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.
One Year Later: Still No Vote
In case you missed it, this past weekend marked one year of America’s latest war. The intervention in Syria/Iraq began a year ago.
It’s not a real war, right? Sure, America’s military is killing people. Sure, it’s cost more than $3 billion. Sure, we spend $10 million every day. Sure, seven Americans have died so far. But it’s not really a war, right?
Of course it’s a war. It’s denying reality to say otherwise. The Third Iraq War. The War Against ISIS. Operation Inherent Resolve. (That we don’t even have a name for this war is very telling). The collective agreement among the press, the political class, and people on the both left and right, to refuse to even acknowledge that we’re at war does not change that fact.
We are in the midst of a national scandal. It’s more important than Hillary Clinton’s email server. It’s more important than anything Donald Trump says.
The national scandal is that nobody ever voted for this war. One man, Barack Obama, decided on his own to start a war. Congress, the body responsible for declaring war, and, barring that, maybe voting on it, refuses to do so.
Once again: The United States has been at war for a year and there hasn’t even been a vote in Congress. Can we at least have a damn vote on it?
The whole point of having a president, a Congress, and a Constitution, is that one man shouldn’t have all the power. The most important power, the power to make war, the power over life and death should not lie in the hands of one man!
If this were anything else, education subsidies, anything, Congress would decry the imperial presidency and threaten to sue. And yet, here we are.
So I pose these questions:
Why are you okay with this? Shouldn’t Congress at least vote on this war? Is this limited government to you?
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
Seems so me to me.
But even if it isn’t, why not clarify things?
The Luftwaffe couldn’t bomb the English into submission and the U.S. Chair Force isn’t doing so hot against ISIS, either. My fear is that they’ll call the Marines (as usual.)
So you think wars should be fought like that? One man decides?
If war is the most important thing the state does, what other broad powers do you want to assign to one man?
To my mind, this question (To vote or not to vote) is completely independent of whether it’s the correct decision to fight ISIS.
But not only has Congress not voted, but there hasn’t been a serious debate.
Taking a somewhat different track:
Read very literally, the resolution explicitly states that any international terrorist, anywhere, committed to any cause, is fair game and implies that the same goes for anyone who aids them.
That is, shall we say, insanely broad.
Are we at war with ISIS? Not really. A few airstrikes, with no risk of being shot down, a small group of advisors, and paying for some supplies for hapless fighters isn’t war. And that’s why Americans don’t care. Start sending ground troops and they’ll care. Start losing F-16’s to SAM’s and they’ll care. “War” means Americans getting shot at and dying.
It’s actually worse to use the 2002 resolution. That one had to do with removing Saddam Hussein.
A few?
One year, thousands of sorties, $3 billion spent, seven dead Americans.
If seven isn’t enough to actually count as a war, how many dead Americans do you need before it counts?
No, we’ve been assured that there will be no boots on ground. Whew!
The way I see it, the thing was intentionally vague so as to give play later on. We are seeing the absolute lack of GOP spine play out in a literalist defense of a spongy document.
I don’t have a problem with loose authorizations for politicians (given other pieces are working, which they are *not*), so long as those are translated into tight goals for the military, which they are not.
So the little details may be this and may be that, but the big picture is this thing is going to get a lot of Americans killed, and it will all be Bush’s fault. Of course.
The money spent is irrelevant in the minds of Americans. And who are the seven? Are you counting the Americans killed fighting for ISIS? The civilians they’ve beheaded? I’m unaware of uniformed military personnel killed in combat against ISIS, but if you can’t point ’em out to me, please do so. Still, no, Americans wouldn’t consider seven guys killed war. They didn’t consider four guys killed in Benghazi war, either. Numbers matter in these things. And for the record, since ISIS has of yet not attacked the US, I don’t think we should be involved, period, so I’m not rah-rah for an ISIS war myself.
Fred, haven’t you noticed a pattern over the last 6 years?
The Constitution doesn’t matter even if everybody doesn’t agree.
Al Qaeda did and ISIS is an offshoot of al Qaeda.
In this case, the sins of the father are visited upon the son.
Until it renounces its jihad against us, their allegiance is of no relevance.
As I stated earlier, internecine squabbles do not alter the threat to U.S.
Completely, for the reasons stated above
Your premise is false. This is simply a new phase in the long war
I wish to grant the President the most reasonable interpretation in defending the nation.
Again, your premise is false. This is by no means the broadest possible interpretation, it is the most reasonable.
Yes
No
All presidents have inherent Article II power to wage war.
I think our problem with ISIS isn’t that we are fighting them it is that we are fighting them poorly. But lets set that aside.
Congress can flex its muscle here, and has flexed its muscle with respect to Obama engaging in hostilities. Are we all forgetting Syria? We did not go after Assad when he crossed “the Red Line”. Because congress rebelled, demanded a vote and that vote would probably have come out against the administration.
I think we elect presidents precisely so that they can decide such things and we elect congress to review their actions. It might be nice to have some open vote of confidence in our actions here but I don’t think it is necessary.
They’re all non combat incidents. According to Military Times, here is a list of American who died in Operation Inherent Resolve:
Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Devon J. Doyle June 16, 2015
Army Pfc. Monterrious T. Daniel June 12, 2015
Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Ryan D. Burris May 21, 2015
Air Force Tech. Sgt. Anthony E. Salazar April 13, 2015
Air Force Capt. William H. Dubois December 1, 2014
Marine Lance Cpl. Sean P. Neal October 23, 2014
Marine Cpl. Jordan L. Spears October 1, 2014
Some of you may think that these dead Americans somehow don’t “count”, but they died in a non-declared war that Congress never voted on, and that we don’t even have a name for.
