Will Obama get more than a blank check to fight ISIS?
One day before he lays out his plans to the American public, President Obama on Tuesday will sit down with bipartisan leaders from Congress to explain his strategy for combating the Islamic extremists that have gained a foothold in Iraq and Syria.
However, Mr. Obama in recent days has evaded questions about exactly what role Congress should play as the U.S. and its allies around the globe attempt to dismantle the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL). He may be avoiding any explicit commitments to get congressional authority for his plan, given that Congress has little time to act before its members leave town for midterm campaigning. Furthermore, there's little appetite among lawmakers to take any steps that may suggest the nation is inching closer to another full-blown war.
"The president is calibrating his actions in terms of anticipating a Congress that won't be helpful," former Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, a former senior member of the House Intelligence Committee and now president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, told CBS News.
If Congress continues to let Mr. Obama proceed with military action against ISIS without explicit authorization, it amounts to "an implicit blank check from Congress," she said. "I don't think, as a voter, that's good enough. Each member has to make that choice [on whether or not to support military action] and explain it."
A growing number of congressmen are, like Harman, saying it's time for Capitol Hill to weigh in on the matter. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, have introduced legislation that would authorize the use of U.S. military force against ISIS.
"Congress is the one that declares war under the Constitution," Wolf told CBS News. "I'm no fan of the Obama administration, but... the people want to see the Congress working with the administration to keep the nation safe."
In an interview with NBC over the weekend, Mr. Obama suggested that congressional authority isn't necessary to move forward with his plan.
"I'm confident that I have the authorization that I need to protect the American people," he said. "And I'm always going to do what's necessary to protect the American people. But I do think it's important for Congress to understand what the plan is, to have buy in, to debate it. And that's why we've been consulting with Congress throughout."
Pressed on the matter on Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Mr. Obama is "not in a position where he sets the legislative floor calendar for either the House or the Senate."
Earnest conceded that the president could ask Congress to vote on an authorization bill, but added, "Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the commander-in-chief to make the kinds of decisions related to our military that rests on the shoulders of the president."
So far, Mr. Obama has officially informed Congress of U.S. military action against ISIS in Iraq with a series of letters. In a fourth letter sent Monday, Mr. Obama informed Congress about air strikes in the vicinity of the Haditha Dam.
"These additional military operations will be limited in their scope and duration as necessary to address this threat and prevent endangerment of U.S. personnel and facilities and large numbers of Iraqi civilians," Mr. Obama wrote. "I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive."
The president added that he was providing this information "as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution."
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says that the president must consult with Congress when introducing armed forces into hostilities, and after 60 days, he must have explicit congressional approval to keep them there. Additionally, by writing that his actions in Iraq "will be limited in scope and duration," the president seems to be suggesting that the military strikes in Iraq don't count as war.
In its legal justification for military action in Libya in 2011, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.
Yet the administration has suggested his new plan is longer term. Defeating ISIS is possible with the help of a multinational coalition, Secretary of State John Kerry said last week during the NATO Summit, but "it may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years."
Harman said that "congressional action is essential to implement any long-term strategy against ISIL."
Harman said Congress shouldn't be satisfied by Mr. Obama's "small-bore, sort of rolling notification" of military actions against ISIS. "If Congress acquiesces, that's essentially a blank check from Congress," she said.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were conducted off-budget as emergency spending, but Congress reformed that process.
"There will be a cost to the long-term strategy against ISIL," Harman said. "It may not be completely, definitively identified now, but voters need to understand that and what the tradeoffs are."
Aside from authorizing kinetic military actions, Harman noted that there are other ways Congress should be involved in implementing Mr. Obama's strategy. Congress should have a hand in approving and monitoring diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, as well as financial aid.
Along with his bill authorizing military force, Wolf on Monday introduced legislation to reform the War Powers Resolution, creating a new consultation structure between the executive and legislative branches. Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia; John McCain, R-Arizona; and Angus King, I-Maine; introduced the Senate version of the bill earlier this year.
Also earlier this year, Wolf introduced a bill making it a federal crime for Americans to travel to Syria to join radical groups or to provide material support to such groups. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, filed a bill on Monday to punish Americans who join ISIS or any other terrorist group by stripping them of their United States citizenship.
"Congress has to participate," Wolf said. "It isn't enough to stand on the sidelines."
