Authorizing military action against ISIL
Matt Melino, a master’s student in my post-war reconstruction and transition class at SAIS, reports:
The Woodrow Wilson event Monday on authorizing military action against ISIL focused on geography, strategy and unanswered questions.
Moderator
Jim Sciutto: Chief National Security Correspondent, CNN
Panelists
• Lt. General David Barno: Former First Commander for Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan and currently Senior Fellow, Center for New American Security
• Jane Harman: Director, President and CEO, Woodrow Wilson Center
• Jeffrey H. Smith: Former General Counsel, CIA and currently serves on the Department of Defense Legal Policy Advisory Board
Harman opened the discussion by emphasizing that it is the clear constitutional obligation of members of Congress to declare our wars. But since Vietnam four wars that have gone undeclared. With the president recently submitting a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), Harman offered two pieces of advice for Congress. First, don’t duck – playing the blame game is bad policy and bad politics is hurting the reputation of the US. Congress has to face this issue head on, debate it, and vote on it. Second, avoid groupthink. This point as the major problem with the war in Iraq.
The language of the proposed AUMF includes the phrase “enduring offensive ground operations.” Sciutto noted that the President’s intention behind such a vague phrase is to avoid another Afghanistan or Iraq war, where the US deploys 150,000 troops to a major land war in the Middle East. He also noted there is a lot of leeway, because it is unclear what terms such as “enduring,” or “offensive” mean.
Barno added that the broadness of the phrase is helpful for military commanders who find it useful to have parameters set wide and guidance not too narrow. But Smith believes the phrase is mischievous. The President is clearly trying to capture the sentiment of the US people who do not want another large ground war, but it is unnecessary because the President himself said he would not embark on such an operation. The vague language signals to our adversaries that we do not have a clear plan. Harman agreed that the President is trying to please a large majority of people, but the vagueness of the language displeases people who feel that a clear plan is lacking.
Sciutto asked the panel to comment on the fact that the President did not sunset the 2001 AUMF, which grants him authority to attack al-Qaeda and its associates. Smith thought it curious that the President did not recommend this. The President wants congressional approval on an ISIL authorization but also wants to hold on to the 2001 AUMF as justification for his ongoing actions if the new AUMF is not passed.
Harman wants Congress to come up with an authorization that replaces the 2001 AUMF. Barno argued that the President wants to achieve two aims that are difficult to combine. First is support from Congress and the American people to conduct military action against ISIL. Second is to retain the ability to attack al-Qaeda and its associates in the future. It will be difficult to win the support of Congress if he folds these two into a single AUMF.
Who is the target? Sciutto explained how difficult it is to answer this question because ISIL is spreading and many groups are simply rebranding themselves as ISIL without operational ties. Smith, quoting Senator Tim Kaine, defined ISIL associates as, “individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf or, or alongside ISIL or closely related successors.” The President added the phrase, “in hostilities against the US or coalition partners.” The President is expanding the groups he can go after without naming them.
Smith believes there should be some mechanism to inform Congress of which groups he is going after. When those groups are named, they should be announced publically. This clarity is crucial because other countries will react to what we do, particularly the Russians and the Iranians. Harman added that the US needs to send a signal to the world that this country is united on a single mission and not just a vision described by President Obama.
Can Congress have the necessary debate to come up with a reasonable settlement considering the current political environment? Barno thinks an AUMF focused on ISIL has a reasonable prospect of agreement. Both sides of the aisle believe this is a serious threat that is getting worse. Harman is hopeful. She believes Congress cannot duck this issue because it affects everyone and it involves valuable resources, notably blood and treasure. Smith is cautiously optimistic but concerned about the fallout of failing to come to an agreement. Will the President go on with his current actions? If he does, what does that say about the authority of the President and Congress?
RSS - Posts
