The U.S. Capitol Building is pictured in Washington, February 27, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed
Martin Matishak, Fiscal Times: Here’s Why Congress Still Won’t Okay the Wars in Iraq and Syria
Congressional lawmakers--Democrats and Republicans alike--found little to like about the Obama administration’s announcement last Friday that it would send at least 50 U.S. troops into Syria. While the deployment means Washington will soon oversee military operations against ISIS in another Middle East country, Congress is unlikely to get in the White House’s way.
The U.S. Constitution mandates that Congress, not the executive branch, declare wars. The last time Capitol Hill approved an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) was after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The brief document allowed the U.S. to target Al Qaeda and associated forces.
President Obama has leaned on the 14-year-old authorization as his legal justification for taking military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria in part because Congress is so fearful they could share the blame if the war goes badly.
Update: Obama's move in Syria reignites war powers debate (The Hill)
WNU Editor: There is no real U.S. political will to pass a new war authorization act. Congress is focused elsewhere, and with elections next year .... becoming even less so.
4 comments:
Obama's out?
At this point, the pressure on Congress for authorization is not much more than political gamesmanship.
Perhaps Mr. Obama will at some point go to Congress and make a case. But I doubt it.
Obama is only brave when he is fighting domestic political opponents. Otherwise he is a putty tat.
It's actually up to Congress.
So far everybody in power other than Rep. Gabbard (D-HI), Is fine running multiple wars in multiple countries against 17 different groups, on the basis of the 2001 AUMF targeting al Quida.
They don't even seem to care that the AUMF is being used to protect Al Quida.
Post a Comment