While I am not bothered by our lack of formal war declarations against ISIS, and I don’t think Obama has overstepped himself in this action, I think there is one aspect of Fred’s thrust that I take very seriously. This whole process reeks of passivity which I fear engenders both in the decision makers and the populace a kind of complacency about the situation.
We have sent of our mighty army to quell some brigands in a distant desert. No one feels a need to debate or dissent because it is not an important matter. It is not a serious war, it is not even a skirmish. This kind of mindset I think is inherently dangerous and leads to things such as Custard’s last stand, or the conquest of Mosul. We, I think are seriously underestimating our enemies here because they are such petty little savages, and I think we do it at our own risk and to their benefit.
I think getting the congresses expressed approval in this case is mostly a matter of formality and show. But, we should not underestimate the need for such actions to build up our resolve and sharpen our focus. On Dec 8th 1941 I think FDR could have ordered the full on invasion of Japan had it been possible with or without congress and no one would have objected. But, a formal declaration served as a means to rally our people as much as approve the action.
Who thinks that?
How are the checks and balances not working? Congress can check the president, and isn’t, because they feel he is acting correctly. What on Earth is the problem?
Do you believe a vote is required? If so, could you please explain? If you believe a declaration of war is required, may I direct you back to my original comment where I disagreed with that premise.
Look…I am still in shock over Libya and Obama taking the lone wolf decision to take out the great leader, Gadhafi. What was with that? Why not nip down south and kill Mugabe too? I just could not get the timing? Did you Americans get an explaination for why?
Well, I’ve already heard that it isn’t really a war. I was just heading off the claim that these casualties don’t count because they’re non-combat deaths.
Servicemen die during training as well and I’ve never once heard someone say they didn’t count because of it.
If they vote for it then it’s harder to blame Obama if things go pear shaped. But if they vote against it, then it’s harder to keep up the hawkish image. Better not to talk about it at all….
You’re neglecting the part where we have tried shutdowns before, and we get hammered in the polls while the democrats don’t.
We empirically know the outcome of this tactic.
I am, although I agree essentially with the Frank’s legal and constitutional arguments. The problem is that this is no way to fight a war. We have no strategy; we’ve certainly had no national debate; we have not formally stated the aim of this war. Obama says it’s to “degrade and destroy ISIS,” but the actions he’s taking in this context make no sense — and may well cause ISIS to spread or worsen the refugee crisis. (Like this decision, although there are some small factual mistakes in that piece.)
We have a foreign policy that’s having enormous repercussions on millions and millions of people in the region — and as Fred points out, on our own citizens and our own military — but we’re not having a debate, as a country, about whether our strategy makes sense or is apt to work. Congress is the obvious place to have such a debate.
What seems to me to be going on is that Obama is responding to a vague public demand to “do something” about ISIS, but people aren’t hearing a real debate about why something should be done, what the risks of doing “something” are, and what, realistically, it would take to achieve what is — so far — an unstated goal. In my view — for reasons I can detail elsewhere — ISIS is indeed a huge threat. It can’t be dislodged by air power alone, although air power would certainly be a useful start, and there’s no one on the ground with whom we could work effectively enough to obviate a very serious commitment of US ground forces — and this for a very long time. To think otherwise is fantasy. If we’re not serious about dislodging them, we need to ask ourselves whether we can live with the Caliphate, and speak publicly about the risks this would pose and whether we’re prepared to accept them.
Of course these question should be debated publicly in the media and, properly, in Congress — our debating body. Fred is right on the deepest of principles here — decisions about war and peace are the biggest decisions we make. And this is a real war — because ISIS is now, alas, a real state. If we intend to fight a war, we have to fight it as a war, not a “special operation.”
Dangerously, dangerously so.
Absolutely agree.
We helped take out Lybia because Europe wanted it. Obama was dragged kicking and screaming into that one.
Bet they’re sorry now!
(Also – why did they want it? That’s one thing that makes absolutely no sense.)
Fred Cole is right — to insist that what is right is right. Billy is also right — that a piece of paper does not an army make. Frank is right — that everybody has already weighed in on this to the degree that they care to.
We are right screwed.
I agree this is no way to fight a war, but I think much hope in this respect is gone with Obama in charge. For him to admit that ISIS is a threat and enemy worthy of that level of concentration and scrutiny would be to admit that his policies have so far been amazingly naive. For all his faults with respect to Iraq at least Bush saw that he had gone wrong and put forth his great effort to alter his strategy and tactics to correct this. Obama I believe seeks to run out the clock, so that whatever else happens will not happen on his watch. Congress can not run a war even and it can not make the president execute it competently. This is our problem and what makes the debate question currently irrelevant.
I would invite my esteemed colleague’s attention to the excellent counterweight to the convenient prevailing wisdom on the 2013 shutdown by ACM: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/361655/art-impossible-andrew-c-mccarthy
No doubt you have seen it, but it re-reads quite well.
I don’t quite know either. I think some of it was that they feared it would devolve into a quagmire which would spew forth untold numbers of desperate Muslim refugees. Which I realize is very ironic. I also think they feared and felt that Gadhafi would butcher all the rebels and they didn’t want to see that.