In a televised address Wednesday, President Obama briefly explained his proposed
authorization to use military force against ISIS—also known as ISIL and the Islamic State—that he sent to Congress earlier in the day.
He said he was optimistic that there will be bipartisan support for the AUMF. That may be so, but both Republicans and Democrats have already expressed objections to the wording of the proposed AUMF, as I noted this morning.
The proposal establishes limitations on the use of troops, expires in three years, confines its purview to ISIS and associated groups and repeals the 2002 Iraq AUMF. It does not, however, repeal the broader 2001 "war on terror" AUMF under which military actions against Al Qaeda and affiliated groups have been undertaken for 14 years in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
Although the administration finally bowed to pressure to come up with an ISIS AUMF, it has said that it already has the authority to take military action against ISIS under the 2001 AUMF, and it has done so. In his statement, Obama said the United States has since September 2014 engaged in 2,000 attacks against the extremist organization, destroying its weapons, vehicles, commanders, fighters, and the oil infrastructure that is helping pay for its operations in Iraq and Syria. "Our coalition is on the offensive," the president said. "ISIL is on the defensive. And ISIL is going to lose."
Obama said the U.S. will continue a "systemic and sustained campaign" that focuses on support for local combat forces and humanitarian assistance for civilians. The ISIS AUMF, he said, is not the authorization of another ground war like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said the 2,600 U.S. troops now on the ground in Iraq do not have a combat mission but that the proposed AUMF will allow flexibility to use special forces under special circumstances. He said the nation's interests are "not served by endless war" or by "being on a perpetual war footing."
That's certainly true. But that is, in fact, where we are.
More analysis can be found below the fold.
Here's key language of the proposed AUMF:
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5. […]
(c) LIMITATIONS.—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.
Although both Democrats and Republicans have sought an AUMF during the six months the administration has been carrying out attacks, the actual wording from the White House generated objections the minute it was seen on Capitol Hill. Most of these are not new but emerged last year and were the subject of debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December. At that time, the committee passed a Democrat-drafted AUMF on a party-line vote.
For some Democrats, it's that "enduring offensive ground combat operations" language that gets in the way of their support:
"What does it mean? How long, how big, is 'enduring'? 'Offensive,' what's 'offensive'?" Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Tuesday. "That, to me, is the crux of our debate."
"We have some legitimate questions as to whether we open this up with a loophole that could lead to another major war," he said.
He
isn't the only prominent Democrat with that take:
“It provides overly-broad, fresh authority for the deployment of U.S. ground forces in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, and any other countries in which ISIL or its affiliates may be operating. Second, it leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the Executive in the 2001 AUMF,” said [Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen]. “It makes little sense to place reasonable boundaries on the Executive’s war powers against ISIL while leaving them unchecked elsewhere.”
Some Republicans, on the other hand, object to limits on troops, with John McCain arguing that this is an unconstitutional restriction, no doubt looking ahead to the time when a Republican is president.
On Tuesday, members of the JustSecurity website sent a letter to President Obama on this subject. Among the editors and writers of the site are several prestigious lawyers, academics and former government officials, including the former legal adviser to the State Department Harold Koh. The letter calls for an end to the 2001 AUMF. Among other things, the letter states:
"The 2001 AUMF is already the longest-running use-of-force authorization in history. That statute was directed toward the groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks (al Qaeda and the Taliban), but it has since provided the authority for the use of force against groups with remote connection to 9/11, in places far removed from Afghanistan—such as Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. Your administration has interpreted the AUMF to authorize military action against "associated forces" of al Qaeda, such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and at least one successor organization of al Qaeda, namely ISIL. While we have differing views on the merits of such an interpretation, we are all concerned that there was no serious public or legislative debate before the United States initiated these broader, more extensive military campaigns. […]
An ISIL-specific statute that does not sunset the 2001 AUMF would simply expand the President’s already broad statutory authorities, while doing nothing to ensure public deliberation and congressional accountability respecting significant new military operations."
Critics in the left blogosphere have also raised the issue of constitutionality, arguing that only Congress can declare war and AUMFs should be no substitute. But the last time Congress formally declared war was on Dec. 8, 1941. Since then wars have been entered into under the authority of resolutions.