We Need a New AUMF
![A U.S. Navy aircraft takes off from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf Oct. 2, 2014, as the ship supports operations in Iraq and Syria. [DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Brian Stephens, U.S. Navy/Released, 10/2/14]](/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/U.S.-Navy-E2C-Hawkeye-assisting-in-Iraq-and-Syria.jpg)
A U.S. Navy aircraft takes off from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf, as the ship supports operations in Iraq and Syria. [DOD photo, Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Brian Stephens, U.S. Navy/Released, 10/2/14]
October 08, 2014 | The Hill
As military action expands against the Islamic State, legislative proposals for authorizing the use of military force are proliferating on Capitol Hill.
While there is no consensus on how Congress should approach an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), most of the proposals demonstrate that lessons have been learned since passage of the open-ended 2001 AUMF. The proposed language is generally cautious about giving the president unrestricted authority and includes constraints such as geographic limitations, prohibitions on ground troops, and sunset clauses. All of the proposals circulating so far, though, fail to include a component that will be essential to preventing the war against the Islamic State from becoming an unending and inconclusive conflict: Well-defined and achievable objectives.
In announcing military action against the Islamic State — or ISIL–President Obama stated that the goal of the mission was to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.” This is strong-sounding rhetoric–and politically popular – but what does it mean in practical terms? How will we know when the Islamic State has been “destroyed” and, more importantly, is that even a necessary strategic goal? Does destruction mean the complete elimination of every last Islamic State fighter, leaving not even loose, disconnected cells? If so, then that is a goal that may not be realistically achievable. The U.S. has been battling core al-Qaeda for 13 years and while the organization has been massively degraded, it has not been completely “destroyed.” The Taliban as well has proven resistant to complete eradication since its initial rout in 2001. Instead of calling for an abstract “destruction” of the Islamic State, military action should focus on what is necessary and achievable in addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State. Congress can play a vital role by incorporating such objectives into an Islamic State-specific AUMF.
To continue reading, click here.
