Skip to main content
Support
Article

Congress AWOL on Mideast Action

 Jane Harman image

"Despite its claims to the contrary, ISIS looks outmatched. But our recent strikes were just an opening salvo. A considered, long-term strategy (including kinetic action) needs a careful framework and congressional authorization. The debate is crucial, and the only way to make room for debate is with a special session of Congress. The president should seek it now," writes Jane Harman.

A  chorus of lawmakers — including Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — has called for a special session of Congress to debate the contours of President Obama’s self-described “war” on terror groups in Iraq and Syria, and to fulfill members’ constitutional responsibility to “declare” (aka “authorize”) it. After saying he’d punt the issue to next year, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) now says he’ll call Congress back next week if the president asks.

Yes! The president should not just “welcome” congressional action, he and the electorate should demand it. If, notwithstanding the impressive efforts of local law enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration and the FBI, an attack on the homeland occurs before Nov. 4, American voters will be justified in punishing those in both parties who ducked and blamed.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has put out a call for lone-wolf attacks — already there’s been a beheading in Algeria and troubling plots in Australia — and threat levels are enhanced as foreign fighters trickle home, through airports, train stations and long natural borders. Other countries like the United Kingdom are debating and authorizing action. Obama’s claim that he has all the authorization he needs rests on shaky legal footing. He, too, should seize this opportunity to reset his frayed relationship with Congress. This is his war, a new war; he should ask the American people to support it and urge Congress to authorize it.
On present facts, there isn’t room in the election calendar for the debate we deserve. But why shouldn’t there be? The president should join with outspoken members in both parties to request a special session of Congress dedicated to ISIS and related threats.

Already, as part of what’s become a tradition of governing-by-crisis, Congress has set up what Politico’s Burgess Everett and Manu Raju labeled a “Syria cliff.” The authorization to train Syrian rebels that recently passed will expire with the rest of the continuing resolution it was attached to, on Dec. 11. Meanwhile, the Pentagon expects the vetting of opposition groups alone to take several months; by the time the president is in a position to use this authorization, it will have vanished. Worse yet, the president will run out of authority the same day the federal government runs out of money, unless Congress overcomes its propensity to punt.

When the House and Senate convene for the lame-duck session, a terrifyingly crowded to-do list will be waiting. A conversation on use of force has to start now. Thoughtful legislative proposals have been put forward. At least six new Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) have been introduced so far, by both parties in both houses. They deserve careful consideration.

The pending bills raise important issues. Should the 2001 AUMF be repealed or revised? The 2002 AUMF? Should Obama explicitly be denied the authority to deploy ground troops in a combat role? Should any new authority sunset, and if so when? Should any new authority be limited to Iraq and Syria, or should the president have the freedom to target ISIS wherever it goes? What kind of notification or consultation should Congress demand? What will the mission cost and, if sequestration continues, will those costs hollow out the declining defense budget, leaving us vulnerable elsewhere? The American people deserve representation in a serious debate on these issues, and they ought to get it now through Congress.

The 1990 discussion on authorizing the Gulf War was, at that point, the longest debate in the history of the House of Representatives. Then-Rep. Dante Fascell (D-Fla.) put the stakes solemnly: “You are empowering the president to use the awesome military might of the United States. There’s no doubt about it, and there’s no tomorrow about it.”

In contrast, the Senate passed the 2001 AUMF by unanimous consent, and the House discussed it for just a few hours before voting 420-1 in favor. A more thorough debate might have given greater consideration to the warning of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) — the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 AUMF — that the measure would become “a blank check to attack an unspecified country, an unspecified enemy, for an unspecified period of time.” The law’s supporters, myself included, assumed the law would be limited in time and space.

None of this is to contradict the president’s policy choices so far. Securing specific support and participation from Arab countries, especially going into the United Nations Security Council meeting, was a major achievement, one that puts enormous pressure on those still obstructing positive solutions. That Russia backed Obama’s resolution addressing the foreign fighter threat is proof of that. Targeting the Khorasan cell before it could scatter or carry out its designs against Western aviation was also a vitally important move. And the air campaign in Syria was a big win for our strategic narrative, with a superb media rollout. We look resolved and united. Despite its claims to the contrary, ISIS looks outmatched.

But our recent strikes were just an opening salvo. A considered, long-term strategy (including kinetic action) needs a careful framework and congressional authorization. The debate is crucial, and the only way to make room for debate is with a special session of Congress.

The president should seek it now.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.

The original article was published by The Hill. 

About the Author

 Jane Harman image

Jane Harman

Distinguished Fellow and President Emerita, Wilson Center

Jane Harman, Distinguished Fellow and President Emerita, Wilson Center, is an internationally recognized authority on U.S. and global security issues, foreign relations and lawmaking. A native of Los Angeles and a public-school graduate, she went on to become a nine-term member of Congress, serving decades on the major security committees in the House of Representatives. Drawing upon a career that has included service as President Carter’s Secretary of the Cabinet and hundreds of diplomatic missions to foreign countries, Harman holds posts on nearly a dozen governmental and non-governmental advisory boards and commissions.

Read More