Congress should simply pass an AUMF that authorizes the president to lead our forces in a war to destroy jihadi terrorists and their enablers.
If it would make people feel better, there can be a clause that specifies ISIL and even Iraq, without limiting the authorization to use military force to that current threat.
I mean really, are you a racist or something to urge an unprecedented limitation on President Obama's war powers in an AUMF that you'd never consider slapping on a white president?
And on a practical level, in what alternate universe is President Obama at risk for going overboard on defeating our enemies?
Not that I think a new AUMF is necessary. But lets stop the wordsmithing and get on with killing jihadis.
UPDATE: Max Boot rightly notes that we don't really need a Congressional resolution to fight ISIL (since we've been doing it for half a year that should be obvious).
But that doesn't mean an AUMF isn't useful as a sign of support to finish the job.
Which means that if Congress passes one for this fight that it should not include limiting language that implies we are starting the fight with less than a resolve for victory.
Seriously, in what alternate universe has this administration earned a reputation for fighting to the last man?
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
