Normally I hate public name calling, although I must admit that contemporary congressional antics and sound bites move my blood pressure to the point of doing so in private. The title of this post isn’t really just an expression of frustration though, it is actually a serious question.
Once again, the subject of authorizing military force against ISIS is in the news.  Its a continuation of the dialog which started back in February 2015, one based in a furor of  Congressional calls for military action against ISIS that had begun months earlier.

This week, the leader of the House told the press that he was once again talking to colleagues about an Authorization for Military Force against ISIS. He referred to a recent “productive listening session” on the subject and the need for providing flexibility to the military. Yet beyond that, the statement quickly moved on to politics and criticism of Presidential leadership – with the disclaimer that the Administration does not really need a new AUMF because it “already has all the authority to take the fight to Islamist terrorists that it needs.”
Now the question is, does Mr. Ryan actually believe that and despite the staff and legal resources available to him is he ignorant of the fact that the only AUMF approved by Congress specifically stated that the President is only authorized to use force against those individuals and groups which had carried out, supported or enabled the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. Is he not aware of the fact that the language in that legislation was altered to ensure that in a concern for Congressional caution, the Presidential authority did not extend beyond those individuals or groups personally involved in the 2001 attacks? If you would like the details of that, I refer you to in Shadow Warfare were we discuss the give and take on that AUMF in some detail as well as the fact that President Bush intentionally asked Congress not to give him the broader powers associated with a declaration of war – yet immediately began using the term “war on terror”.
Later, after military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress commissioned a legal assessment on the 2001 AUMF and its limitations; the opinion provided to them was that the language in the AUMF had been specifically crafted to focus only on the 9/11 attackers. Which leaves us with the only Congressional legislation in place being designed to be limited, legally not extending to a broader war on terror and with Congress obtaining the legal opinion confirming that to be true.
So does Mr. Ryan, as speaker of the house, not have anyone who can give him a true read on an authorization now some fifteen years old, which clearly limited Presidential authority – yet which everyone has been using as justification for an immense level of global military action? At this point its clear that the 2001 AUMF is as irrelevant to current military activities as the Tonkin Gulf resolution was to the war across south east Asia. So is the Speaker of the House ignorant of Congress’s failure of actual military oversight – or is this political hypocrisy? I honestly don’t know.
As to the leadership in the Senate, well that is even more confusing. Following Mr. Ryan’s remarks, the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, announced that Ryan was wasting his time and that no new AUMF was going to be seriously considered. He too seems to have a total lack of knowledge on the history of the AUMF that is in place and its limitations. His reason for opposing any new AUMF is a bit different though, it seems that it’s not an issue of one not being needed, but rather that one passed now might “tie the hands” of the next elected President in regard to opposing ISIS.
“I think an AUMF, an authorization to use military force, that ties the president’s hands behind his back is not something I would want to do to a new president who’s going to have to clean up this mess,” he said.
Let me see if I follow that, so Congress is going to default on setting any specific direction for military action against ISIS – McConnell clearly feels that the current President has not done enough – but rather than taking charge of the matter and directing something more, the caution is to wait for a year so as to avoid constraining whoever might be elected as the next commander in chief. I can see it now on a tactical level, the current commander of a military operation says to his staff – well I’m not going to give you any orders now because I don’t want your next commander to be unduly constrained by what we do when he comes on board next year. (yes, that was intentionally sarcastic).
So is McConnell ignorant of the current AUMF limitations, well it certainly sounds like it. Is he being hypocritical about Congress not exercising its strategic national security responsibility? Without being inside his head I can’t say, but I can say that his logic, and the consistent position of Congress in not exercising any real involvement in national security decisions is agonizingly predictable.


About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

2 responses »

  1. Greg Kooyman says:

    Hi Larry,
    Great post with some wonderful points to ponder. My question is this; do you believe that given the situation with ISIS, that Congress needs to establish another AUMF? If so, what do you feel that AUMF should entail specifically? I personally do NOT favor American boots on the ground of ANY kind. I favor a diplomatic approach with all the stakeholders in the Middle East coming to the table for a united resolution on dealing with ISIS and the situation in Syria and Yemen. Any actual “boots on the ground” should come from all the regional countries surrounding Syria & Yemen from both Sunni & Shiite nations. ISIS has turned these regional civil conflicts in Yemen and Syria into religous proxy wars in my humble opinion. As stakeholders in the region’s oil industry, the influences of Europe, Russia, and the United States need to be limited to that of diplomacy, sharing of intelligence for military purposes, and limited arms supply to the Arab nations as they work through this problem. I also see problems with the current map of the area in Syria, Turkey and Iraq that refuses to go away. Primarily, ever since the victors of WWI re-drew the map of the Middle East, it is clear to me that it caused ethnic displacement and discontent that has fueled the “terrorist factions” that we continue to see today. The Kurdish YPG, PKK and Peshmerga immediately come to mind.

    I guess that is why I favor a real round table diplomacy solution versus pumping more military presence in the regions of conflict. It’s an unfortunate cycle of useless violence that is being carried out in the name of religion. One that I feel the US needs to sidestep and avoid the appearances of being portrayed as invading Crusaders.

    Just my “Two Cents” ….FWIW.

    Greg K.

    • Greg, without delving into larger strategic questions and the fundamental issue of both Iraq and Syria being essential artificial states structured during a former colonial era
      I’m going to get back to the basics. And the basic fact is that Congress is suppose to approve any deployment of American forces into a combat zone, even if they are not
      conducting offensive operations but only just exposed to combat, if that deployment is going to be for an extended period of time. This issue came up several times during
      the Eisenhower administration and its something we explore in depth in Shadow Warfare…its evolved into an actual legal guideline – with the intent to ensure that President’s
      don’t gradually move the nation into what amounts to a state of war overseas. Do we need an AUMF for combat against ISIS, I would say yes regardless of the boots on the ground
      issue – given that we have air and naval forces deployed and engaged in combat and suffering personnel losses. For the life of me I cannot understand the legal ground for
      ongoing combat in either Iraq or Afghanistan without a new authorization either. Justifying that under the 2001 AUMF just does not work any longer.

      A full answer to your question demands a lot more space than I could deal with here and some strategic assumptions we would have to agree on – the discussion also
      extends much further, to the joint task forces operating around the globe as well. Bottom line is that we really have no contemporary Congressional authority for
      much of what we are doing overseas other than military advisory and aid programs – and those have always operated in their own sort of gray area, with the assumption
      those personnel involved are not exposed to combat. Of course then that always moves on to covert military action, conducted under its own very special set of
      legal code, requiring some oversight but no Congressional authorization – just funding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s