Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

other voices:

Congress absent on Islamic State

Although President Barack Obama made a convincing case for military intervention against the Islamic State last week, there’s something else that should occur before the United States again pursues a strategy of war: It’s time for Congress to have an up-or-down vote on authorizing the use of force. Sadly, that doesn’t appear likely.

And not because Congress is too busy on other matters of importance.

Last week, the House voted to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and to rename the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Memorial as the Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial.

Then there was HR 4651, which designated the U.S. Postal Service facility in Baytown, Texas, as the “Specialist Keith Erin Grace Jr. Memorial Post Office.”

It’s been the same in the Senate. Senators voted on the nomination of Henry Aaron, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Social Security Advisory Board. They also approved the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013 and authorized the administrator of general services to convey a parcel of real property in Albuquerque, N.M., to the Amy Biehl High School Foundation.

Meanwhile, there have been plenty of sound bites about the Islamic State but not a lot of congressional action. This week, Congress may vote on one piece of the president’s plan, authorizing the U.S. military to train Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State. But that’s not a declaration of war, which the gravity of the situation requires.

U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., summed up the situation:

“A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

I suspect some legislators are looking at then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002 as the type of albatross that comes from such votes. Others don’t want to stand for anything the president supports.

The president told congressional leaders he does not need their vote to wage war. According to the White House, Obama “has the authority he needs to take action against the Islamic State.”

Whether congressional approval is legally necessary is unclear. When hostilities arise, politicians and pundits interpret the Constitution, U.S. laws and protocol differently.

The Constitution recognizes the role of the president as “commander in chief,” but the War Powers Resolution says Congress needs to approve the use of U.S. troops for more than two months. There was, of course, a 2001 authorization for the use of force after the 9/11 attacks, but that was against al-Qaida, not the Islamic State. However, the president might look to the language of the 2002 resolution regarding Iraq.

“Legally, he will get away with it. The political question is the one that is more important,” said Stephen Rademaker, an assistant secretary of state from 2002-06 who is now a principal at the Podesta Group. Rademaker agrees with me that it is a mistake to go forward on a major undertaking like this without making sure Congress is on board.

“Things don’t always go well with these operations,” Rademaker said. “It is much better to have Congress on board for the takeoff because then you know they have to be there with you for the landing. Members of Congress like to complain they were not consulted, that the president did things without their approval. But on really hard questions like this, there are many times when members of Congress don’t want to take a stand.”

I think the American people are entitled to know exactly where our elected representatives stand — not from a media appearance but from a vote. Accountability demands people close the curtain on a ballot booth in November knowing whether their representative voted for or against the use of military force.

Going to war is a momentous decision. Placing men and women in harm’s way and at enormous financial consequence to the nation should never be easy. Authorizing military force should be the stuff of ongoing debate and serious decision-making. We elected them to make these tough decisions.

So, members of Congress, our post offices and scenic rivers can wait. It’s time for you to face the most serious of responsibilities you were elected to do.

Michael Smerconish writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer and is host of “Smerconish” on CNN.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy