FLASHBACK: Obama launches 2,800 strikes on Iraq, Syria without congressional approval

U.S. forces have now surpassed 2,800 strikes against targets in Iraq and Syria under President Obama’s war against the Islamic State, all as part of a conflict Congress has yet to specifically authorize — and amid worries lawmakers won’t ever act.

Under intense pressure from Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama finally submitted a draft authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State in February, but it’s since languished, caught in the stalemate between those who want tighter restrictions and those who want the president to have as free a hand as possible.

Now analysts worry that inaction will set a dangerous precedent and leave Congress shorn of its warmaking powers.

“I understand it’s unlikely that they’ll act, but it’s important for them to act,” Shoon Murray, an associate professor in the School of International Service at American University, said last week. “It does take away the war powers of Congress by Congress‘ own deference.”

The U.S. military has been conducting strikes in Iraq for 10 months, and began striking directly at targets in Syria last September as part of Mr. Obama’s announced campaign to degrade the capabilities of the Islamic State.

This past weekend’s attacks brought the total to 1,458 strikes in Iraq and 1,343 in Syria by U.S. forces. Coalition forces allied with the U.S. have conducted another 655 attacks on Iraqi targets and 95 in Syria.

Mr. Obama has justified the attacks under his commander in chief powers and under the 2001 resolution authorizing force against al Qaeda, and the 2002 resolution authorizing the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill have said Mr. Obama is stretching those laws and that the strikes could be illegal — though they say they want to put them on firm footing by passing a new...

The Founders rightly put the requirement in the Constitution the nation would not go to war without Congress approving. War is a serious expenditure of money and the blood of citizens. It deserves sober national debate and the agreement of the affirmative vote of the representatives of the people.

Sadly, in the 20th Century the requirement Congress declare war has been abandoned due to the perceived need for expediency, the subordination of national sovereignty to treaties, and the absence of political will. Congress has gladly abdicated this responsibility to the executive branch. This allows Congressmen to have it both ways. If the war is popular with the people they can claim to be in favor. If the war is unpopular individual Congressmen can oppose it and blame the president. Instead of the government and people being united in the effort, unpopular wars divide the nation at a time when we should be together.

Consider the Afghan and Iraq wars in the first decade of this century. If George W. Bush had asked for an actual Declaration of War there would have been a national debate and every Congressman and Senator would have been forced to go on record. By passing a “resolution” instead of a declaration, as the war dragged on Congressmen were able to constantly attack the president and the war effort. Hypocrisy become much uglier if it involves a vote to actually declare war.

Under Obama the power of the imperial president became obscene. Obama claimed the authority to kill American citizens without due process of law in drone strikes. Congress did not object even though the Constitution grants every citizen the right to due process. Obama assumed and exercised unconstitutional powers just as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and both George Bush’s had done. No one is clean when it comes to ignoring the Constitution with respect to committing the nation to war.

To his credit President Trump recognized the damage being done to the nation by having the US military continuously in combat in multiple locations in the world. By the 21st Century War was no longer a measure of last resort, or measure required to defend the homeland from immediate danger. Instead war was perpetual and a significant function of the state, not to mention a significant piece of the economy. Trump ran on a platform of bringing US troops home and extricating the country from what the founders would call “foreign adventures.”

Had Trump not been ensnared in the faux Russia investigation for his first two years in office he might have been able to accomplish his goal. The US had become energy independent. He could have extricated US forces from the Middle East forcing the Europeans to defend their oil supply and the Israeli’s to seek other alliances. The truth is, the presence of Russian troops in the Middle East does not threaten the United States. It is of great strategic concern to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Europe. Yet is has been our nation paying in coin and blood to play the role of policeman in the region. Let the nations of the region decide their own fate.

Consider how ludicrous the current situation is. We have over a million people crossing our southern border illegally each year. The flood across the border is an invasion which saps the economic strength of the nation in many ways. Yet our troops are not defending our border. Our soldiers are dying every day in the Middle East where the local populations hate us and we have no strategic interest. That region of the world has been in turmoil for thousands of years and will remain so long after the United States is long gone.

The question for Americans is do we want to return to the rule of law and adherence to the Constitution? If so, Trump is as wrong on the exercise of military force as his predecessors. He should tell Congress to declare war if he wants to commit troops. He should also tell Congress if they don’t declare war he will bring the troops home — immediately.

If we accept the progressive concept of the “living” Constitution then we should be quite comfortable with the president sending troops to die anywhere at any time. Plus commit the national treasury to support a war of any size, scale and duration the chief executive dictates is appropriate. Let then be honest with ourselves and amend the Constitution to eliminate the declaration of war requirement.

Expediency and precedent are not a good reasons to violate the rule of law and the Constitution. No matter if your name Is Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan.

Assuming that this doesn’t escalate and go bad, which seems unlikely, this is great for the President, politically.

His white, strongly babyboomer, heavily Evangelical base gets the military action in the Middle East that they so desperately desire. This can even help Benjamin Netanyahu, which is paramount for that base.

His Democrat rivals will all look like tiny little wussies as they carp about Congressional approval over REAL MAN STUFF, while looking like they are not capable of implementing the same or any other policy. GOPers like Marco Rubio can pretend that they are Rambo over this.

The President can say that this action shows he might be willing to use force at our own border against the drug cartels like he threatened a few weeks back. LOL. That would actually serve U.S. interests, so that will not be happening, but his base might buy the pretense. He has to make them believe he will take decisive action on their behalf in a 2nd term. I hope he does. All we have is hope.

President Trump will get glowing coverage from Neocon outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News Channel (apart from Tucker Carlson; but, rest assured, Hannity will still be serving up plenty of Freedom Fries), among others on Twitter and YouTube. The “Never Trumpers’ will suddenly be all over this. Even Bill Kristol will be on aboard, oddly enough; maybe even John Podhoretz. It won’t last long; probably not even through the impeachment BS.

The impetus for this might not have been political, but now it’s political. Use it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.