My fellow Americans, let us now declare that a moment of truth has just landed on Capitol Hill’s doorstep.
Do members of Congress, most of whom belong to the Republican Party, stand ready to authorize the commander in chief’s use of military force against the Islamic State? Are they now going to sign on in this fight, rather than carp at the president’s strategy, or criticize him for allegedly not having a clear cut mission in this ongoing battle?
Barack Obama today sent a request to Congress for a three-year authorization to keep taking the fight to ISIL. It contains language that prohibits the long term use of U.S. ground forces — except for special operations forces that could be used to conduct specific, surgical strikes against the enemy.
The plan isn’t perfect, but the president says he has heard the calls for congressional approval of however the commander in chief chooses to fight this battle.
So, will Congress step up and sign on? I surely hope so.
President Obama has declared that ISIL is on the defensive. He also said the fight will be difficult, but that the coalition of 60 or so nations — several of which are in the Middle East — are winning the fight. ISIL has been degraded, Obama said, and the coalition of nations is continuing to pound ISIL targets in a relentless air power campaign. Fighters have been killed, as have their commanders. Command and control centers have been disrupted. Morale among ISIL fighters reportedly has deteriorated.
I happen to endorse the president’s reluctance to put U.S. ground troops into yet another Middle East war. The air campaign has been savage and it well could be enough to break up the ISIL fighting force that has created so much havoc, heartache and hysteria in the region it has terrorized.
So, is Congress now going to give the commander in chief the authority he is requesting? Will the legislative branch join this fight?
If the answer is yes, then it must stand with the head of state as he seeks to destroy this dastardly enemy.
None of this makes sense to me. There is no such thing as a ‘surgical strike.’ You are talking about bombing civilians — killing noncombatants and disrupting their lives. Bombing wars are not clean. They are always wars against children and other innocents. Plus, there is no country called the ‘Islamic State.’ Such a diffuse target sounds like a justification for endless war with no real goal except to continue to allow war profiteers to make a whole lot of money. This is an act of aggression which according to International law is a war crime. If people want to do this they should at least call it what it is: organized murder and terrorism.