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
https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/509856285710639104
PS —
What number do you believe is more accurate, and given that YOU will (hopefully) respond SUBSTANTIVELY to THAT issue, kindly provide the source for your information…so that all can weigh it for bias.
Note that I said “up to one million”. Do you think it’s higher? I’m only referring to the Clintoon sanctions/attacks. Do you consider contaminating the water supply used by innocent civilians “not a problem” since Saddam was no longer a favored U.S. dictator at that time?
Jill: “Our wars aren’t bringing justice, democracy or help to the people of Iraq or anywhere else.”
War isn’t supposed to do any of those things. War is a contest for dominance.
When we’ve won dominance, then we can set the foundation of security and stability. When we’ve set the foundation of security and stability, then we can build the peace on our terms.
War and peace go together. We don’t win a war until we’ve secured the peace. In many cases, we can only build the peace after we’ve won the war.
See my comment to you at September 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm.
In February 2003, I attended a panel at school that included Paul Bremer. He accurately predicted the challenges of Iraq after Saddam.
Knowing the challenges, however, is not the same as solving them.
Bremer had a good blueprint for the transition after Saddam. CPA officials understood what was needed in a macro academic sense. Their choices were reasoned and justified. But the CPA failed to execute Bremer’s blueprint on the ground in the micro real-world sense. The CPA and, yes, the US Army simply was overtaken by events on the ground. Like I said, it’s a contest. We fell behind the insurgents and terrorists, such as the Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda, and Iran-sponsored Sadrists. The enemy used extreme violence against the state, economy, peace operators, and the Iraqi people in order to blow up the necessary foundation of security and stability – and with it, the initial, nascent peace process.
Based on what I’ve heard, there was a ‘golden hour’ in the immediate post-war period. Most Iraqis wanted the better future after Saddam that President Clinton had promised them. President Bush honored President Clinton’s promise and pledged to build the peace with Iraq. It’s barely remembered now that the international community was prepared to invest and pour assets into Iraq in the post-war, but only if America guaranteed the foundation of security and stability in Iraq. As GEN Petraeus warned, “Act quickly, because every Army of liberation has a half-life.”
Think of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – America’s higher social, political, and economic aspirations for Iraq after Saddam wholly depended on first establishing the base of security and stability, followed by orderly governance, services, and economy. When the terrorists and insurgents beat us to 1st base on security and stability, we lost the ‘golden hour’ and our first, best chance to take control and build the peace. Our higher order aspirations for Iraq could not work absent the base of security and stability.
Having served as a soldier in an advanced US peace mission – South Korea – I can assure you killing civilians is not characteristic for us. It’s not our strategy. When the US Army wins dominance, civilian casualties drop sharply and peace is built. That ain’t just correlation. That’s causation. That’s the American way.
However, when we lose dominance to the enemy – as happened in Iraq before we won back dominance with the COIN “Surge” – civilian casualties rise. That also isn’t correlation. That’s causation. Civilian casualties are characteristic of the enemy’s strategy.
The peace solution is not giving the civilians whom rely on American protection over to enemies like the Taliban and ISIS for whom civilian casualties is a purposeful strategy. The peace solution is to defeat the enemy, win American dominance, and build the peace. The peace solution is also not abandoning the peace-building process.
As I said upthread, imagine the consequence if Eisenhower had abandoned Europe and/or Asia in the early 1950s.
Heck, by the early 1950s, we had fought the Japanese, north Koreans, and Red Chinese in rapid succession for Korea, with a lot of civilian casualties. But Eisenhower didn’t abandon Korea. We stayed, and secured and built the peace there, at least as much as we’ve been able with the other Korea still threatening.
Respect the enemy, Jill. Know what our default is. Know what their default is. The enemy wants peace, too, but their peace is not like our peace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/congress-war-isis_n_5798780.html “WASHINGTON — It’s a rare day in Washington when lawmakers in both parties agree on something. But when it comes to the Islamic State, members of Congress are practically in lockstep pushing for an expanded fight against the militant group overseas.
