As the threat posed by Islamic State forces in Syria and Iraq continues to fester, President Barack Obama is wise to seek approval from Congress for the use of military action against the terrorist organization. Congressional members, meanwhile, would be wise to approve his request.
This is not to be taken lightly. Supporting war actions that would put American troops in harm’s way should be a last-resort calculation that is embraced only after all diplomatic and economic avenues have been exhausted. Such is the case when it comes to answering the danger from the Islamic State. The barbaric actions and the inhumane public relations campaign undertaken by the rogue organization, which seeks to establish a Muslim caliphate and has seized control of a wide swath of the Middle East, call for such measures.
The first issue to be considered is the need for the Obama administration to seek congressional approval for the use of military force. Obama has undertaken a bombing campaign against Islamic State forces under the premise that action approved in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks applies in this instance. But such an assertion stretches the credibility of the administration.
The United States Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. The 1973 War Powers Resolution, approved over the veto of Richard Nixon, states that the president can send armed forces into action only through a declaration of war, through “statutory authorization,” or in the case of an imminent threat against the United States.
Seeking congressional approval for military action will allow for a necessary open debate over the need for — and the desired goals of — such action. As Conor Friedersdorf wrote last year for The Atlantic: “The legislature is in a better position than the executive branch to carry out the will of the American people, which ought to dictate United States foreign policy.” And “a congressional debate can help to test the arguments for intervention.” Plus, as then-candidate Obama said in 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
The next question, then, involves the specifics of Obama’s request. Considering the brutal form of Shariah law the Islamic State has established in areas under its control, and considering its eagerness to distribute videos of beheadings and the torchings of prisoners, strong measures are required to effectively confront the enemy. Obama’s proposal would limit the military action to three years and would prohibit the widespread use of ground forces.
While diverse opinions about how to deal with Islamic State can be found on both sides of the political aisle, many Democrats are opposed to the use of ground troops to meet the threat while Republicans typically want to leave that door open. As the United States’ lingering entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated, it would be a mistake to limit the tactics available to the military. Codifying the fact that ground troops would not be used — and alerting the enemy to that fact — would foolishly hamper the United States’ ability to engage Islamic State forces in the most effective manner possible.
War is not to be taken lightly, but neither is the threat of a stateless entity that has demonstrated savage tendencies. It is time for the president and for Congress to agree on a strong course of action to protect the American people.
