Curb Obama's endless war power, don't expand it: Column Without repealing the 2001 war authorization, the president's request merely extends the forever war.

Elizabeth R. Beavers | USATODAY

The Obama administration made news yesterday by requesting from Congress new authority to use military force against the Islamic State. The proposal launched a full news cycle of speculation over what sort of ground troops should be allowed, how long this new war authorization should last, and more. There is one problem with this debate — it is all irrelevant because the proposed authorization is missing one key provision.

The White House's proposal does not change or repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which launched the global war on terror. Regardless of how members of Congress feel about the war against the Islamic State or the specifics of authorizing force, they should be extremely concerned about this glaring omission. Here's why.

First, the war has already started, and can continue regardless of what Congress authorizes if the 2001 AUMF is not repealed. If it seems absurd for a president to ask for permission to use military force six months after he already began bombing, it is. Rather than first asking Congress for authorization, the president instead chose to launch strikes against the Islamic State in August 2014 by using the outdated, overly broad 2001 AUMF as legal justification. Since the president already believes he has full authority to wage this war, a new authorization that leaves the old one in place is simply political theater and not really an authorization.

Like this column? Get more in your e-mail inbox

Second, if members of Congress intend to limit the president's authority in any way, it is pointless to do so without getting rid of the 2001 AUMF. It does not make sense to go through the political turmoil of crafting, debating and passing a new force authorization with careful limitations, when there is a vague, blank-check authorization still available for the administration to use. That would only create layers of confusing and complex authority from which the president can pick and choose when advantageous.

Third, Congress is failing to meet its constitutional responsibilities by keeping the 2001 AUMF in place. The founders specifically assigned Congress, and not the president, the responsibility of declaring war. That was because they were wary of placing decisions of war in the hands of a single, unaccountable executive. That is precisely what the 2001 AUMF has done — as long as it remains available, Congress doesn't have to make the solemn decision of whether or not to go to war. This president and future presidents can just keep using force at their discretion based on authority that never expires. This makes war, by design, endless.

Lastly, on the topic of endless war, this proposal goes against everything President Obama has said about his foreign policy intentions. In 2013 he stated a desire to "refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate." In a letter to Congress accompanying yesterday's draft proposal, he re-iterated the desire to work with Congress to narrow and repeal the 2001 AUMF. If that is indeed the president's goal, the only way to achieve it is to put an expiration date on the endless war authorization. And if that's going to happen, it has to happen now.

There has been a lot of talk about what to do with the forever war. This discussion has been going on since the AUMF was enacted in September 2001. Now is the time to stop talking, and start repealing. The 2001 AUMF is not going to fade out of use, it's not going to expire on its own, and there will likely never be a better vehicle to deal with it than through the exact debate that is happening right now. Nuanced discussions over the president's proposed force authorization are meaningless without a plan to once and for all put the 2001 AUMF in the dustbins of history. Let's hope Congress takes this rare window of opportunity to cancel the blank check for war it wrote nearly 14 years ago.

Elizabeth R. Beavers is the legislative associate on militarism and civil liberties at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors . To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter .