President Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State. The President informed a few members at a dinner — a striking image of how low congressional authority has become in our tripartite system of government.
We 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 (and most recently on whether he will resume the war in Iraq), Obama is again asserting his extreme view of executive power.
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.
I have repeatedly testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, war is a particularly egregious form of this unilateralism since the Framers worked hard to limit such powers under Article I and Article II.
Not only is the United States about to enter a new military campaign based solely on the President’s authority but he is promising to fight to the Islamic State “wherever their strategic targets are.” That may suggest additional violation of international law if the United States acts unilaterally with regard to the borders of foreign nations. Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, seems to anticipate and support such actions. She is quoted as saying “This is not an organization that respects international boundaries. You cannot leave them with a safe haven.” For some countries, that view may seem quite threatening since the United States has been repeatedly accused of bombing and conducting operations in other countries without approval.
Once again, we are left with the questions of any limiting principle to this new uber-presidency. A president can now unleash a military campaign without congressional approval that could involve multiple nations. Yet, Congress seems content, again, to watch in a purely pedestrian role as if this invitation to a “dinner” is a sufficient substitute for congressional authorization. While it is not a check or balance, the president did pick up the check.
Source: Washington Post
Darren Smith
Dredd, I retrieved your comment at 11:09.
========================
Thanks Darren.
Paul: “the primary job of any country is to defend its interests”
Thanks, genius.
We’ve gone way, way beyond that point over and over and over again. And in the process, we’ve created a whole lot of messes.
Again.
Radicalization. Blowback.
And as Jill has noted:
“This is what a deep state looks like.” (And most Americans have no idea just how bad it is.)
If this is such a threat, then the government should raise taxes by 25% to cover the IOUs. I’m sure everyone will jump on that deal.
Thanks for the link about Turkey, Paul. Makes the point. If they wanted ISIS stopped, they could blow them out like a candle. I don’t get why people think, in the 21st century, these “adversaries of the week” keep storming in from some unknown eastern region like the Mongols. All this crap is either the result of leftover colonial Dutch-British-French imperial crap, or our own blowback, or the combination of both. Why don’t we just step back and let them blow up? I think we are actually in a good place right now. There’s a 30 Years War going on there, and we should see how that is going to dole out.
And–Oh yeah… like neither side is terrorist??? Weren’t the Kurds on the list at one point?? Either side of that group calling the other “terrorist” is the pot calling the kettle black. But, I continually forget–can’t let an opportunity slide by where we could supply arms–to both sides in this case.
Plus–how far will the Saudis really let us fight these guys??? Really???? If we would eviscerate them, some people here would get their allowances really cut down.
slohrss29 – I think the Turks have listed the Kurds as terrorists because the Kurds want their own country and have been waging a guerrilla war to get one.
Paul: “Of course, in the end it should always be about us.”
How’s that workin’ out for us, Paul?
John Whitehead: “There would be no end to the uproar if Americans understood the origins of ISIS, the latest hobgoblin in the government’s war on terror, whose funding appears to track back to the CIA, which helped fund its guerilla tactics in Syria.”
(https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_american_delusion_distracted_diverted_and_insulated_from_the_grim_reali)
(Paul, of course, missing the finer points.)
Two words:
Radicalization. Blowback. And we’re seeing and experiencing both, now.
anon – the primary job of any country is to defend its interests. However, Bush screwed up in the after war action in Iraq and Obama has just made it worse. I blame both of them. However, someone still has to clean up the mess.
plenty of “wars for oil, contractors. generals, Izzuhrul etc. cheerleaders on this
liberal…or is it claimed to be centrist/moderate site.
swarthmoremom: “When Obama was elected the first time, people were tired of wars”
This goes to why I advocate, as I did with Annie upthread, setting the record straight on the Iraq mission.
It’s not clear that the American people were genuinely “tired”, or whether the ‘war weariness’ is actually a product of being duped by the prevalent false narrative that the Iraq mission was “based on lies” and illegal/unConstitutional – despite that the primary sources clearly show OIF was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy.
Importantly, correcting the false narrative would be an important first step to correcting the corrupted social political dialogue that has metastasized under Obama into elementary errors in our foreign policy that have led to compounding harms in the world.
More importantly, I strongly suspect that if the false narrative were cured and the American people were made to understand the truth of the Iraq mission – again, as clearly shown by the primary sources – they would be de-tired in short order, which is vital to invigorate the People’s will, which is necessary for America to compete effectively in the global competition.
Regarding the discussion about “boots on the ground”, see my comments to Jill at September 10, 2014 at 12:40 pm and September 10, 2014 at 8:30 pm.
Long-arm targeted killings (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc) and even regime change (eg, Libya) can be pushed along with airstrikes and mujahideen-type proxy forces. But as I said to Jill, we don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace. On that level of non-permissive conditions, securing and building the peace requires boots on the ground.
