Congress, Constitutional Law, International, Military, Politics

Obama: I Need No Congressional Approval To Go Back To War In Iraq

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingWe have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations, President Obama declared this week that he does not need any approval or even consultation with Congress if he decides to commit us again to war again in Iraq.

As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that the President does not need congressional approval to do go back into combat and then matter-of-factly that in their brief conversation, the President “did not give us an array of actions he was planning to take.”

While we do not expect combat troops on the ground, the White House appears to be exploring an intervention with air power and possible special forces. The White House simply told Congress and the public to trust their uber president: “Any action that he might contemplate when it comes to … the use of military force will be to deal with the immediate and medium-term threat posed by ISIL.”

I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I just ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.

This week I debated the head of the Brennan Center at New York University on Obama’s unilateral actions and the dangers that they pose on the PBS program Newshour. While my co-guest repeatedly insisted that he is “not troubled” by the concentration of authority in the presidency, I again believe that Democrats will long regret that they support the rise of this uber presidency:

357 thoughts on “Obama: I Need No Congressional Approval To Go Back To War In Iraq”

  2. Eric
    Militants destroy philosopher’s tomb, poets’ statues in Iraq
    http://news.yahoo.com/militants-destroy-philosophers-tomb-poets-statues-iraq-144605008.html

    ISIL and other militants, whose strict Salafi interpretation of Islam deems the veneration of tombs to be idolatrous, have destroyed several tombs and mosques inside Syria and now in neighbouring Iraq where they have seized towns and cities.

    Sunni… Shiite
    Ripping a nation apart.
    Now, it’s spreading.

  3. Paul C. Schulte
    Roy – are you sure the NSA could handle the new cell phone intelligence coming in from Iraq if we annexed it?
    = = =
    The NSA has already proven itself incapable…
    … Iraq is one of two countries 100% under surveillance.

    Yet they FAILED to see the rise of ISIS…

  4. Mike Appleton: “What we are witnessing is the emergence of a sectarian civil war that was utterly predictable and virtually inevitable given the history of that country. … I opposed the invasion because I believed then that the elimination of Hussein would lead to civil war and the ultimate partition of the country.”

    You’re conflating. The ISIS invasion has sectarian characteristics, but a sectarian commonality does not a civil war make – unless perhaps you consider the majority of European military history, or world military history for that matter, was actually civil war?

    Sect ≠ intra-nation.

    The issue of partition with Iraq is complicated, but suffice to say, partitioning Iraq is not an inevitable outcome of regime change nor is that way preferred by the Iraqi people. It’s telling that aggressive outside elements have been necessary to push sectarian differences to a level that looks like civil war in Iraq.

    Don’t forget, the Counterinsurgency “Surge” was cooperative. It worked – and could only work – because Iraqis, especially the Sunnis in the Anbar Awakening, made the life-or-death decision to buy into the long-term course envisioned with the project.

    The Saddam problem was a metastatic source of the broad problem set that got us to 9/11. Saddam was not rehabilitated. Saddam was not compliant with the ceasefire obligations designed to ensure he was rehabilitated enough to be entrusted with the peace. Over the course of defying Iraq’s ceasefire obligations, he was getting worse. A noncompliant, rearming Saddam was not the solution.

    We knew from the start that the transition from the rule of Saddam to a form of pluralistic liberal state was going to take time and help with fundamental changes in Iraq’s social political culture. But we’ve done this before.

    Korea was supposed to be an impossible nation-building project, too. Our errors, ad hoc actions, cost, and the myriad seemingly incompatible characteristics of Korea made the challenge of Korea dwarf the challenge of Iraq. In comparison, at the 8 year mark in 2011, our peace operations in Iraq were far more promising than Korea at the 8 year mark in 1953. The difference is we stayed the course with Korea, while we failed to stay the course with Iraq at a critical stage of Iraq’s development.

    In nation-building, the necessary condition at the foundation of all other developmental areas is security. As exemplified by Korea’s rocky course, a lot of bad, including egregious American errors, can be fixed in a progressive course as long as the security of the nation is maintained. The one thing we got right with Korea that allowed us to fix our mistakes was not wavering on our security commitment.

    Security has been the traditional US post-war role in Europe and Asia. We’ve always incrementally pulled back from internal affairs while facilitating the host partner’s development under our security umbrella. Yet in Iraq, the removal of our security umbrella came while the conditions surrounding Iraq, particularly in Syria, grew sharply more dangerous due to the degeneration of the Arab Spring.

    A sectarian civil war in Iraq was not inevitable nor predictable after the COIN “Surge”. However, the nascent Iraq’s vulnerability to outside influences, especially the war next door in Syria, was predicted with the departure of the US forces that were a linchpin in multiple ways for the early development of Iraq.

