Some in Congress want a new debate about our "surge" in Iraq. Past fluctuations in troop strength in Iraq did not require a new authorization to use force, but this one does, some war opponents say. Congress needs to limit what the President does in waging war declared by Congress, these members of Congress argue.
The 2002 authorization to use force doesn't have any language like that. This is what it says:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Congress authorized the President to use our armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ..."
Lord knows where the geniuses in the back seat want to drive us:
In an exchange of harsh rhetoric that underscored the intensity of the political fight, Pelosi, D-Calif., said the war should not be "an obligation of the American people in perpetuity."
But the language of the declaration of war has no sunset on that authority, so it doesn't expire.
Let's focus on victory. That will end that bizarre fear of perpetuity. I always kind of assumed that a declaration of war meant we fought until we won.
