Democrat Introduces ISIS War Authorization Bill
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Wednesday to authorize military force against Islamic State militants -- a step aimed at forcing Congress to take responsibility for a war it's been funding for nearly six months with almost no debate on its duration, costs or potential toll.
Lawmakers have put no parameters on the U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, since it began in August. Since then, the U.S. has spent more than $1 billion, participated in more than 1,700 airstrikes, and authorized sending roughly 3,000 U.S. troops to Iraq. All of this has happened without new war authorization.
Schiff's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force would do three things: limit military action against ISIS to three years; prohibit the use of U.S. ground troops; and immediately terminate a still-active 2002 AUMF tied to the Iraq War. It also would end, in three years, a sweeping 2001 AUMF that President Barack Obama says gives him the authority to go after ISIS without new war authorization. Some in Congress disagree that Obama has that authority and insist he needs new authorization, which the president says he would welcome.
"There is no doubt that our current offensive amounts to war," said Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "Congress should take action both to authorize its prosecution and to set limits on that authorization so it may not be used by any future administration in a manner contrary to our intent."
Schiff's AUMF would expire after three years...
read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/adam-schiff-aumf-isis_n_6559066.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
...my take:
Although the Obama administration has signaled their willingness to consider an new AUMF to 'authorize' their new terror war, this bill isn't what the WH wants - at least it isn't what Sec. Kerry said he wanted in an authorization to war.
Almost completely absent is any reservation from the WH about the autocratic manner in which George Bush waged his warring in Iraq, with President Obama (and Democratic leaders like Rep. Pelosi) already on record claiming Bush's 2001 authorization passed after the 9-11 attacks (or, is it the 2002 Iraq resolution?) gives him authority to do whatever he wants in Iraq to battle the Islamic State fighters - even insisting that his commander-in-chief powers cover almost any other impetus to war in Iraq, at least in the short term, without congressional approval, given his unilateral interpretation of a 'threat' to U.S. national security and his conflation of the Islamic State with our al-Qaeda nemesis.
Anyway, Pres. Obama has already made the legal notifications to Congress and they've already approved funding for troops deployed to Iraq - so, this is all just a formality for the president...or, is it?
A proposed bill to restrict boots on the ground was rejected in Dec. by the administration. In mid-December, the Foreign Relations Committee, then chaired by New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, approved an AUMF for the Islamic State fight. That process included a lengthy hearing, during which Secretary of State John Kerry said the White House opposed provisions supported by his former Democratic colleagues, and which were included in the Menendez bill, that would have restricted actions by US ground troops in Iraq and Syria. Essentially, that version would have prohibited them from offensive combat operations.
from Stars and Stripes, Dec. 9 2014:
Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that the Senate should not “bind the hands” of the president with a new war authorization that bars ground troops.
Kerry delivered the message to lawmakers as part of the Obama administration’s first detailed request for legislation setting the scope of military force used against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He also asked that lawmakers allow targeting groups “associated” with the extremists and not limit operations geographically to those two countries...
Kerry told the committee that President Barack Obama is open to language in an authorization that clarifies how combat forces may be used and still does not plan to deploy ground troops.
“It does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee,” Kerry said.
I see where he says the President 'has no plans' to order the use of ground forces, but that's a weak thread for those of us who oppose the use of ground troops in offensive actions in Iraq or Syria. I think any trust-based' approach to military policy in Iraq is an invitation for the President to employ ground forces - all of his military commanders have openly advocated their use and are itching to find reason to deploy them to offensive positions.
With that admonition out there, un-refuted by Pres. Obama, it appears that any bill like Rep. Schiff's is DOA; shot down before it even gets started. besides, I believe once Democrats begin openly advocating military actions in Iraq with actual legislation, it just opens the door for more expansive approvals of force from this republican Congress.
On the other hand, what were have now is a president mostly content to employ a nebulous and revolving set of authorities to use military force which demands a response from Congress, if only to require them to live up to their obligations under the War Powers Act and assume responsibility for the money they throw at this mostly unilateral, creeping terror war being waged, this time, by a Democratic White House.
= new reply since forum marked as read
One of the biggest problems I have when using Bush era arguments ("increase tensions"
to block torture photos, continue indefinite detention, expand executive branch powers to include secret orders to kill US citizens, and now wants an open door to do whatever, whenever is it legitimizes President Bush. All those people that said Bush was terrible now followed by a President from the other party who was a 180 on rhetoric on these policies before taking office does much of the same in these areas.
It makes Bush not look so bad after all.
