Blog Post

AEIdeas

During his State of the Union address, President Obama called on the Congress to authorize the use of force against the Islamic State:

Now, this effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL. We need that authority.

The White House, however, has sent Congress no proposal and Congress should provide whatever authority is needed to deliver defeat and death to the Islamic State and its fighters without tying the hands of the American military.

While George W. Bush won congressional approval for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the problem with conflicts in recent decades is not only that presidents of both parties have skirted the war powers act, but that the venality of politicians has undercut the mission. It’s easy for congressmen, senators, and even the current secretary of state to be for something before they were against it, but once US forces are committed, it is essential that they have full, unwavering, and unconditional support.

At present, debates continue in both parties between those who seek American leadership in the world, and those who prefer to keep America’s powder dry, in some cases even to the point of isolationism. Of course, the majority exist along a spectrum someplace in between. But a war power’s vote, win or lose, would be essential to put each and every single senator and representative on the record about just how they interpret the threat of the Islamic State.

President Obama and many of his congressional supporters are fond of the straw man argument that officials are either for diplomacy with Iran or seek war. When it comes to Iran, that dichotomy is of course silly. The point of strong sanctions and coercion is to build leverage for a successful deal and prevent a war that comes from the perception of American weakness. But when it comes to the Islamic State, perhaps there’s something to the either-or construction. If congressmen don’t see military force as essential to the Islamic State’s defeat, perhaps they believe that diplomacy is the proper path? Make no mistake: force will be essential to eradicate the Islamic State.

But one thing is clear: not a single American pilot, member of the Special Forces, or any other operator should be engaged in the fight against the Islamic State unless he has the full, unequivocal backing of the president, and the vast majority of congressmen. Never again, as during the Johnson and Nixon years or during the Bush and Obama administrations, should US forces in harm’s way become political footballs. We will end up fighting the Islamic State eventually—ceding safe havens to terrorists never ends well—but it’s long past time that American politicians recognize that they need to be as committed to this fight as US servicemen are. And if it takes a vote to do that, tomorrow isn’t soon enough.

Follow AEIdeas on Twitter at @AEIdeas.