As worded, President Obama's proposed authorization to use military force against the murderous extremists of ISIL would guarantee more years of perpetual war. It would permit attacks against a wide range of targets. It would set no effective curb over the use of combat troops. It would not repeal the broad 2001 "war on terror" AUMF that has been used to take military action pretty much anywhere the Bush and Obama administrations have chosen. Congress ought to reject the ISIL AUMF in its current form and repeal not just the 2002 Iraq AUMF as Obama's proposal would do, but the 2001 AUMF as well.
Challenging the proposal in its entirety, both its wording and the philosophy behind it, ought to be the focus of our debate across the nation and in Congress when it reconvenes after the week-long Presidents' Day recess. Getting agreement in the Senate and House for reasonable approach against ISIL is going to be a hard slog that could make passing any authorization on force impossible. But fast and vigorous progressive efforts are needed not only to challenge the ISIL AUMF but also to dump the 14-year-old "war on terror" AUMF.
An NBC/Marist poll released Friday finds a majority of Americans wants their member of Congress to vote for the AUMF against ISIL, also known as ISIS and the Islamic State. To be exact, 54 percent say they do, 32 percent say they don't and 13 percent aren't sure. Greg Sargent notes partisan breakdown: 52 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents support the authorization and 60 percent of Democrats polled. The poll also found that 66 percent of Americans support sending in a few U.S. ground forces (40 percent) or lots of them (26 percent).
In Congress, prominent Democrats want a much more restrictive AUMF and prominent Republicans want a broader, more open-ended authorization. There is little enthusiasm on either side of the aisle for the authorization as it is currently worded. As proved in the December debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a Democrat-drafted AUMF, the one area the two parties agree on is that any authorizations ought to come before military actions, not after they have been underway for half a year.
The authorization as it stands sets limits, though not geographic ones, on the use of troops. It allows what the administration calls flexibility in the use of special forces for special missions. It expires in three years. It confines the actions to ISIL and "associated groups," whatever that means. It does not authorize any "enduring offensive ground combat operations," whatever that means. It repeals the 2002 Iraq AUMF. But it leaves the far broader 2001 "war on terror" AUMF that has been used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to take actions far removed from their pursuit and destruction of Al Qaeda. That, in fact, has been the Obama administration's justification for the attacks on ISIL it began six months ago. Republican hawks, Sen. John McCain the most prominent, want few or no limits included in the AUMF.
Read about reactions to the proposed AUMF below the tangled orange web we weave.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, the South Carolina Republican, told CBS just prior to the release of the proposed AUMF:
"If you' re not willing to have an American ground component, there's no local force can do this completely by themselves. So, to me it's all talk. You are not going to destroy ISIL from the air, there has to be ground component. Show me the ground component, where it comes from and how it can destroy ISIL without some American ground force support. You can't do it, in my view."
Peter Baker and Ashley Parker
report:
“His approach is one of the stupidest approaches I’ve ever seen,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. “Any president worth his salt would want the A.U.M.F. to be as broad as it can be.”
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible Republican presidential candidate, said Congress would not pass Mr. Obama’s proposal. “We’re going to write our own legislation,” he said, “and I hope it’s a very simple one that’s going to say that we authorize the president to take whatever steps are necessary to defeat ISIS. Period.”
But the idea that authorizations for force ought to have few or no limits is belied by the historical record. The National Security Network, whose advisory board is chaired by Samuel Berger—a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton—
points out that in 35 authorizations for the use of force since 1819, many contained time limits, geographic limits and operational limits on the kinds of forces used.
Soon after the White House released its proposed AUMF, some Democrats weighed in with some objections, particularly on the no "enduring offensive ground combat operations" wording:
"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.
Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) also raised objections about the proposed AUMF being overbroad.
“I think when people look at 10,000 feet up, everyone says they want an A.U.M.F.,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership. “When it comes to actually passing an A.U.M.F. that pleases enough people to get a majority, it’s very hard.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who has been weighing a possible run for the presidency,
said:
“I voted against the war in Iraq because I feared very much the destabilizing impact it would have on the region. Today, after 13 years in Afghanistan and 12 years in Iraq, after the loss of almost 7,000 troops and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, I very much fear U.S. involvement in an expanding and never-ending quagmire in that region of the world. […]
“I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East. I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.”
Sanders has supported air strikes against ISIS and "targeted U.S. military efforts to protect U.S. citizens," and says the "brutal and dangerous terrorist organization […] must be defeated."
Former senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who likely will announce a presidential run in the next few months, has had nothing to say so far about the ISIL AUMF.
What she says about the issue when she does weigh in matters less than what progressives do in the next few weeks to change the minds of that 60 percent of Democrats who say they believe the president's proposal should be supported.