The trouble is, Obama’s authority to act is based on two outdated laws: the 2001 authorization of military force against Al Qaeda and a 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Even before the rise of ISIS, there was an urgent need to repeal these two authorizations and replace them with newer ones better tailored to current challenges.
While ISIS is a direct descendant of Al Qaeda, it is not the same organization. And while the US involvement in Iraq today is a direct descendant of the US-led 2003 invasion, the military mission is much changed.
That’s why it’s a good thing that Congress is finally turning its attention to this matter, months after President Obama announced a stepped-up ISIS campaign. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding a hearing on the authorization for the use of military force. And finally, Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has put forth a bill that would authorize military force against ISIS for three years only. The bill is a reasonable attempt to narrowly tailor the mission without fatally hamstringing the military in a way that destroys its chances of success.
It stipulates that US ground troops should be used sparingly, and that they should be limited to discreet missions, such as the rescue of US soldiers or citizens, operations against high value targets, and intelligence collection.
The bill appropriately asks the administration to provide clear benchmarks for success, a list of the organizations and entities that will be targeted, and an estimate of what operations will cost. However, it does leave room for mission creep. US ground troops, for instance, can be used to provide “advice and assistance to forces fighting ISIS in Iraq or Syria,” a clause that could be interpreted in ways that cover a far wider range of activities than many lawmakers currently imagine. Also, the bill asks the White House to report on the geographical scope of the military’s mission, but does not appear to limit it to any particular country or region.
Another problem with the bill is that, while it repeals the 2002 war authorization against Iraq, it remains silent on the 2001 war authorization against Al Qaeda. This is probably because that law remains the legal basis of ongoing drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. Congress should update those authorities appropriately in a separate bill. The farther we get from Sept. 11, 2001, the more tenuous that use of force authorization becomes.
Perhaps the thorniest issue with the bill is an inevitable consequence of responsible oversight: it will force the Obama administration to be more transparent about its targets, making it crystal clear that the United States does not intend to go to war with Syrian President Bashar al Assad. Up until now, ambiguity has served a purpose. We lead a far-flung coalition that includes key partners who insist upon Assad’s departure.