Don’t duck this one, Congress

WASHINGTON

Congress has a duty — to itself and the country — to debate and authorize President Obama’s military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Failing to do so would be bad practice and a worse precedent.

One long year ago, the president, having announced his intention, and asserted his unilateral authority, to conduct airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over his use of chemical weapons, suddenly decided to seek congressional approval after all.

Of course, Obama was promptly rebuffed, saved from humiliation only by the intervention of Russian President Vladimir Putin to broker a deal with Assad. If Obama is now skittish about seeking a congressional OK — well, that’s understandable, if not exactly the high-minded, “I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy” talk we heard a year ago.

Unconvincing arguments

Ask why now is different from then, and you hear some rather unconvincing arguments: U.S. national security was not directly threatened by Assad’s use of chemical weapons — except that Obama told us then that the action “presents a serious danger to our national security.” The planned airstrikes would have been a go-it-alone U.S. operation, without the backing of an international coalition — except that Obama told us then that he was acting to enforce “fundamental international rules.”

Indeed, the scope and potential duration of the operation against the Islamic State far exceeds anything that Obama was contemplating to punish and deter Assad. Consequently, it presents a far stronger argument for congressional involvement and approval than the far more limited campaign for which he turned to Congress last year.

The administration’s position — congressional approval would be “welcome” but is not necessary — rests primarily on the 13-year-old authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan (AUMF), which empowers the president to act “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Courts interpreting the AUMF have concluded that it covers not only al-Qaida but “associated forces.” The White House argues that authorization extends to the Islamic State because the organization is an outgrowth of al-Qaida (notwithstanding its recent break with the group) and is threatening terrorist acts against the United States.

There is a certain irony in the president pulling out this tattered hall pass of a document. After all, it was just last year that Obama, declaring that the Afghanistan War was ending and that al-Qaida was “a shell of its former self,” called on Congress “to refine, and ultimately repeal” the AUMF.

“Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,” he noted.

Yet here we are, Obama unbound. However you assess the blame for the menacing disaster that is the Islamic State, Obama’s plan is the most sensible one under the difficult circumstances.

Sensible, but also risky. The air campaign will only work if there are forces on the ground to capitalize on the damage inflicted on the Islamic State. The disappointing performance of the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish peshmerga so far, and the disorganized state of the Free Syrian Army, make this enterprise far from certain. Obama’s plan is a broad undertaking that could become even broader.

Congressional involvement

What happens if, a year from now, the Islamic State is bruised but still formidable, perhaps metastasizing to threaten Jordan or Turkey? That the Islamic State is a problem likely to plague the next president, and perhaps the one after that, only underscores the importance of congressional involvement — without waiting for this president to ask nicely.

Sure, the timing isn’t optimal; an election is looming and lawmakers are anxious to get out of town. Kicking the matter to the lame-duck Congress, as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland has suggested, may be the best option. Again, not optimal, but it’s not as if the composition of the new Congress — even if Republicans retake the Senate — will be so different as to make a lame-duck authorization illegitimate.