Why Washington Should Declare War on ISIS

The terrorist group has a bigger sanctuary, far more money, and is more indiscriminately murderous than al-Qaida was on Sept. 10, 2001.

Kashmiri demonstrators hold up a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during a demonstration against Israeli military operations in Gaza, in downtown Srinagar on July 18, 2014.
National Journal
Aug. 20, 2014, 10:52 a.m.

When a cent­rist Demo­crat, a Re­pub­lic­an hawk, a liber­tari­an, and a tea parti­er all find com­mon ground on Cap­it­ol Hill, it’s worth not­ing this rare out­break of bi­par­tis­an con­sensus. Sens. Tim Kaine, James In­hofe, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz all be­lieve the White House should seek new ap­prov­al from Con­gress for U.S. mil­it­ary op­er­a­tions in Ir­aq. Pres­id­ent Obama should give the sen­at­ors ex­actly what they are re­quest­ing.

As Obama said dur­ing a press con­fer­ence earli­er this week, the ad­min­is­tra­tion is already closely con­sult­ing Con­gress on the Ir­aq crisis, be­cause when con­front­ing a threat like the Is­lam­ic State of Ir­aq and Syr­ia, the United States needs to show a united front. IS­IS’s bru­tal ex­e­cu­tion of Amer­ic­an journ­al­ist James Fo­ley is just the latest at­ro­city that has cla­ri­fied the grow­ing threat posed by what is ar­gu­ably the most power­ful ter­ror­ist group in his­tory.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5186) }}

“The United States of Amer­ica will con­tin­ue to do what we must do to pro­tect our people. We will be vi­gil­ant and we will be re­lent­less. When people harm Amer­ic­ans any­where, we do what’s ne­ces­sary to see that justice is done and we act against ISIL, stand­ing along­side oth­ers,” Obama said this morn­ing in com­ments about Fo­ley’s ex­e­cu­tion. Even as he spoke, Pentagon of­fi­cials con­firmed that they are con­tem­plat­ing send­ing ad­di­tion­al U.S. troops to Ir­aq, to help se­cure Bagh­dad. “From gov­ern­ments and peoples across the Middle East, there has to be a com­mon ef­fort to ex­tract this can­cer so that it does not spread,” Obama said.

And yet act­ing un­der ex­ist­ing au­thor­it­ies in Ir­aq, the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­sponse to the spread of the IS­IS can­cer has so far been re­act­ive and piece­meal, con­stantly ced­ing the ini­ti­at­ive to the IS­IS ex­trem­ists. When ex­plain­ing U.S. air­strikes that en­abled Ir­aqi and Kur­d­ish forces to re­cap­ture the Mo­sul Dam in his press con­fer­ence, for in­stance, Obama said he was act­ing to pro­tect U.S. per­son­nel in the Bagh­dad em­bassy hun­dreds of miles away. Really? Such tor­tured ex­plan­a­tions of the lo­gic be­hind the use of U.S. mil­it­ary force may com­port with the com­mand­er in chief’s con­sti­tu­tion­al au­thor­ity to pro­tect Amer­ic­an cit­izens. They sound an un­cer­tain trum­pet to al­lies in the re­gion, however, who are des­per­ate for U.S. lead­er­ship.

The resig­na­tion of Prime Min­is­ter Nuri al-Ma­liki rep­res­ents a vic­tory for the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, and it should be ex­ploited. Throughout the crisis seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials rightly in­sisted that in­creased U.S. as­sist­ance would be con­tin­gent on the form­a­tion of a na­tion­al unity gov­ern­ment in Bagh­dad that did not in­clude the di­vis­ive Shiite strong­man. Now that Ma­liki is out of the way, Pres­id­ent Obama has to de­cide on the quant­ity and qual­ity of that as­sist­ance.

To have any hope of hold­ing Ir­aq to­geth­er, and mak­ing good on Pres­id­ent Obama’s prom­ise this week to “pur­sue a long-term strategy to turn the tide against [IS­IS],” U.S. mil­it­ary sup­port to the Ir­aqi Se­cur­ity Forces will have to be sig­ni­fic­ant. Put simply, the ad­min­is­tra­tion needs to ar­tic­u­late a strategy for Ir­aq, and settle on a plan for ex­ecut­ing it that is backed at home and un­der­stood in Ir­aq and the re­gion.

