Lots of editorials out today analyzing President Obama's speech about combating ISIS. First up,
The New York Times:
As the Pentagon gears up to expand its fight against ISIS, a fundamentalist Sunni militant group that controls large areas of Iraq and Syria, Congress appears perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers: the authority to declare war.
The cowardice in Congress, never to be underestimated, is outrageous. Some lawmakers have made it known that they would rather not face a war authorization vote shortly before midterm elections, saying they’d rather sit on the fence for a while to see whether an expanded military campaign starts looking like a success story or a debacle. By avoiding responsibility, they allow President Obama free rein to set a dangerous precedent that will last well past this particular military campaign.
Yale professor
Bruce Ackerman:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.
Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.
Head below the fold for more on this top story.
Fareed Zakaria:
Here we go again. The United States has declared war on another terrorist group. President Obama’s speech Wednesday night outlined a tough, measured strategy to confront the Islamic State — which is a threat to the region and beyond. But let’s make sure in executing this strategy that we learn something from the 13 years since Sept. 11, 2001, and the war against al-Qaeda. Here are a few lessons to think about. […]
The purpose of the gruesome execution videos was to provoke the United States. And it worked. After all, nothing has changed about the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and the dangers it poses, in the past month — other than the appearance of these videos. Yet they moved Washington to action. The scholar Fawaz Gerges writes that a few months ago Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi noted that his organization was not ready to attack the United States but “he wished the U.S. would deploy boots on the ground so that IS could directly engage the Americans — and kill them.”
We have to act against this terror group. But let’s do it at a time and manner of our choosing, rather than jumping when it wants us to jump.
Eugene Robinson:
Obama’s plan involves identifying, training and equipping moderate Syrian rebels, but the administration has no illusions that this can be accomplished quickly. Groups such as the Free Syrian Army — which has a long way to go before it is a match for either the Islamic State or Assad’s military machine — may have to content themselves with trying to hold bits and pieces of terrain in the western part of the country until the conflict reaches a point where a political solution is possible. To state the obvious, this could take a while.
To ask the even more obvious: Once you get involved in the Syrian civil war, how on earth do you get out?
Andrew J. Bacevich at Reuters:
The best hope of success may lie in the possibility that Islamic State militants will overplay their hand — their vile and vicious tactics alienating erstwhile collaborators and allies, much as the behavior of al Qaeda in Iraq alienated Sunni warlords during the famous U. S. surge of 2007-2008.
This much is certain, however: Even if Obama cobbles together a plan to destroy the Islamic State, the problems bedeviling the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East more broadly won’t be going away anytime soon.
Brian Katulis, senior fellow at CAP:
Obama’s proposed policy, with all of its details to be filled in and shortcomings, is pretty much the only game in town for now. There are important debates to be had about components of the overall policy Obama presented. But the thin veneer of discord masks a potential national consensus, if we allow it.
[…] So for now, Obama’s proposed policy will serve as a center of gravity in the debate, with its core components including the following: The targeted use of U.S. military force; continued diplomatic efforts to encourage Iraqis to develop an inclusive government and a more united national response to the Islamic State; security assistance and training to Iraqis conditioned on their progress towards creating more united government; renewed regional engagement strategy to get countries in the region to take more constructive steps, or at least do less harm than they already have; and, a reinvigorated effort to support a third-way opposition force in Syria to oppose both the Islamic State and Assad.
Switching topics,
John Nichols reminds us that the Senate tried to overturn Citizens United this week:
A majority of the United States Senate has voted to advance a constitutional amendment to restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules with an eye toward preventing billionaires and corporations from buying elections. […] That’s the good news.
The bad news is that it’s going to take more than a majority to renew democracy.
Fifty-four senators, all Democrats and independents who caucus with the Democrats, voted Thursday for the amendment to clarify in the Constitution that Congress and the states have the authority to do what they did for a century before activist judges began intervening on behalf of wealthy donors and corporations: enact meaningful campaign finance rules and regulations.
But forty-two senators, all Republicans, voted no. As a result, Udall noted, the Republican minority was able to “filibuster this measure and instead choose to support a broken system that prioritizes corporations and billionaires over regular voters.”
The Miami Herald is in favor of cameras on cops:
While the majority of police officers conduct themselves professionally, there is a widespread sentiment in many minority communities that police officers abuse their position of authority — and it’s imperative that police chiefs address the perception and the reality of rogue officers. Being on a “candid camera” will, hopefully, curtail such behavior.
At best, use of personal video cameras, worn on a police officer’s chest or integrated into eyeglasses and safety goggles, can clearly exonerate, or implicate, officers who face these accusations.
…while
The Denver Post calls for rolling back police militarization:
There are real costs associated with giving military equipment to local police departments, not the least of which is public outrage over cops who armor themselves like commandos to walk city streets.
So we were glad to see federal lawmakers probe the police militarization issue this week and hope they move to clamp down on the flow of surplus gear from the military to local law enforcement.
And, finally, in Ebola news,
Richard E. Besser calls for action:
I don’t think the world is getting the message. The magnitude of the response needed for a deadly outbreak like this in a staggeringly poor country demands both dollars and people.
For four years I led the CDC’s emergency-response activities, including the early response to the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009. I speak from sad experience: The level of response to the Ebola outbreak is totally inadequate. At the CDC, we learned that a military-style response during a major health crisis saves lives. In a global setting, the CDC usually provides technical support to local ministries of health. This crisis calls for much more.