Congress, Constitutional Law, International, Military, Politics, Society

Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS

President_Barack_Obama220px-B-2_spirit_bombingPresident 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

417 thoughts on “Obama: I Do Not Need Congressional Approval To Go To War With ISIS”

  1. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/26511322/2014/09/11/former-senator-government-hiding-full-911-story

    It appears that the Bush Family buddies, the Saudi government may have been complicit in 9/11/2001. Amazing stuff, from Fox no less. More discussion aboutthis feom sites accross from both the right and left blogoshere. This 28 page report needs to be declassified immediately, before we put any more trust in the Saudi government. Who can be trusted to help with ISIS among the ME countries? No one I suspect. I’m worried we’re being sucked into a big huge gaping black hole.

  2. Hahaha, Max, we were thinking along the same lines today. Check out my post upstream a little bit. 🙂

  4. slohrss29: “With all this negativity, they may have roll out more beheadings. Pardon the pun… Be afraid and carry on.”

    Pun pardoned.

    Peter Van Buren, again:

    “Satire? Obama ISIS Speech Depresses Nation”

    September 11, 2014

    http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/09/11/satire-obama-isis-speech-depresses-nation/

    Reached at his luxury villa in Riyadh, an ISIS spokesperson just laughed. “ISIS lacks the ability to strike directly into your Homeland– I mean, who even says words like ‘Homeland,’ seriously man, outside of Leni Riefenstahl and Fox anymore? Anyway, we can’t whack you infidels at home, so we rely on the American government to do the job for us. And I must say, they are superb. Declaring ISIS a direct threat to Americans in Iowa, man, that sent ISIS stock futures soaring. Making all Americans depressed over our successes and the needlessly dumb acts their government plans to take? Man, you can’t buy that kind of PR. I’d say I was happy as a pig in poop right now if I did not consider pigs filthy creatures under my religion. Oh heck, why not? This is a great day!”

  9. Peter Van Buren:

    “Iraq: How Many Turning Points and Milestones Until We Win?”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/iraq-how-many-turning-poi_b_5787832.html

    Secretary of State John Kerry said on September 8 that the formation of a new Iraqi government was “a major milestone” for the country.

    Kerry told reporters at the State Department that the government formed on Monday in Baghdad had “the potential to unite all of Iraq’s diverse communities for a strong Iraq, a united Iraq and give those communities a chance to build a future that all Iraqis desire.”

    Kerry did not mention that divisive former Prime Minister Maliki, who was Washington’s man in Baghdad since 2006 tasked with uniting Iraq, stays on in the new government as vice president. Kerry also did not mention that the job of uniting Iraq has been on various U.S.-supported prime ministers’ and other Iraqi officials’ to-do lists since 2003, never mind the eventual point of the nine-year American occupation and 4,600 American deaths.

    But Kerry did say the week’s events are a major milestone. That’s the same as the turning point so often mentioned before about Iraq, right? Let’s look back:

    “This month will be a political turning point for Iraq,” Douglas Feith, July 2003

    “We’ve reached another great turning point,” Bush, November 2003

    “That toppling of Saddam Hussein… was a turning point for the Middle East,” Bush, March 2004

    “Turning Point in Iraq,” The Nation, April 2004

    “A turning point will come two weeks from today,” Bush, June 2004

    “Marines Did a Good Job in Fallujah, a Battle That Might Prove a Turning Point,” Columnist Max Boot, July 2004

    “Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq,” Bush, January 2005

    “The Iraqi election of January 30, 2005… will turn out to have been a genuine turning point,” William Kristol, February 2005

    “On January 30th in Iraq, the world witnessed … a major turning point,” Rumsfeld, February 2005

    “I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.” Senator Joe Lieberman, December 2005

    “The elections were the turning point. … 2005 was the turning point,” Cheney, December 2005

    “2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq… and the history of freedom,” Bush, December 2005

    “We believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens, and it’s a new chapter in our partnership,” Bush, May 2006

    “We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror,” Bush, May 2006

    “This is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens.” Bush, August 2006

    “When a key Republican senator comes home from Iraq and says the US has to re-think its strategy, is this a new turning point?” NBC Nightly News, October 2006

    “Iraq: A Turning Point: Panel II: Reports from Iraq.” American Enterprise Institute, January 2007

    “This Bush visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror,” Frederick W. Kagan, September 2007

    “Bush Defends Iraq War in Speech… he touted the surge as a turning point in a war he acknowledged was faltering a year ago,” New York Times, March 2008

    “The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda,” The Telegraph, December 2008

    “Iraq’s ‘Milestone’ Day Marred by Fatal Blast,” Washington Post, July 2009

    “Iraq vote ‘an important milestone,'” Obama, March 2010

    “Iraq Withdrawal Signals New Phase, But War is Not Over,” ABC News, August 2010

    “Why the Iraq milestone matters,” Foreign Policy, August 2010

    “Iraq Milestone No Thanks to Obama,” McCain, September 2010

    “Hails Iraq ‘milestone’ after power-sharing deal, ” Obama, November 2010

    “Week’s event marks a major milestone for Iraq,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012

    “National elections ‘important milestone’ for Iraq,” Ban Ki Moon, April 2014

    “Iraq PM nomination ‘key milestone,'” Joe Biden, August 2014

  11. anon: “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.””