Some con­gres­sion­al lead­ers want a say in such an im­port­ant de­cision, and they have a point. Wash­ing­ton is over­due for a ser­i­ous de­bate about what U.S. na­tion­al in­terests are threatened by the Ir­aq crisis. Far bet­ter for law­makers to de­bate the stakes in­volved in Ir­aq now, and to put down a mark­er, rather than duck­ing the is­sue and heap­ing end­less cri­ti­cism on the ad­min­is­tra­tion for “mis­sion creep,” “uni­lat­er­al­ism,” and pres­id­en­tial “im­per­i­al­ism.” That is a pre­scrip­tion for con­tin­ued ad­min­is­tra­tion tent­at­ive­ness and the kind of feck­less lead­er­ship for which Wash­ing­ton, un­for­tu­nately, is gain­ing a glob­al repu­ta­tion.

“This is not about an im­per­i­al pres­id­ency. It’s about a Con­gress that’s re­luct­ant to cast tough votes on U.S. mil­it­ary ac­tion,” Kaine, the Vir­gin­ia Demo­crat, told The New York Times this week. “We should not be put­ting Amer­ic­an men and wo­men’s lives at risk if we are not will­ing to do the polit­ic­al work to reach a con­sensus that it’s ne­ces­sary.”

“I’ve long be­lieved that our power is rooted not just in our mil­it­ary might, but in our ex­ample as a gov­ern­ment of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Con­gress has so far been able to duck the is­sue be­cause the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion can plaus­ibly point to a num­ber of au­thor­it­ies to jus­ti­fy its ac­tions to date in Ir­aq. Those re­sponses have already in­cluded send­ing ad­vanced weapons and roughly one thou­sand uni­formed per­son­nel to Ir­aq; con­duct­ing a hu­man­it­ari­an re­lief ef­fort in the Kur­d­ish re­gion; and launch­ing lim­ited air strikes against IS­IS tar­gets. Every day that the crisis deep­ens and U.S. mil­it­ary op­er­a­tions con­tin­ue, the leg­al found­a­tion be­neath the White House’s re­act­ive policy weak­ens.

When Pres­id­ent Obama talks about us­ing mil­it­ary force in Ir­aq to pro­tect U.S. per­son­nel there, he is clearly in­vok­ing the com­mand­er in chief’s power to de­fend Amer­ic­an cit­izens and prop­erty enu­mer­ated in Art­icle II of the Con­sti­tu­tion. He is on squish­i­er leg­al ground even in uni­lat­er­ally us­ing U.S. mil­it­ary force to res­cue eth­nic minor­it­ies to avert a “hu­man­it­ari­an cata­strophe,” however, es­pe­cially when such ac­tions play out over months and are not au­thor­ized by Con­gress or the United Na­tions Se­cur­ity Coun­cil.

There are oth­er au­thor­it­ies Obama could draw on to jus­ti­fy U.S. mil­it­ary ac­tion, but both are prob­lem­at­ic. Con­gress’s 2001 Au­thor­iz­a­tion for Use of Mil­it­ary Force against the ter­ror­ists re­spons­ible for the 9/11 at­tacks has long been in­ter­preted to al­low mil­it­ary at­tacks against al-Qaida and “as­so­ci­ated forces.” It re­mains the jus­ti­fic­a­tion for the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s tar­geted-killing-by-drone pro­gram. But al-Qaida has fam­ously dis­en­fran­chised IS­IS over its pen­chant for wan­tonly slaughter­ing fel­low Muslims, and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has said it wants to re­form and even­tu­ally re­peal the 2001 AUMF.

Even more prob­lem­at­ic is Con­gress’ 2002 Au­thor­iz­a­tion for the Use of Mil­it­ary Force against Ir­aq. While still on the books, the 2002 AUMF is ana­thema for a pres­id­ent who ran for of­fice tout­ing his op­pos­i­tion to the Ir­aq War, and Con­gress’s vote that en­abled it. When the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives re­cently voted over­whelm­ingly to bar the ad­min­is­tra­tion from de­ploy­ing mil­it­ary forces to Ir­aq for a “sus­tained com­bat role,” the White House thus sought to pair that res­ol­u­tion with a full re­peal of the 2002 AUMF.

