|
WASHINGTON--Tomorrow the House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing entitled, "Outside Perspectives on the President’s Proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Witnesses will include: General Jack Keane, USA (Ret.), Former Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Robert M. Chesney, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Charles I. Francis Professor in Law, University of Texas, and Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution.
Looking ahead to the hearing, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said: "The committee meets tomorrow to hear testimony on the President’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force against ISIL.
This is just the first of the hearings and committee events that we will hold on this issue, but given the expertise of the witnesses, tomorrow will, I think, raise many of the issues and considerations which we will pursue in the weeks ahead.
Previously, we have heard testimony that the threat posed Islamic jihadists is growing. Last September President Obama said, 'Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.' However many people, including me, are concerned that we do not really have a clear strategy that will accomplish that goal.
An AUMF is not a strategy; it is only an authorization to use military force against a particular enemy. In spite of the fact that the President ordered military action against ISIL beginning six months ago and only now has submitted a request for Congress to authorize such action, I believe that it is still important for the United States Congress to do its constitutional duty.
But I have a number of questions and concerns about the President’s language.
First, as we have experienced with the 2001 AUMF, defining the enemy is difficult, especially as they adapt, form new allegiances, and seek to manipulate our system.
Second, we already put too many encumbrances on our troops in carrying out the missions they are assigned, in my view. Going into battle with a lawyer nearby to decide whether a particular action is “enduring” or “offensive” or a “ground combat operation” seems problematic.
Third, I know that some are concerned about the time limitation included in the draft. I think a forcing action that requires Congress to consider and possibly update an AUMF may be useful, but I want to hear from our witnesses on their views, because I also recognize the drawbacks of unintentionally telegraphing a timeline to the enemy or tying the hands of a future commander-in-chief.
A vote to authorize a president to send American men and women into battle is as serious and sobering as any vote cast by a Member of Congress. Our country has always been incredibly fortunate to have had individuals of outstanding bravery and dedication defending our nation and the American way of life.
They are facing a cruel and savage opponent. They must know that their mission carries the full weight of approval under our constitutional system and that the administration, this Congress, and the American people will stand with them and support them as long as it takes."
|