    To identify the pivot point, you need only refer to the official assessment of Iraq’s liberal progress and long-term potential of our strategic partnership at the point that the American variable was removed from the nation-building equation in Iraq:

    President Obama, May 19, 2011:

    Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

    Statement on the US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq website:

    After a long and difficult conflict, we now have the opportunity to see Iraq emerge as a strategic partner in a tumultuous region. A sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq that can act as a force for moderation is profoundly in the national security interests of the United States and will ensure that Iraq can realize its full potential as a democratic society. Our civilian-led presence is helping us strengthen the strong strategic partnership that has developed up to this point.

    The Iraq praised by Obama was the post-Saddam Iraq developed under US protection. What is happening to Iraq now is because Obama made the historic error of prematurely leaving Iraq unprotected instead of staying the course like Eisenhower stayed the course with Korea.

  5. Paul C. Schulte
    Max-1 – we are not at war with Iraq. Just ask Obama.
    = = =
    LOL…
    Like I said… a society under siege doesn’t feel the same way.
    Obama doesn’t live in fear of being droned.
    His daughters don’t live in fear of their wedding parties being droned.

    The man is out to lunch…

  8. Max-1,
    I hope the Times is successful in getting those videos, but they probably ended up in the same place as the CIA videos of the waterboarding.

  9. MAX-1,

    Or, maybe Obama needs to be more like Putin?
    ====================================

    Yeah, with a twist. Maliky is finished. The Shiite Mullahs are figuring things out. His stuff stinks.

    FYI, Real time, most of the oil exports from Iraq go to China, they don’t handle 911 world police calls. And neither does Putin in Russia!

    USA, USA, USA.

  10. I’m glad for you too Raff. I worry that this is just a beginning and before we know it, there will be another “surge”. My daughter is still attached to the Marines.

  11. I am with Mike A. that Congress would give him and any other President the authority to send more than just so-called advisors into Iraq. Just look at the MSM and Cable media who have been beating the war drums almost 24/7. Why do we want to go in there again? And wasn’t the status of forces agreement agreed to during the Bush Agreement that put a timetable on our exit?
    Annie, I am glad my son is out of the Marines in light of this Iraq nonsense.

  13. obamas masters will do anything to grab the syrian oil pipeline which is why barry sotero is doing his damnest to find a way into that war…

  14. Annie – “OK I used hyperbole regarding the bike. If one would drive around in my county one would see a plethora of SUVs, big ol’ gas guzzling behemoths. How about a nice little car with excellent gas mileage?”

    Can’t do it. I have two vehicles, one 69 Mustang and two, 69 C-10 Chevy Pickup. Both with V-8’s. I do have a motorcycle that helps offset mile mileage. But the way I look at it is I am recycling what already exists. Plus I can’t stand all the regulated crap that gets put on modern cars just so the “engine” light can come on. But don’t fret, since I’m sure in the next 5-10 years the govt. will either make my vehicles illegal or make the taxes so high that only the rich will be able to have them. So for now, I drive the your know what out of them.

    On a philosophical note, I consider myself to be a cornucopian. So, if you really believe that carbon based fuels are finite, then what difference does conserving do? Conservation then just becomes a “putting your head in the sand” mentality. The sooner we run out or stress our supply the sooner we will come to a new paradigm.

  15. Roy,
    We tried that under Bush… and then Bush was forced to sign a withdrawl agreement in 2008, just months before he left office, to have all military combat troops out by 2011.

    Now, credit Obama here… he tried to extend the militarized occupation past 2011. Maliky wouldn’t have none of it and said GTFO!

    Or, maybe Obama needs to be more like Putin?

  17. Annex Iraq. Folks I see an opportunity of a lifetime developing in Iraq. The senior religious Shiite Mullahs are talking.
    They want stability from the USA. OK.
    Invade with US instant democracy, LAWS and IRS compliance. 51st state of the union.

    USA, USA, USA.

    1. Roy – are you sure the NSA could handle the new cell phone intelligence coming in from Iraq if we annexed it?

  19. At least we know Obama didn’t vote for the AUMF of 2001…
    … But he’ll exercise it like George W. Bush did.

    And when Hillary is elected?

    Will she exercise what she did authorize, some more?

  20. IN TEN YEARS…
    … Will we still be legislated under the guise of a Patriot Act?
    … What nation will the AUMF of 2001 guide us into?
    … What legal mumbo-jumbo will be used to excuse torture?
    … Will we be electing officials based on their rhetoric of how “safe” they will keep us from their warmongering?

    REMEMBER:
    Al Qaeda didn’t violate the 4th Amendment
    … Congressional approval and the NSA did.

    I know… Hillary will save us?

Comments are closed.