Obama to request a new AUMF

Great Debates
1

Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Story here.

For Debate:

  1. Assuming that Obama plans to continue fighting ISIL, does he need this?

1a. If he doesn’t get it, does he have to end his fight against ISIL?

  1. Assuming he does need it, what form should it take?

  2. Do we need to repeal the current AUMF from 2001 first? That’s the AUMF that he’s been relying on so far, that has no expiration date, and that authorizes the president to use force against anyone involved in or related to the 9/11/01 attacks.

From my standpoint, I just don’t get it. Obama has claimed he doesn’t need Congressional authorization to do what he’s been doing, so why would he need Congressional authorization to continue what he’s doing? That pretty much covers 1 and 1a. (Of course the answer is that he doesn’t REALLY have the authority to do what he’s doing, but he’s doing it anyway and Congress just doesn’t care enough to stop him.)

As for #2, I like the idea of limiting it to 3 years, and I would want it restricted to countries that explicitly ask for our help (Iraq is OK, Syria is not). I don’t see any danger of “telegraphing an end point” to the enemy, since Congress can renew it if needed. And no US ground combat troops. Let other countries in the region provide those as needed.

And then for #3. YES!!! Let’s get rid of that open ended monstrosity of a bill that could let some future hawkish president go wild around the world “fighting terror”. Also, that takes care of #1 and #1a.

n.b.: My answers above are ASSUMING OBAMA WANTS TO FIGHT ISIL. I would prefer we get the hell out of that area, militarily, so if I were in Congress, I would not vote for a new AUMF and would press to repeal the old one. I would only support an AUMF if the US was actually in danger of being attacked, which I don’t think we are.

2

Obviously not.

Again, obviously no.

I’ll be honest here…to me, this looks like an attempt by Obama to basically limit follow on administrations (presumably Republican ones) to have much more limited powers. If he was doing this early in his first term it would be one thing, but this is pretty transparent to me.

To answer your question, no, I don’t think we need to repeal AUMF, nor make it have to be periodically refreshed by what has become an increasingly politicized and contentious Congress. I would agree that there should be some limits put on it, but trying to limit what the President can and can’t do wrt terrorist groups abroad is trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle at this point…even if it’s a great idea, it’s just not going to happen, IMHO.

I disagree. ISIL/ISIS needs to be fought. I think the current US role in that fight is pretty much optimal from OUR perspective. We are mainly in an advisory role wrt ground combat, and simply one of many nations participating in the air war (granted, probably the most capable and biggest player, but still only one of many). I also disagree with you that ISIL/ISIS and groups like it aren’t a direct threat to the US, since the US absolutely relies on resources from the region they are fighting in. In addition, I don’t think that the US has to limit itself to fighting only those who are existential threats to ourselves and basically let the rest of the world figure things out for themselves. A group who can and has done the things that ISIL/ISIS has done needs to be opposed before they become too strong, and WHERE they are doing these things has an real impact not only US strategic resources but those of the rest of the industrialized world, which makes it even more important that we be involved.

3

I think any plan for a new AUMF won’t make too much sense if Congress doesn’t repeal the original. I fail to see the point otherwise.

4

The article linked in the OP claims that it’s highly questionable whether the 2001 AUMF covers the actions Obama is taking. But of course, not enough people care about that to do anything, so perhaps that’s moot point.

5

Yeah, the AUMF’s critics have been questioning it, but to what avail? It’s broad enough and vests enough authority in the President that nothing short of repealing it is going to limit it.

6

1. Assuming that Obama plans to continue fighting ISIL, does he need this?

“Need” is an ambiguous word here. I assume you mean, “is it legally required?”

And the answer is: we don’t really know (which is part of why Obama wants to do it, to get out of any legal gray areas). For all we know, no AUMF at all is required. It could be that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and that the President’s Article II powers enable him to use military force at his discretion. He still couldn’t build an army without congress, or declare war against a sovereign state with all the diplomatic and legal repercussions, but he could order a military commander to shoot a guy.

Beyond that, we don’t really know if the Administration’s interpretation of the 2001 AUMF is kosher. It relies on the notion of “associated forces,” which is a hopelessly Twentieth Century notion. Sure, ISIS is a cousin of Al Qaeda. But how much organizational DNA do they really have to share? No one really knows.

