Will Congress ever authorize U.S. military action against the Islamic State?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:27:48 -0400

We hear a lot of discussion about executive power and the military these days. The Internet is flooded with discussions of whether President Obama has the authority to send troops to Texas. The true constitutional crisis, however, is not Jade Helm, it’s Inherent Resolve, the so-called war against the Islamic State.

Almost exactly two years ago, President Obama proclaimed that the national interest required intervention in Syria to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons against its own people—not only a war crime, but, Obama said, a “red line” for the international community. Shortly afterwards, though, Obama unexpectedly announced that he would first seek congressional authorization. “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said on August 31, 2013. “Having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy … And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”

It was an unusual moment in American history: a president pausing to acknowledge that Congress’s war power was not an obstacle but an asset to a democratic system. Obama knew very well that, if he sought an authorization vote, he might lose. As it happened, the need for a vote never arose; Russian diplomatic intervention produced a genuine settlement to the chemical-weapons problem.

But flash forward to today:

For the past year, the United States has been in a much wider conflict with the non-state that calls itself the Islamic State. This military operation dwarfs the proposed Syria bombing. We have put together a rickety, complex, and partly secret “alliance” with a number of seemingly incompatible players in the region, ranging from Britain and France to Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and, under cover, at least the tacit cooperation of Iran and even Syria. We are training “moderate” Syrian rebels and our troops are advising and training the Iraqi Army. The operation has spread from Iraq to Syria and perhaps now Egypt. It is taking place amidst—and arguably exacerbating—a refugee crisis that is engulfing not just the region but the Western European countries.

A spreading conflict, regional instability, pressure for deepening involvement ... and no congressional authorization for military action.

Read more at ...

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/08/one-year-war-congress-wont-declare/119369/?oref=site-defenseone-flyin-sailthru

================================================

One Year into the War That Congress Won't Declare

What if U.S. lawmakers don’t accept their duty to oversee the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 2:49 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:49:58 -0400

I would say no... It is a regional conflict. We ahve bigger direr problems clioser to home!

Response by SSgt Jeffrey Andrews made Aug 26 at 2015 3:03 AM

SSgt Jeffrey Andrews — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:03:46 -0400

I believe it will depend on who the President is and whether or not he has a same party affiliation House and Senate to back him up to do so.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 26 at 2015 3:10 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:10:54 -0400

Not until the next administration takes power. Congress is willing but the POTUS is not.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 26 at 2015 6:10 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:10:31 -0400

The US created ISIS by destabilizing and destroying Iraq. In my opinion, our country has an absolute moral obligation to go in with FULL FORCE and destroy ISIS before WW 3 happens. If ISIS is able to move into Europe with any amount of strength, it WILL be WW 3. Bombing campaigns and secret alliances are useless.

I know our country is war weary, and we are strapped for cash, and the military has been decimated by poor fiscal conditions. Nonetheless, if we don't act now, we will need to later, only it will be worse.

People are up in arms about the Iran treaty. I consider ISIS a much bigger threat, given the amount of the Middle East and Africa they have under their thumbs already. We need to crush this group NOW!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 8:55 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:55:33 -0400

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but an uneasy ally. It is difficult to declare war against an ideology. As long as Gallop polls dictate the Executive's actions, actions will be undeclared...and sadly out of Congress's realm.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 9:04 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:04:35 -0400

I am not so sure that they will, nor do I think our country truly views it as a necessity anymore. The constitution is clear, however the lines for war have been blurred so thoroughly through executive action that the need for a declaration of war for anything other than the next world war isn't a certainty. I think they should, but I do not know that they will.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Aug 26 at 2015 9:29 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:29:52 -0400

How about passing a tax increase to actually pay for it?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 26 at 2015 9:44 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:44:02 -0400

America should not "run" from anything and should stand by her commitments, BUT the affected countries owe themselves and their countrymen an effort to fight for themselves. If you won't fight for your own land or family why should we do it for you? Why should anyone? Some of the leaders of these affected countries denounced us from the get go, even kicked us out of their countries as a show of strength to their countrymen now want us back to fix a mess they let get out of hand. And America is left holding the bag to pay them to fight for them, pay for logistics to support ourselves, and they sit back and chill? Naw. Let them make a stand. Let them loose on their own, and when we're ready let's get in there and hopefully fix stuff. If we have to deploy back to a full fledged warzone, then let's send all these so called "experts" and beancounters so they can see FIRSTHAND what it takes to fight and win.

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Aug 26 at 2015 9:45 AM

MSgt Steve Miller — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:45:44 -0400

When President Bush took us back into Iraq to finish what his father started was the beginning of a war that is not against a country but a belief system. We beat Saddam quickly and then seen him hung for his crimes. We could of packed up and left, but stuck around to teach Iraq how to stand up a democracy, and how to fight. Finishing all of that was still not enough. The war against Iraq was long over, and now we were fighting a war IN Iraq. Against a country NO, but against a belief system you bet.

My brother once asked me what I thought of the United States returning to Iraq. I simply told him that we would most likely make more enemies than friends globally, and that we would never be able to fully disengage from the region. I told him that I thought we would be fighting a belief system for the remainder of my days on this planet. I still stand by this thinking. We are fighting a war against HATE and true EVIL, and I’m not sure it’s a fire that can ever be put out.

The Crusades were great reading, and after much deliberation I came to the personal conclusion that the Crusades were more about stopping an attempted “caliphate” than anything else. The current Islamic State has stated that they are attempting and will someday have a caliphate, and so the great crusades have returned. History once again repeats itself.