The Huffington Post spent Tuesday talking to a random sampling of 10 lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans, from both chambers — about the need to step up America’s role in countering the Islamic State as it expands its terrorist stronghold in Iraq and Syria. All but one were quick to frame the group as an imminent threat to the United States and one that must be snuffed out immediately.
“There’s been no pushback against the Islamic State and they have made breathtaking advances. We haven’t seen anything like this since Hitler and the blitzkrieg in World War II,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee.
“The Islamic State have declared war against the infidel, they have declared war against the U.S.,” she said. “The question is, how will we respond? We will view their threat as a law enforcement effort or exercise, or will we respond in kind that this is war.”
“They’re attacking countries that are pivotal to us and pivotal to peace in the Middle East,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “Automatically, we are affected … They’re an immediate threat to the U.S.”
Perhaps more notable than the show of uniformity on Capitol Hill, though, is the lack of debate over what type of threat the Islamic State actually poses to the U.S. There have been few congressional hearings on the matter, and lawmakers haven’t drawn much of a distinction between the militant group being a direct threat to the U.S. versus a threat to U.S. interests overseas. Instead, most have fallen back on broad statements that the situation is severe and the U.S. must immediately beef up its military involvement abroad.
SWM – since they ramped up the threat level on the Mexican border over a possible ISIS attack, I think they are a direct threat.
Annie
The policy of partisan politics is: it’s never when my team does it.
If Obama plays his cards Right, he’ll have both parties on his side.
Max-1 – I am not sure that Obama knows where Right is.
Oh I see it’s at 8 Central, ok more talking heads until then. I hope he throws it into the lap of the Congress, but I doubt he will.
“Blame-America leftists and isolationists don’t come from the same core perspective, but converge on a lot of their arguments.” Eric Yes, Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich held similar views about America’s involvement in war but did not hold similar views on most other issues.
swarthmoremom … funny you mentioned Dick Cheney. You should love him 😉 If the Republicans and Conservatives want to be forever in the dust bin of history all they have to do is keeping listening to that mendacious clown. He is anything but a real conservative. He’s a remnant of the Nixon West Wing for G-d’s sake. Why he is still on television I do not understand, but he is the very best friend the far left ever had politically.
I am saying this as a conservative independent leaning Republican, who will just skip the next election entirely if Cheney is still in a position of influence. My reasons will remain private for now, but they are solid and founded in my experience in the military.
Here comes the speech. This should be interesting.
ERIC
“A careful perusal of Resolution 1441 reveals grounds for arguments both for and against the existence of a Security Council authorization for the use of force against Iraq in 2003 — and this in a document that resulted from eight weeks of negotiations among governments that were working hard either to secure or deny such authorization. The failure to close off one or the other sets of arguments suggests that the ambiguities were intentional and that the potential for deep disagreement over the legal meaning of the document was consciously accepted at the time.”
Sounds like your argument is that Boosh started Golf War2 because he “had” to. I disagree. The U.S. bears the guilt for BOTH invasions, and the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqi children as the result of U.S. sanctions and contamination of the water supply there. Then U.S. Sec, of State Madwoman
NotAllright said “yes, it was worth it”.
LBJ would almost certainly have been indicted/convicted/imprisoned for bribery if JFK hadn’t been assassinated — on the very day that hearings were to be held concerning (some) of LBJ’s alleged crimes. One good reason why many researchers believe LBJ knew he would not have to “worry about those GDamn Kennedys after tomorrow”.
Only one mainstream historian has had the guts to opine that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, and that LBJ may have had foreknowledge of it. The historian is Robert Bechloss.
bill mcwilliams – where the heck are you getting the number of one million Iraqi children?
swarthmoremom: “the isolationist faction of the republican party”
Just to clarify, there are the pro-autocrat, anti-liberal IR-realists.
Then there are the Paul-type “isolationist faction” libertarians. They descend directly from the America First Committee that opposed US intervention in WW2.
Blame-America leftists and isolationists don’t come from the same core perspective, but converge on a lot of their arguments.
Tough time for Rand Paul and his isolationism. You’re correct on that. He’s gonna have to buck up.
