Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Time To Repeal The Iraq AUMF
So we’re at war again in Iraq. President Obama, the anti-war candidate, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, is dropping bombs on people again.
If the United States is going to be involved in a war in Iraq yet again, than maybe we should talk about it first. Maybe there should be a debate. Maybe there should be a discussion about this.
We have entered a phase, new to American history, new to the American republic, where one man has the power to enter a war. This new Iraq war hasn’t been the subject to any debate. There hasn’t been a discussion. One man decided on this.
If anyone bothers to ask, President Obama hid behind Public Law No: 107-243, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. That was the Iraq War Resolution. It’ still on the books, giving the president the power to wage war in Iraq.
It is time to repeal the Iraq AUMF. It was passed 12 years ago. The world and, especially, Iraq have changed in 12 years. The situation is completely different now, and the law Congress passed to empower the president to remove Saddam Hussein — a man who was executed eight years ago — should no longer empower the president to make war. If current, and allegedly limited, military action is absolutely necessary, then fine, let the Congress pass a new resolution empowering the president.
It’s not supposed to be like this, not in the American system. Whatever the merits of the dropping bombs on ISIS people might be, we need to talk about it and put it to a vote. We’re supposed to have checks and balances. Have we really come this far, that one man has the power over war and peace?
Photo Credit: By U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Nicholas Hall [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Published in General
Pelayo: 1, Why did Obama wait until the Yazidi were in dire straits before postponing his latest tee time and authorizing bombings? Christians in Iraq and Syria have been slaughtered by ISIS for a long time and their cries fell on deaf ears at the White House.
For Obama, killing Christians is a feature, not a bug.
The Turks don’t want an independent Kurdistan. My view is [CoC] the Turks.
Obama does the right thing so rarely that I hate to impede him in those rare circumstances.
As usual, the foundation of a useful debate is getting lost in a fixation on the details. Essentially, Fred’s point was not about Iraq, ISIS, or President Obama. His point was about declarations of war in general.
Make an argument without any reference to the current situation. What should a declaration of war look like? What are its necessary components?
Must it contain conditions of victory? Does achievement of those win conditions necessarily conclude the war? Must a declaration of war provide conditions of conclusion? Or does Congressional permission for war end only when Congress actively revokes it through further legislation?
This war on radical Islam will not go away for the next fifty years. We need to be in Iraq. It is short sighted to evacuate and concede that ground.
To make myself perfectly clear — channeling my inner Nixon — I’m OK with such interventions to tip the balance towards our allies or protect against genocide. We can’t intervene everywhere or against every bad actor, but we can and should here. That’s what the 60 day window of the War Powers act allows — one can debate whether it intended such missions — so yes, there was no need for him to cite the Iraq AUMF given the War Powers “window” for use of force.
However, to intervene, Obama’s Iraq withdrawal “victory” needed to be first tossed down the memory hole. The Iraq AUMF lets him intervene in a way that rationalizes his new line that “he never wanted out” of Iraq:
The specific issues with Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda were stuffed up in the “Whereas” section of the law. The authority to use armed forces gives the President, in part (a), sole authority to determine what is “necessary and appropriate” to fight the “continuing threat posed by Iraq”. Which was mighty convenient for Obama now that he claims withdrawal wasn’t a good thing.
My problem with both the Iraq and 9/11 AUMFs is the same problem I have with the Affordable Care Act. Such laws are open-ended Enabling Acts, which allow Congress to abdicate large swaths of authority to the Executive. They also allow the president to pick and choose his justifications for intervention to avoid accountability for his policies. Libya wasn’t covered by the 9/11 AUMF because Obama didn’t want to acknowledge that Al Qaeda connection; whereas the current Iraq attacks are placed under the Iraq AUMF because he wants everyone to forget his “Iraq Withdrawal…Mission Accomplished” dance of a few years ago.
While I do support the USA intervening militarily to protect innocent civilians in Iraq during the current crisis, I also support sunset clauses for virtually all legislation and an AUF resolution’s no different. I think a clause requiring reauthorization every five or ten years would be pretty sensible.
Additionally, I think any nation that expects to receive military protection from the United States in perpetuity should be invited to apply for US statehood.
Link plz?
That’s how I read it.
Hey. You added letters to your name. And blue to your text box. When did you become one of our overlords?
-E
I’m sorry. What does this mean?
Please. The Congress put the sword in the Executive’s hand via the AUMF. Obama hid behind nothing.
The Congress can take it away anytime it is willing to do so by veto-proof majorities. But it is not likely do do so because that would result in loosing Iraq to Jihadists. And Congress has done before: this is exactly how the Democrat Congress caused the U.S. to loose in the Vietnam war.
It means he thinks killing Christians is a Good Thing, not something to be upset about.
Fred’s point is that America should stop being “the world’s policeman” and start being “the world’s battered peoples shelter”.
Last week. I’m the new (Eastern Time) Morning Editor.
Fred doesn’t want to intervene. He thinks that the forces of evil will leave us alone if they realize we live in a libertarian fantasy world.
Fred’s probably right. There’s no reason we should intervene against ISIS.
I’d wager you’re right; Fred’s very non-interventionist. But that’s not the argument he made in the OP:
Fred,
Isn’t the fact that the Authorization for use of force hasn’t been repealed evidence that congress is okay with actions like we are taking now?
Same to you Fred, who consistently assumes best outcomes in these matters, which enables you to more easily hold a completely non-interventionist viewpoint.
Absolutely. And the war against Islamic terrorism has not ended.
Not according to Fred. According to Fred, the mere fact the we have a new Secretary of State invalidates the AUMF in Iraq.
According to Fred, the fact that the troops have shaved since the AUMF was passed invalidates it.
To be fair, he does call for it to be repealed, not ignored as invalid.
However, his insistence for a new vote seems strange to me, as not voting to repeal it is has the same effect as voting to authorize a new one. Congress can at any moment repeal it, and isn’t even talking about it.
I’m not sure if the obvious question has been asked, so I’ll ask it: Fred, if there was a vote, and Congress voted to authorize the current action, would you be ok with that? Because I do think you may be engaging in pedantry here.
They’re not talking about it and we all know why: It’s an election year. Why stick your neck out?
I kinda feel like we’ve talked about this paraphrasing thing before and your lack of aptitude.
The Republicans overwhelmingly support the prevention of the mass murder of civilians in Iraq. The democrats will support their president. As Spin pointed out, your insistence on a vote whose outcome is known and changes none of the underlying dynamics is simply pedantry.
Or it could be that majorities in both houses of Congress don’t think it would be a good idea to repeal the AUMF.
Well, then if its a fait acompli, shouldn’t the Congress vote on it?
I spent quite a bit of time learning what the word pedantry means, and how to pronounce it. So now I’m going to use it all the time.
This is not a new concern or a new phase in American History. The War Powers Act of 1973 predates me, but was meant limit the power of the President to use military power.