Opinion/Editorial: Appropriate time to seek war powers against terrorism
After months of prodding from Sen. Tim Kaine and others, President Obama this week finally presented Congress with the draft of a document calling for approval of U.S. action against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).
The president asked for congressional authority for military action, but pledged not to engage in a lengthy ground war.
Mr. Kaine argues that current U.S. involvement against the brutal terrorist group exceeds approved parameters.
The question is important because it addresses the crucial issue of proper authority and balance of power.
Congress must vote to declare war, but today’s ongoing battle against terrorism is a different animal, unanticipated by the Framers of the Constitution. Quick decisions from the president and commander-in-chief responding to rapidly changing conditions are advantageous in this new kind of “war.” So are multinational military coalitions in which the U.S. provides support that falls short of the full commitment usually associated with declarations of war.
Yet these conditions create ambiguity. They also foster mission creep, in which U.S. action originally envisioned as narrowly limited eventually expands in breadth and depth, escalating in geographical reach and in American resources committed to action.
Meanwhile, after every escalation, we wonder: Is it war now ?
This question of committing U.S. lives or treasure to the fight deserves to be addressed by Congress and the American people.
While noting that he has some problems with the details of the draft authorization of force, Mr. Kaine rightly zeroed in on the fundamental issue of democratic process and proper balance of power. “… [W]e can now focus on having the proper debate and vote the American people and our service members deserve,” he said in a recent press release.
“I look forward to a robust debate … that will inform the American public about our mission and further refine this authorization to ensure that the U.S. is vigorously assisting nations willing to battle their own terrorist threat rather than carrying the unsustainable burden of policing a region that won’t police itself.”
Should the U.S. be involved in the battle against ISIS?
Yes.
The terrorist group is aggressive and vicious. Its immolation of a captured Jordanian pilot is just one example of its brutality.
When the king of Jordan visited the U.S. earlier this month, "it was just absolutely painful to talk" with him about the murder, Mr. Kaine said at the time.
Another example is ISIS's attempted genocide of the Yazidis, a group linked to Zoroastrianism and living in Iraq. President Obama authorized humanitarian aid drops and targeted airstrikes to try to assist them last year.
The U.S. has good reason for continued involvement, not only to protect innocent victims who live in the terrorists’ path in the Mideast but also to contain a group that, if allowed to gain strength, could come after us here at home.
###