    The Obama admin has openly acknowledged a CIA-led ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen type approach to Libya and Syria.

    That’s part and parcel with Obama’s flawed Presidential policy of yes to regime change but no to peace operations, ie, no boots on the ground. Well, if we’re going to pursue a policy of regime change without boots on the ground, that necessarily means proxies, and that means Charlie Wilson’s War redux.

    Now, the controversial, conspiratorial question is whether Obama has deliberately boosted the likes of ISIS. I think that’s a stretch. It’s possible, perhaps even likely that we’ve indirectly helped ISIS at some point and perhaps knew about it. I doubt, though, we’ve supported ISIS deliberately. We can seek out ‘moderates’ (which is a relative term), but the anti-Assad forces are various with shifting relations where ‘moderates’ mix with Islamists. Simply, they trade resources with each other.

    With the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen, we preferred the relatively moderate factions that later composed the Northern Alliance in the anti-Taliban fight. We have our preferences in the anti-Assad forces, too. However, especially when the CIA is working with a 3rd-party facilitator with its own preferences, it’s unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to control where our resources stay once we’ve invested them into the conglomerate of fighting factions.

    The obvious alternative to Charlie Wilson’s War is no to regime change. But if Obama is going to stick with yes to regime change, then the alternative to proxies is boots on the ground.

  13. Just because you don’t like the source does not make it less accurate. Even briebat has cited the guardian…. Pick and choose. If not on your opt script, then it’s to be discounted. A narrow mind is a clog to actual knowledge.

    1. Read my comments. The article is smoke and mirrors with no facts. You might want to take a look at Art III Section 3 of the Constitution on treason.

  16. Paul C. Schulte: “Bush screwed up in the after war action in Iraq”

    In terms of the objectives, parameters, policy, and leadership commitment that characterize the POTUS echelon of command, Bush approached the post-war in Iraq correctly on the whole. Those are the POTUS-distinct areas that Obama has mixed wrong and hopefully is correcting now.

    Now, the strategy for the post-war was flawed. Strategy is lower than POTUS and falls mainly on SecDef, but POTUS does touch it. However, a harsh learning curve is normal in war. The standard of perfect anticipation and planning that’s critiqued for Iraq is ahistorical. Our war successes regularly have included failures – many devastating (eg, Bull Run, Kasserine Pass and Op Market Garden, Task Force Smith and later Chosin Reservoir, etc) – on the way, from which we learn, evolve, and progress.

    In Iraq, we had a harsh learning curve, too. It just happened to be harsher for the security and stabilization stage of the post-war than the war of regime change itself.

    That’s normal. It happens because the enemy competes. Respect the enemy.

    My criticism for Bush on the strategy level is he could and perhaps should have pushed the Petraeus-led Counterinsurgency up front sooner as Commander in Chief. Ideally, COIN would have been Plan A for post-Saddam Iraq. But I also know, based in part on personal experience, that COIN was an unpopular and controversial option within the military. While Bush could have pushed COIN earlier, it’s also reasonable to have allowed the preferred CPA formula a fair opportunity to get right before trying COIN. Under the circumstances, that Bush decided on COIN over the objections in his administration and the military was a remarkable enough exercise of leadership by itself.

    The key – as we have done in other episodes over our military history – is we learned, recovered, and evolved to win. Iraq did get worse, but it got better by the time Bush handed off the mission to Obama. We had the conditions needed to resume building the peace and the project was on track again.

    But Obama pulled us out of Iraq too early at the same time Iraq’s surrounding environment was growing more dangerous. That was an error.

    1. Eric – Bush should have left some of Saddam’s people around to take care of problems. Once they decided they were wiping all the current bureaucracy out of Iraq is when the problems began. There was no one they could depend on.

  18. Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing. -Andrew J. Bacevich

    News Organizations Finally Realize Obama’s War Plan Is a Hot Mess

    By Dan Froomkin

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/11/news-organizations-finally-realize-obamas-war-plan-messed/

    Excerpt:

    But nobody has the understanding of the region, the writing chops, and the moral standing of Andrew J. Bacevich, the Boston University political science professor and former Army colonel who lost his son in the Iraq war in 2007. He writes today for Reuters Opinion:

    Even if Obama cobbles together a plan to destroy the Islamic State, the problems bedeviling the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East more broadly won’t be going away anytime soon.

    Destroying what Obama calls the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant won’t create an effective and legitimate Iraqi state. It won’t restore the possibility of a democratic Egypt. It won’t dissuade Saudi Arabia from funding jihadists. It won’t pull Libya back from the brink of anarchy. It won’t end the Syrian civil war. It won’t bring peace and harmony to Somalia and Yemen. It won’t persuade the Taliban to lay down their arms in Afghanistan. It won’t end the perpetual crisis of Pakistan. It certainly won’t resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    All the military power in the world won’t solve those problems. Obama knows that. Yet he is allowing himself to be drawn back into the very war that he once correctly denounced as stupid and unnecessary — mostly because he and his advisers don’t know what else to do. Bombing has become his administration’s default option.

    Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.

    End of excerpt

  20. anon – thank you for publicly recognizing my genius-hood. It made my day. 🙂

Comments are closed.