Should congress authorize a full head on War with ISIS? I would have said YES before our current administration weakened our military to some of its lowest numbers in history. We need a real commander and chief to rebuild our military and we need it yesterday. World War III is already taking shape. “I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh.” Ezekiel 32:6

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 26 at 2015 11:03 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:03:51 -0400

Congress may authorize overt direct military action against the tentacles of ISIS GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad. The preconditions should include reliable allies on the ground - Egypt and Israel and probably Jordan fit into that group. The Kurdish peshmerga militia also fits well into the trustworthy group but they are not a state and their statehood is resisted by our "allie" Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
The current covert direct military action strikes and air strikes are doing some good. The USA has to overcome the mistrust of most beleaguered nations because we say one thing and tend to do another. We have little stomach for protracted conflicts [longer than 6 months] and unlike much of the world we don't recognize the risks we are facing - radicalized Muslims and wannabe terrorists.
Ironically the fact that this nation uses the military as the advance guard for social experimentation - open homosexuality, women serving in all areas of military, embracing transgender people as service members will complicate our relationship with our Muslim allies in the Middle East region whose common people tend to abhor those decisions.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 26 at 2015 12:37 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:37:51 -0400

Gunny - I certainly hope so. We created this mess - I strongly believe we need to go in with everything we have and eradicate them, before they incur Europe and start WW 3...

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 1:55 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:55:19 -0400

Declaring war and authorizing military action are not the same thing. Just because congress hasn't pushed for a declaration of war, doesn't mean military action hasn't been taken to quell Islamic State threats. Unless something outrageous happens in the homeland, it's not likely to be a top priority of congress. Also, the 2016 election is fast approaching. The election will surely have bearing on any kind of "military action" taken in the next year and a half.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 26 at 2015 2:36 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:36:48 -0400

I believe nobody wants to take the responsibility of sending ground forces in to the cities. Not the POTUS, not Congress, not the Generals.

Response by SPC Ken Sawyer made Aug 26 at 2015 3:33 PM

SPC Ken Sawyer — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:33:54 -0400

It won't happen with this president remember he said he will stand with Islam over America

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Aug 28 at 2015 2:58 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:58:21 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad My gut feeling they never will. I believe that from apolitical standpoint our Congressional Leaders and politicains feel we have been at war too long. I don't think they will formally declare anything at this point until the 2016 Elections are over and they take the temperature of the nation and the exit poles for the flavor of the month. I think they will continue to support it through air strikes and other means behind the scenes. The current leadership can't build a coalition or get support form other countries, so everyone is waiting on new leadership to lead the way on this issue. Just my opinion. At the end day I might be wrong in my assumption

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 1 at 2015 1:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:06:21 -0400

To kill ISIS in Iraq will require a large infantry style army to fight in dangerous urban territory, and nobody wants to be or is capable of filling the capacity.

Response by SSG Timothy Miller made Sep 1 at 2015 10:47 PM

SSG Timothy Miller — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 22:47:09 -0400

I certainly hope not. The US is now numero uno in fossil fuel production. We no longer have a President who is beholding to the Saudi royal family. We no longer depend on their oil (thank goodness). Our people do NOT need to be dying in a place that has NOT known peace in a 1000 years. Leave them to their own devices. We do not have the cash for these wars either. I certainly hope we wind it down over there and bring our folks home. Focus on Pacific rim and Europe. Let the Arabs fight their own "holy wars".

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Sep 11 at 2015 8:49 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:12 -0400

Food for thought ...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/why-authorizing-the-war-on-isis-is-a-mistake/

Why Authorizing the War on ISIS Is a Mistake

It would be a serious mistake to pass a resolution authorizing a war that has already been going on illegally for more than a year.

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Sep 12 at 2015 1:34 AM

SSG Leo Bell — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 01:34:45 -0400

Nope

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 12 at 2015 12:04 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:04:23 -0400

No because we will fight ISIS with secret sauces.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Oct 16 at 2015 7:37 AM

LTC John Shaw — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:37:56 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad meh, to quote Hilliary Clinton, 'what difference does it make'
Typical DC food fight, when it should be about destroying ISIS/ISIL.

Response by SSG Antonine Galvan made Oct 16 at 2015 8:48 AM

SSG Antonine Galvan — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:48:59 -0400

Yeah the president for eight years this guys been full of baloney

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 16 at 2015 4:12 PM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:12:51 -0400

Since the congress basically gave war powers to the POTUS after 911 the congress doesn't have to get their hands dirty declaring war. It's wrong and it's not how it's supposed to be.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 27 at 2015 5:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:11:26 -0400

I have a gut feeling he does not want to stir the hornets nest, and the generals' strategic thinking leads us to believe confidence is hard to find.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 31 at 2015 3:39 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:39:09 -0400

I remember in 2003 there was talk about us going into Syria at that time. My reaction was "Oh no". This area is a sink hole we will get mired down in as we have before. The problem is the people of these countries either don't have the will to stand for their country or won't. Look at how many men of military age have fled to Europe. With Russia now involved this is a tricky situation. Please tell me who are the good guys and bad guys? I guess this depends on who you talk to. As food for thought, take a look at this video. If this is what some countries in the area think of our involvement, what will it be later? I wish I understood the language, but am going on the written translation: https://www.youtube.com/embed/UXodRLLkth4

Muslim world reacts to Obama's latest speech - IPhoneConservative - YouTube