” Now there is much mention of the Republicans being wimps for not supporting the president to go toe to toe with ISIL.” Darren. From what I have read Dick Cheney and most republicans want Obama to take a harder line against ISIS.There is the isolationist faction of the republican party but when it comes to ISIS they are not saying much.
Jill: “the illegal invasion of Iraq”
How do you figure?
Saddam was in multiple breach of the UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire that was enforced by the US President under US law and policy. The legal basis of the Iraq enforcement is clear – see my comment at September 10, 2014 at 11:12 am.
The daze of yore us upon the premises.
Darren Smith,
You’re describing, basically, OEF I.
Clinton’s 1999 US-led Balkans intervention famously came in under the wire at 78 days, which he claimed satisfied the legal standard for military action under Executive authority only, missing Legislative authority. However, the post-war occupation in Kosovo has extended beyond that. US troops continue to serve today in NATO KFOR.
http://www.aco.nato.int/kfor/about-us/natos-role-in-kosovo.aspx
The length needed for KFOR and other historic US-led peace operations remind that we left Iraq too early. That obvious error has been costly. We must be careful not to repeat the error and do the job right moving forward, not by political incentive, which goes to my comments with Annie upthread that we must fix the corrupted social political dialogue and schema that caused us to make the obvious error of prematurely leaving Iraq – among other obvious errors that brought us to current crises – in the first place.
Possible legal authority:
As I said to bc, a new UNSC resolution would re-activate PL 107-243. Obama may also try to stretch the meaning of “threat by Iraq”.
A new multi- or bilateral treaty with Iraq, but that must be approved by Congress.
PL 107-40, the 9/11 law, stated the standing policy since the Clinton administration that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”. The unsettled question, which was debated for OIF, has been the specific character of a threat that opens such authority. The policy seems to fit ISIS, but again, the question is unsettled.
Statutory authority linked with a security agreement under international law. For example, when he skipped Congress for the Libya regime change, Obama claimed the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ justification was authorized by the general U.S. agreement with the United Nations covenant. R2P was tenuous when Obama used it for Libya and he hasn’t – as far as I know – cited it since, though its application seems to fit ISIS.
So far, Obama has been citing to the authority to protect US entities in Iraq. I’m unclear how far that authority stretches. While the President is authorized to respond if a US entity is attacked, I’m also unclear how far that authority stretches. For example, Bush could have cited the no-fly zone, where US planes were regularly under fire, but I don’t recall Bush citing to the no-fly zone as an authority for OIF. Perhaps it falls within the 90 days reporting standard.
It looks like someone is trying to interfere with the rants with facts and reason….
Darren, ISIS is blowback from the illegal invasion of Iraq and Bremmer disbanding the police and army. There’s a very interesting movie about this period in Iraq’s history called: “No End in Sight”.
Our wars aren’t bringing justice, democracy or help to the people of Iraq or anywhere else.
Our wars keep the oil fields safe for friendly oil companies, keep Cheney and friends (this includes the current occupant of the WH) rolling in money/power, and are an excuse to repress our own population. Just as David Addington said, (I’m paraphrasing) –one more bomb and FISA is gone.
I think SM’s poll is important. It shows this nation is ready for a dictator/repression and ready to give over our rights in exchange for “safety”.
Seeing as the USG is killing civilians all over the place, we aren’t winning hearts and minds and I do expect a terrorist attack. What this means to me is two things: 1. we need to peacefully try to prevent our govt. from committing all the atrocities it does in its wars of empire and 2. we need to mentally prepare for the fact that we are not safe from attack in the US, but this does not mean we should give up our rights.
I don’t know if following through on 1 and 2 above is possible. I feel that a dictatorship (or a more soft but extensive repression) is a more likely possibility in this nation. I hope I am wrong about that.
I posted this earlier: “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/as-obama-makes-case-congress-is-divided-on-campaign-against-militants.html?_r=3
Congress seems to have spoken. Its illegal when we say its illegal but we want him to take executive action when we, the congress, might have to speak up and take a vote and be held responsible for that vote.
Darren, If only people “could get past the Dem/Rep issues” Well, we could if we had more choices than those 2 lame parties.