At present, Obama relies on two ancient AUMFs from 2001 and 2002, which formally grant him the authority to fight the war on terror, and the right (according US law, anyway) to carry out operations in Iraq. Unfortunately, according to Fuller, many in Congress are either "afraid," or are simply not prepared to compromise in passing a new AUMF specifically against Daesh.
"GOP hawks promptly dismissed [February's] draft resolution as too restrictive. Liberals lambasted it for not repealing the still-used 2001 AUMF that was passed in the days after 9/11. Congressional leaders shoved Obama's draft in a filing cabinet, satisfied to never speak of the damn thing again."
The Tradition of Congressional Gridlock
According to Fuller, the simple explanation, to be gleaned from speaking to senators and representatives themselves, is that "lawmakers are too afraid of the consequences of authorizing a new war. At least, that's the opinions of lawmakers themselves when you ask why Congress hasn't voted on a new AUMF."
The reality, he says, is a little more complicated. "Yes, lawmakers are scared to take the vote. Yes, they know that, among the thousands of procedural votes in a career…authorizing military action is one vote they – and their constituents – will remember. But it goes beyond that. Most of the members who talked to The Huffington Post would be happy to vote on a new AUMF tomorrow – as long as it's the AUMF they support."
"On the one extreme," the journalist notes, "are the hawks. You have Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who recently offered an AUMF with no restrictions on the president's ability to go after ISIS. If you liked the 2001 AUMF, which empowered the president to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, but is now being used to justify military operations in Syria 14 years later, then you're going to love Lindsey Graham's proposal."
His bill, naturally, is backed by Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain.
"On the other side – though maybe not quite as far from the center – are a number of Democrats and conservative Republicans who think the current war authorizations, the 2001 AUMF and a 2002 authorization that allowed operations in Iraq, are, in the words of [Republican] Rep. Mick Mulvaney, 'wholly inadequate.'"
Fuller notes that both sides argue that the Constitution is on their side, with McCain suggesting that any restriction on the commander in chief is "unconstitutional," and Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson countering that "unless you believe the president has unilateral and unchecked powers under the commander-in-chief clause," it is the current military action in Syria and Iraq, which doesn't have Congress's approval, which is unconstitutional.
In any case, lawmakers from both parties alike don't seem to want to hang on to the hot potato that is Obama's war in Syria, Mulvaney suggesting that "our fingerprints would be all over any subsequent action." Candidly, Republican Rep. Justin Amash also emphasized that if the vote on the new AUMF made it to the floor, and failed, it would "shift the focus from the president's failed strategy to our own inability to get something through Congress."
Ultimately, perhaps the gridlock in the US political system is for the best, at least as far as the bombing of foreign countries is concerned. In any case, it allows lawmakers to refrain from getting the president's 'blood on their hands', and sometimes (though not often) even prevents wars from starting.
Fuller recalled that "if lawmakers weren't so afraid of the vote, the House and Senate might have authorized military action back in September 2013, when President Obama's 'red line' in Syria started looking more like the title of a Robin Thicke song. The sudden concern over Syrian President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons, which brought lawmakers back from their August recess a week early, just as quickly subsided when Obama announced that, on second thought, he was holding off on airstrikes. Congress –maybe not collectively but at least mostly, was relieved."