Now, to be clear, Obama has been incrementally increasing troops in Iraq. Likely, he’s been adding CIA operatives and covert Special Forces apart from the published numbers. That only stands to reason since he’s employing a version of the OEF I strategy, and OEF I relied chiefly on CIA and SF on the ground to coordinate airpower and local ground forces, and conduct the most important/difficult precision missions.
However, my concern is that Obama in his Presidency has shown a marked aversion to peace building. He eschewed it in Libya. Took it away from Iraq. Even in Afghanistan, while sharply increasing the mission budget and troop numbers, he’s also restricted the mission parameters.
War is a near-term project. While war is often necessary to set the baseline to build the peace, building the peace is a long-term project in its own right. We don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace. Yet so far, Obama has shown a willingness to wage war in terms of killing persons and toppling regimes, but Obama has also shown an unwillingness to build the long-term peace in contrast to his predecessor and our Greatest Generation presidents.
Nick: “I am asserting there are 10’s of thousands who fought for Iraq and would happily VOLUNTEER to take back what Obama has squandered.”
Never mind that we had no “business” conducting a war there in the first place. Oh, wait:
http://www.export.gov/iraq/doingbusinessiniraq/index.asp
“Doing Business in Iraq”
“Are you aware of the significant opportunities in Iraq, a country of 31 million people?
“The Iraqi economy grew by an estimated 10 percent in 2012 and is expected to grow at a similar rate in 2013, driven primarily by rising oil production and higher oil prices over the forecast period.
Iraq at a Glance
* Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves at 112 mn barrels;
* Iraq plans to quadruple oil production by 2017 to 12 mn barrels per day;
* Multi-billion dollar projects in numerous sectors in the years ahead;
* Demand for U.S. technology and services is strong; and
* The country’s infrastructure needs an extreme overhaul. ”
Because, in the end, it’s really all about u.s.
anon – are you silly? Of course, in the end it should always be about us.
ns
HRC would be as bad for us and the world as Reagan, Barack Montana, Both booshes, and Bill Clintoon. Maybe you just like presidents who hate democracy, but love transferring taxpayer funds to the 1%.
Olly @ 12:32PM,
The soldiers, sailors, airmen/women and Marines that were involved in the war and occupation of Iraq were used as cannon fodder to further some politicians bankrupt ideology. They volunteered to defend the US not wage an illegal war based wholly upon lies nine thousand miles from home while their friends and families civil liberties were stolen by the US government,.
The use/abuse of US service people is directly responsible for the epidemic of active duty military suicides which account for more deaths each month than that of US service people killed in action.
PS Disclosure, I served in the USN from 1989-1997.
SWM,
You left out Jewish folks….
I’m not saying that @ all. I said Hillary would be a good Commander in Chief. I have said previously, only a man can teach a boy how to be a man. And, only a woman can teach a girl how to be a woman. I know many men who were raised by a single mom and turned out to be real men, not metrosexuals. Older brothers, uncles, neighbors, Big Brothers can all fill that role. But, without that mentoring, it is highly unlikely a boy can pick up the tools needed. Hell, this is not uncontroversial. That’s why there is Big Brothers. This is why there are mentoring programs for fatherless boys. We went over all this recently and I thought it was a good discussion. Maybe you weren’t there. Obama’s Rasputin is a woman. He needed a dude.
Paul C, I’m wholly unconcerned about your personal hatreds.
Do your own research.
FYI The government of Turkey falls under the heading of US government client state. They along with a host of other western governments are directly responsible for the training, arming, financing, providing actionable intelligence and providing political cover for the jihadists operating through out the world.
personanongrata – you have some cite that shows Turkey is a client state of the US?
What part of “volunteer” do you not understand Personanongrata? Some things are worth fighting for and us veterans don’t stop honoring our oath once we leave the service.
Persona, I am offering no one. I am asserting there are 10’s of thousands who fought for Iraq and would happily VOLUNTEER to take back what Obama has squandered. It would be an homage to them and their brothers who died. Do you understand VOLUNTEER?
“We are paying the dear price of a man raised by women.” nick So all males raised in either a lesbian family or by female heads of households are not qualified to run for office in your world? That is a rather privileged, elitist and sexist statement.
Nick S your delusional @ 12:18PM.
If the current state of affairs in Iraq, Syria, etal is so unpalatable to you, instead of offering others up to sacrifice for your blood lust and still born ideology, perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is and volunteer yourself and if your to old you can proffer up your military aged loved ones for sacrifice to the merchants of death on the altar of greed.
The US could put together a force of VOLUNTEERS who took Iraq the first time and are heartsick to see Obama squander it. They would VOLUNTEER to got there and fight. They just need a war leader, not an adjunct college professor.