President Barack Obama has asked Congress to authorize the use of force against the Islamic State, declaring in his State of the Union address, "We need that authority."
No, he doesn't.
Obama has been using force against the Islamic State for six months now. Between his inherent authority as commander in chief and two existing authorizations for the use of military force, he has all the authority he "needs" to defeat the Islamic State.
What is holding Obama back is not the lack of congressional authorization but his own stubborn unwillingness to employ the kind of force his military commander says is necessary to win.
So if there is no legal or war-fighting reason for Obama to ask Congress for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, why does he want one?
First, Obama is chafing at having to rely on the legal authorization for a war in Iraq that he repeatedly claimed to have "ended." Today, Obama is relying on both the post-9/11 authorization to go after al-Qaida and its affiliates and the 2002 authorization for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Last July, national security adviser Susan Rice told House Speaker John Boehner in a letter, "With American combat troops having completed their withdrawal from Iraq . . . the (2002) Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any U.S. government activities." Now Obama is relying on that very AUMF to fight the Islamic State.
Awkward.
Obama wants Congress to formally end President George W. Bush's Iraq war by rescinding the 2002 authorization, while passing a new, more limited authorization to fight his new, more limited campaign against the Islamic State.
But the idea that the current campaign against the Islamic State is not a continuation of the same war that Bush was fighting is a fantasy.Read the rest of the story HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment