain for American arms and materiel is just one indication that the president is not interested in winning this war. His inadequate request for new authority to fight it is another.​

Most Popular

Immigration

What Now for Trump’s Border Wall?

The verdict on the U.S.–Mexico border wall President Trump promised to construct is decidedly mixed as the year comes to a close. The “big, beautiful wall,” as Trump referred to it, reached 400 miles in length by the end of October, when the Department of Homeland Security held a ceremony hailing the ... Read More
Immigration

What Now for Trump’s Border Wall?

The verdict on the U.S.–Mexico border wall President Trump promised to construct is decidedly mixed as the year comes to a close. The “big, beautiful wall,” as Trump referred to it, reached 400 miles in length by the end of October, when the Department of Homeland Security held a ceremony hailing the ... Read More
Culture

New England Journal of Medicine Pushes Reparations

Reparations would grant African Americans government benefits not paid to other Americans to rectify the awful sin of slavery and the "peculiar institution's" residual harm. It is a favored policy of hard progressives, so of course, the New England Journal of Medicine -- which regularly promotes left-wing causes ... Read More
Culture

New England Journal of Medicine Pushes Reparations

Reparations would grant African Americans government benefits not paid to other Americans to rectify the awful sin of slavery and the "peculiar institution's" residual harm. It is a favored policy of hard progressives, so of course, the New England Journal of Medicine -- which regularly promotes left-wing causes ... Read More
White House

A Justified Pardon

President Trump’s pardon of retired General Michael Flynn, who fleetingly served as his first national-security adviser, was a justified act of clemency. You don’t have to be a fan of how Trump has wielded his pardon power (often recklessly and on behalf of friends and supporters) or believe that Flynn was ... Read More
White House

A Justified Pardon

President Trump’s pardon of retired General Michael Flynn, who fleetingly served as his first national-security adviser, was a justified act of clemency. You don’t have to be a fan of how Trump has wielded his pardon power (often recklessly and on behalf of friends and supporters) or believe that Flynn was ... Read More
Books

Three Cheers for the Quiet Ones

People often dismiss shy, quiet characters in literature. Readers prefer to identify with Jo March, Elizabeth Bennett, or Anne Shirley -- those delightful, bold, and charming characters who made a deep impression on us when we first encountered them. While there’s nothing wrong with emulating or admiring these ... Read More
Books

Three Cheers for the Quiet Ones

People often dismiss shy, quiet characters in literature. Readers prefer to identify with Jo March, Elizabeth Bennett, or Anne Shirley -- those delightful, bold, and charming characters who made a deep impression on us when we first encountered them. While there’s nothing wrong with emulating or admiring these ... Read More

The New GOP

Ronald Reagan was dubbed the “Great Communicator.” Donald Trump might well be labeled the “Great Accelerator.” U.S. politics was polarized before President Trump, with both coalitions motivated mostly by fear of each other. We have gotten more polarized since Trump rode down that escalator. The Upper ... Read More

The New GOP

Ronald Reagan was dubbed the “Great Communicator.” Donald Trump might well be labeled the “Great Accelerator.” U.S. politics was polarized before President Trump, with both coalitions motivated mostly by fear of each other. We have gotten more polarized since Trump rode down that escalator. The Upper ... Read More