War on Islamic State worth debate
By no means is this Editorial Board ready to endorse Emmer's request. His proposal, though, deserves serious examination.
- Declaring war gives president tremendous powers — that some in Congress might not like
- Bombing ISIS does not create a long-term solution for peace
At first glance, the recent request from 6th District U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer that Congress formally declare war on the Islamic State terrorist group might seem like a political stunt designed more to gain headlines than solve problems.
After all, Emmer is a freshman lawmaker trying to differentiate himself from literally hundreds of his peers. And the last time America formally declared war was the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked 74 years ago next week.
However, the more you ponder Emmer's idea in the context of everything from recent world history to the political gridlock in Washington, D.C. the more intriguing it becomes.
By no means is this Editorial Board ready to endorse Emmer's request. His proposal, though, deserves serious examination — not just by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where it was assigned after introduction Nov. 18, but by rank-and-file citizens of a nation where those vying to lead it seem more fixated on fear-mongering for personal short-term gains than thinking strategically about how to best tamp down terrorism in the long run.
Serious stuff
It can't be stressed enough what it means for America to formally declare war.
It's happened only 11 times in history — and with good reason. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a research paper issued in 2014, formally declaring war increases the powers of the president exponentially. Agricultural exports, nuclear power plants, public lands, railroads, patents, student financial aid and even ocean dumping are among the dozens (if not hundreds) of topics over which the president gains massive control.
In fact, as some political experts have noted, that increase in presidential power could be a big reason the Republican-led House and Democrat-led Senate will not give Emmer's proposal much time in the spotlight. It's no secret Republicans in charge of both houses (and Senate Democrats for different reasons) are less than enamored with President Obama's strategies involving the Islamic State terrorist group.
Yet as Emmer noted about the political polarization in Washington, D.C., declaring war would send the world a message that all of America is united in opposing the Islamic State terrorist group — and that the nation trusts the president to do what's needed to win.
Of course, you need only look at recent history to see how domestic politics is playing a growing role in America's reluctance to formally declare war.
That tone was set in 1973 after U.S. military involvement in Korea and Vietnam. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over the veto of then-President Nixon largely to ensure the president consult with Congress well ahead of taking military action. The 9/11 terrorist attacks inspired Congress and the president to create Authorizations for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. These essentially allow America to conduct military operations without formally declaring war.
Easy out?
Beyond wrestling for power, fighting the Islamic State terrorist group under an AUMF also helps every elected official involved avoid answering the serious long-term challenges raised through a formal declaration of war.
The best two examples of those are reflected in two questions. 1. What's the ultimate goal? 2. How does America ensure that goal is reached in perpetuity?
Without a formal declaration of war, the answers are easy: Bomb the terrorists. Bomb the terrorists some more. And when that doesn't work (or more likely, terrorists eventually re-emerge) bomb them again.
Formally declaring war, though, comes with the expectation America do more than just bomb, bomb, bomb. It means we don't just seek to eliminate the enemy, but we help make sure the front lines are reformed (and rebuilt) into a place where stability reigns and people live without fear.
Having seen how that did not happen in Iraq via the AUMF — ahem — designation, Emmer's push for a formal declaration of war really calls on Congress to answer a key question: Does America just want to bomb terrorists until its threat level is minimal? Or does America really want to declare with the intent of turning Iraq and probably Syria into stable places to live in the long term?
The former is relatively easy; the latter, not so much.