The con­gres­sion­al de­bate on a new au­thor­iz­a­tion for mil­it­ary force should be­gin with an ex­plan­a­tion of the U.S. na­tion­al in­terests in­volved. Des­pite talk of a loom­ing U.S. en­ergy in­de­pend­ence, if oil from an in­creas­ingly un­stable Middle East were to stop flow­ing, it could trig­ger a glob­al re­ces­sion. The cred­ib­il­ity of the United States as a re­li­able part­ner””much ques­tioned around the world””is also at stake. Not only does the United States still have a stra­tegic frame­work agree­ment with the gov­ern­ment in Bagh­dad, but the dis­in­teg­ra­tion of Ir­aq along sec­tari­an lines would dir­ectly threaten U.S. al­lies such as Jordan, Saudi Ar­a­bia, Le­ban­on, Tur­key, and the Per­sian Gulf states.

Most im­port­antly, IS­IS today rep­res­ents a dir­ect and grow­ing threat to the United States. It has at­trac­ted an es­tim­ated 12,000 for­eign fight­ers to its black ban­ner fly­ing over Syr­i­an and Ir­aqi ter­rit­ory, in­clud­ing hun­dreds of Europeans and Amer­ic­ans who can travel freely with West­ern pass­ports. It has a big­ger sanc­tu­ary, far more money, and is more in­dis­crim­in­ately mur­der­ous than al-Qaida was on Sept. 10, 2001. IS­IS lead­er Abu Bakr al-Bagh­dadi has as­sured any­one who will listen that he even­tu­ally in­tends to dir­ect his ji­had at the United States, telling the U.S. sol­diers who re­leased him from pris­on in 2009, “I’ll see you in New York.”

A con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion tar­get­ing IS­IS, however lim­ited in time or geo­graphy, would go a long way to­ward cla­ri­fy­ing for the Amer­ic­an people this grow­ing threat to their se­cur­ity. In a re­cent ex­clus­ive in­ter­view, Lt. Gen. Mi­chael Flynn, the out­go­ing dir­ect­or of the De­fense In­tel­li­gence Agency, told me that Is­lam­ic ex­trem­ist groups that have ad­op­ted al-Qaida’s ni­hil­ist­ic ideo­logy are stronger and more threat­en­ing today than be­fore 9/11.

“I know that’s a scary thought, but in 2004, there were 21 total Is­lam­ic ter­ror­ist groups spread out in 18 coun­tries. Today, there are 41 Is­lam­ic ter­ror­ist groups spread out in 24 coun­tries,” said Flynn. “A lot of these groups have the in­ten­tion to at­tack West­ern in­terests, to in­clude West­ern em­bassies and in some cases West­ern coun­tries. Some have both the in­ten­tion and some cap­ab­il­ity to at­tack the United States home­land. For in­stance, we’re do­ing all we can to un­der­stand the out­flow of for­eign fight­ers from Syr­ia and Ir­aq, many of them with West­ern pass­ports, be­cause an­oth­er threat I’ve warned about is Is­lam­ic ter­ror­ists in Syr­ia ac­quir­ing chem­ic­al or bio­lo­gic­al weapons. We know they are try­ing to get their hands on chem­ic­al weapons and use what they already have to cre­ate a chem­ic­al weapons cap­ab­il­ity.”

Pres­id­ent Obama already made the case for a na­tion­al de­bate on the threat posed by the civil wars in Syr­ia and now Ir­aq when he sought con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion for pro­posed lim­ited U.S. mil­it­ary strikes on Syr­ia’s re­gime for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons against ci­vil­ian pop­u­la­tions last year.

“I’ve long be­lieved that our power is rooted not just in our mil­it­ary might, but in our ex­ample as a gov­ern­ment of the people, by the people, for the people,” Obama said at that time. “And that’s why I’ve made [the] de­cision: I will seek au­thor­iz­a­tion for the use of force from the Amer­ic­an people’s rep­res­ent­at­ives in Con­gress.”

Con­gress balked at au­thor­iz­ing mil­it­ary force in Syr­ia, and there’s a risk it could do so again with Ir­aq. Giv­en the much high­er stakes in­volved and the grow­ing threat posed by IS­IS””and the al­tern­at­ive of the White House con­tinu­ing to act alone, tent­at­ive about over­step­ping its own lim­ited ob­ject­ives””that’s a risk worth tak­ing.

What We're Following See More »
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
1 days ago

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
1 days ago

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
1 days ago

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
16 hours ago

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
CNN Calls the Primary for Sanders and Trump
3 hours ago

Well that didn’t take long. CNN has already declared Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the winners of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the rest of the candidates to fight for the scraps. Five minutes later, the Associated Press echoed CNN’s call.