President Obama requested that Congress approve further military action against the Islamic State last week, but some say the appeal is long overdue.
The president’s request for war powers comes in the midst of a controversial seven-month-long airstrike campaign against the Islamic State in the Middle East.
“I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to working with the Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL,” Obama wrote in his letter to the legislature. “I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our Nation's security than by enacting this legislation.”
Despite his request, the president firmly maintains that the authority to carry out airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is granted to him by existing statutes, namely the 2001 authorization of military force used by the Bush administration to combat Al Qaeda.
The 2001 AUMF addresses the use of force against those groups that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, the U.S. State Department did not recognize the Islamic State as a terrorist organization until Dec. 2004.
“I think the president knows that he would not be able to get congressional support for anything beyond airstrikes and special operations,” said Dr. Stephen Long, a political science professor at University of Richmond. “But I think [he] knows that if he’s going in for another couple years, he needs the political buy-in from Congress.”
Long’s areas of expertise include international conflicts in the Middle East and the long-term threats of terrorism.
White House officials have reaffirmed that the Bush-era AUMF authorizes the president to fight from a “permanent war footing” against terrorist groups, but some legal scholars disagree.
“Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate,” said constitutional law scholar Bruce Ackerman. “[Obama] is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.”
Legality isn’t the only obstacle the president faces in fighting the Islamic State. According to recent polls, Americans are now less supportive of military action than in the past, and the majority oppose sending ground troops to fight the militant group.
“I think the broader critique that will pick up some steam over time is the notion that the president is accepting that there is a military solution to this conflict,” Long said. “So I think critics are going to more and more raise this issue that we really need to have a regional solution, a cooperative solution between the neighboring states.”
Long suggested that Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Iran could emerge as potential allies in wiping out the Islamic State.
Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter
Contact reporter Adam Gibson at adam.gibson@richmond.edu
Support independent student media
You can make a tax-deductible donation by clicking the button below, which takes you to our secure PayPal account. The page is set up to receive contributions in whatever amount you designate. We look forward to using the money we raise to further our mission of providing honest and accurate information to students, faculty, staff, alumni and others in the general public.
Donate Now