The practical question here is whether Congress supports military action against ISIS. Of course they do. Do we even have to take a vote? The rest is just legal formalisms. And don’t get me wrong, I think legal formalisms are the best formalisms! But it’s hardly an objection to them that they are pedantic or technical or moot.

2. Assuming he does need it, what form should it take?

The two fundamental problems with the scope of the 2001 AUMF are who is covered and for how long.

We can’t really solve the first problem. If we want to apply Twentieth Century legal limits to Twenty-First Century wars, then we have to accept some ambiguity in who, exactly, we’re declaring war on.

But we can solve the second problem easily. Pop a 3-year expiration on that motherfucker. Which is the plan, I think.

7

Clearly, it’s a clever ploy to get the GOP to suddenly embrace pacifism and demand an immediate end to all of Obama’s imperial wars of aggression.

8

Isn’t this effectively a civil war fought across boundaries created by imperialists?

9

Dude, that’s the funniest thing I’ve ever seen you post!

I generally agree that we should be fighting ISIS/ISIL and that some kind of renewal should be necessary for continued AUMF; open-ended AUMF is a bad idea.

10

I’m not sure if this was meant facetiously or not, but this looks pretty accurate to me. Making this request puts the Republicans in Congress in a no-win position.

11

Let’s pretend your trite summary is correct. So? What’s that got to do with whether Obama should request a new AUMF?

12

Of course, “associated forces” doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the 2001 AUMF, as covered by a great Radiolab piece. Per the plain language of the authorization, only nations, groups, and people directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or nations, groups or people who harbored those responsible, are legal targets. ISIS does not fit into any of those categories. I understand that there’s been nearly 15 years of precedent set that might say otherwise, but I’d like to see the AUMF repealed and replaced with something saner, because at this point it’s basically lost all meaning.

13

I dunno really, just a trite thought that the last 50 years or so has repeatedly demonstrated the US bombing the shit out of peoples tends to result in the US not winning, and the wider geo-politics becoming even more complicated.

14

The ‘wider geo-politics(sic)’ seem to get more complicated with or without us. We aren’t doing shit in the Ukraine, yet that situation seems cosmically fucked up without our assistance. I don’t see whether Obama gets a new AUMF as making much of a difference one way or the other on really anything, including whether the US does or doesn’t bomb ‘the shit out of peoples’ in the future.

15

Really. I think that might come as a surprise to Victoria Nuland.

16

Not really. Many of them, like McCain want to give Obama even MORE authority. They can oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough, if they feel like they need to oppose it just for the sake of opposing it.

17

I think it’s more accurate to say that ISIL is the son (or grandson) of al Qaeda, rather than a cousin. It used to be al Qaeda. Consider it al Qaeda with a new branding. If ObL had changed his name to Johnny Walker, we’d still be going after him.

18

That is what I think too. From his rhetoric its clear that Obama is getting pretty tired of the Republicans sitting on the side lines and waiting to see what he does so that they can take the opposite side and claim that everything would have come up roses if he had done it their way. With something like that battle with ISIS where there are no good choices, forcing congress to step forward and take a stand one way or another makes it harder for them to continue this charade.

19

No, that’s incorrect. There was a militant movement led by Zarqawi that predated AQI and later rebranded as AQI when they allied with Bin Laden. Zarqawi’s group was essentially ISIS before and after its Al Qaeda allegiance, complete with anti-Shi’a and even more radical views. But the complexity of it all just goes to show that non-state organizations are pretty hard to pin down.

20

I don’t think it’s incorrect in the context of what we are discussing, which is whether or not ISIL falls under the umbrella of organizations referenced in the 2001 AUMF. It was once part of aQ, and although it has changed its name, it has not renounced the general goals of aQ-- it has added even more extreme goals. It’s like al QaedaPlus, the new and “improved” version.

But getting back to this move by Obama, I have to wonder what he is thinking. I think it’s pretty unlikely he’s going to get Congress to repeal the 2001 AUMF, and I doubt he’s going to get the permission he’s looking for. The last time he sought permission from Congress, it was clear he wasn’t going to get it (but ended up not taking military action). Then what? Business as usual, but he makes it look like the actions he take are not legitimate.