President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

Statements by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week may reignite a debate over a law called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

Three days after the horrifying terror attacks of September 11, 2001, AUMF was passed by Congress. It was signed just four days later, on September 18, by President Bush. The law itself was simple enough in concept and was actually only 60-words long–an impressive feat in an era of long and frequently amended legislation. It states: “that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” Essentially, it allowed the President the ability to use whatever force necessary against those believed to be terrorists, harbored terrorists, or involved with terrorism in anyway. It sounds broad, but it was an understandably reactionary law to the shocking atrocities the nation had just witnessed.

That law has remained in place since then, and has been used as legal justification for a number of broad actions in the “War Against Terror.” For example, AUMF has been used as the reasoning behind expansive drone strikes and raids like the one used to capture Osama Bin Ladin in 2011.

But in the almost thirteen years since AUMF has passed, both the views of our nation, as well as our technical abilities have changed drastically. When AUMF was passed barely a week after 9/11, the concept of the “War on Terror” had just been barely introduced. And in the coming months, it of course received high support–a Gallup poll in November of 2001 put approval of sending troops to Afghanistan, partly under AUMF’s guises, at 89 percent. The same question today garners just 49 percent approval.

Other recent events, including realizations about drone capabilities and the extent of NSA spying have lessened Americans’ support for the kind of broad and vague actions that AUMF allows.

Discontent with AUMF has been simmering for a while. Various special interest lobby groups have been calling for repeal for years, and Senators and other lawmakers have at various points called for a repeal. Obama has supported, and even pushed for an end to the law and by extension, a sort of de facto end to the official “War on Terror.” Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) has been one of the leading voices in calling for AUMF changes. Last Wednesday he said, “we are still operating in a war declared on Sept. 14, 2001. And both the Bush and Obama administrations have determined that that war can be carried out against members of al-Qaeda, against anyone who associates with affiliates or associates of al-Qaeda, no matter when those associates pop up … so long as the al-Qaeda or affiliated organizations have violent intentions against the U.S. or coalition partners. That’s sort of a vague phrase.”

And most recently, one of the nation’s top lawmakers has stated that he also thinks that changes are warranted to AUMF. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is supporting changes to AUMF.

In the interview with Buzzfeed earlier this week, he stated in regards to AUMF, “I definitely think its something we should definitely take a look at. I think 9/11 [was] a long time ago, and it’s something that needs to be looked at again. I have no problem with that.”

However, Reid didn’t go into details about what changes exactly he thinks are warranted to AUMF but just that they need to be considered. From the language he used, it seems as though he’s relatively confident that a change needs to be made to limit the power of AUMF.

With Reid weighing in, public opinion turning, and other politicians getting involved in the it certainly seems like the issue of changes to AUMF will be firmly on the national stage in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections.

[The Huffington Post]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reexamination of AUMF: Potential End to the War on Terror appeared first on Law Street.