Who declares war and when?
If the president's decision to seek authorization for a battle America is already waging came six months too late, Congress's decision to leave town on vacation this week helps symbolize why.
It is tempting to see President Barack Obama's request for permission to fight the Islamic State group as a partisan ploy in a city where the breakfast menu is a political document. But that discounts the deeper and more fraught question of who declares war for America.
A few lawmakers, like Sen. Tim Kaine, have tried to engage a public debate over that question. Kaine, who was an early supporter of Obama for president, in fact broke loudly with the president over it.
That puts Kaine in a small minority. For far too long, decisions about war have belonged almost completely to the White House. The fault for that belongs jointly to impatient presidents and to largely supine congresses.
The Constitution is clear: "The Congress shall have power to... declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
That authority comes way down on a long list of responsibilities delegated to the legislative branch, including the power to collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, regulate commerce and immigration, coin and secure money, establish weights and measures, build post offices, protect patents, create a court system, punish crimes on the high seas.
And what exactly did the founders mean by "war"?
Congress has declared formal war only a few times in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. But America has gone abroad to fight so many times that the precise number of foreign entanglements is actually disputed.
Aside from formal declarations of war or foreign adventures, Congress has formally authorized the use of military force several times, most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's what the president wants against the Islamic State group.
The request would "permit ongoing airstrikes and U.S. military training for local ground forces in Iraq and Syria for the next three years," The Washington Post reported, "while prohibiting 'enduring offensive ground combat operations.' It includes no geographic limitations on a possible extension of the war beyond those two countries in pursuit of the Islamic State and 'associated persons or forces.'"
Very broadly, Democrats on Capitol Hill are unhappy because the president's request is too vague. Republicans are unhappy that it's not broad enough.
Both have left D.C. on recess. The break was scheduled long ago, but it still arrived with plenty of import.
For six months, America has been bombing the hegemonic Islamic State, which has established a brutal caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Islamic State leaders are as media-savvy as they are savage: publicly executing aid workers, journalists and non-Muslims, raping and murdering children and women, and then updating their social media feeds.
The group, built on a perverted version of Sunni Islam, has proven indiscriminate in its recruiting, attracting the sociopathic and disaffected from all over the world.
The Islamic State's desire to expand its caliphate worldwide - and to do so by terrorism - has been well-publicized. The group is enormously wealthy and better equipped than any terrorists in history.
They pose an existential threat to several nations in the Middle East, including those overrun by refugees, and pose a real and verifiable threat to American interests both abroad and at home.
The president was already late in recognizing this threat when America joined the fight. Congress - long content to snipe and bluster and then back down - now has the opportunity to prove that it deserves a part in such momentous decisions and that it can put politics aside for the interests of the nation and world.
Just as soon as members return from vacation.
###