Milam's Musings, milambc@miamioh.edu
As tensions rise with foreign policy, students are more detached from the burden of war than ever
In a representative republic like the United States', the march to war should never seem so inevitable and so easy, as it now does. Congress has acquiesced for the last six decades its power to declare war to the president and they seem prepared to do so again with the latest war against ISIS.
Congress acquiescing this responsibility and power also means they acquiesce the voices of the American people. Since, in theory, they are the elected representatives we send to Washington to represent us, if they are leaving the decision-making to one person, the president, then there is no recourse for the American people.
Sure, it is true that 71 percent of Americans support strikes against ISIS in Iraq and 65 percent support expanding those strikes to ISIS in Syria, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
But it is also true that 59 percent of Americans, according to the same poll, see ISIS as a "very serious threat" to the vital interests of the United States. The former poll data is informed by the latter, which itself is bolstered by the fear-mongering from cable news pundits and hawkish politicians.
The New York Times quotes Daniel Benjamin, former State Department counterterrorism adviser, as saying the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a "farce."
Which it has been; when you have people like Sen. Lindsey Graham on Fox News Sunday, saying, "This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home," you can see why many Americans are fearful.
Since ISIS poses no immediate threat to the United States, then in a representative republic, we should have full-fledged debates from proponents and opponents of striking ISIS on the floor of Congress.
But for those in Congress, it's also a political calculation. This close to a mid-term election, members of Congress don't want to be on the hook if this goes wrong. Imagine that: war distilled down to a political calculation.
President Obama believes he has the authority to launch strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and anywhere they may be under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allowed for military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which allowed for military action against Iraq.
However, the 2001 AUMF was only for al-Qaeda and "affiliated forces." al-Qaeda and ISIS are rivals. the 2002 AUMF applies to the Iraqi government. The 13-year old legislations hardly envelopes strikes in Syria.
Even more perplexing is that President Obama was looking to repeal the 2001 AUMF back in May of 2013.
"So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate," he said in a speech at the National Defense University.
He worried about Americans being on a "perpetual wartime footing" and being "drawn into more wars we don't need to fight." Yet, here we are a year later.
In his speech on the eve of 9/11, President Obama became the fourth consecutive president to announce strikes on Iraq to the American people. At 24, all I've known is a perpetual wartime footing.
We have not "degraded and destroyed" al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq, as Obama now nonsensically seeks to do to ISIS. Instead, we have continued to make more enemies all over the world, including a nasty group like ISIS that even Al Qaeda disavows.
With an additional 475 troops pledged by Obama to Iraq, the total number is about 1,600 troops in the country. It's only a matter of time until more American blood is shed in Iraq.
In a 2007 Boston Globe Q&A, an emerging star on the political stage said this:
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
That emerging star was Senator Obama. It seems clear that Senator Obama, the same Senator Obama that opposed the Iraq War, but now uses its legal authorization as justification in strikes against ISIS, would be one of President Obama's fiercest critics.
In 2011, President Obama authorized strikes against Libya without Congressional authorization. Last year when contemplating strikes against Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama didn't need Congress' approval. In his latest speech, President Obama said he has the lawful authorization to strike ISIS in Iraq and Syria, even while admitting they do not pose an imminent risk.
It is far past time for Democrats to realize the failure Obama has been on foreign policy. He's continued and exacerbated Bush's "War on Terror" legacy. While he may not be as bellicose as a John McCain or even a Hillary Clinton, his actions speak for themself.
When the Iraq War was ramping up in 2002 and then launched in March of 2003, I was barely a teenager, unable to voice discontent or stand with the millions of protesters around the world.
Then, unlike today, The New York Times and other major media outlets rolled over for the Bush administration. For instance, The Times withheld reporter James Risen's report, "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure In Preparing Iraqi Report." until after the invasion.
"Note to young journalists: You all complain about how pre-war intel was handled in 2002/2003. So how are you going to be remembered?" Risen Tweeted Sep. 10.
Sometimes it seems futile. War in America does appear inevitable and perpetual. After all, we are more detached from the burden of war and its consequences than ever.
Specifically, here at Miami, students are likely to skip over a 1,000-word foreign policy piece in favor of the latest drunken escapades in the Police Beat.
Apathy and pessimism would be a cool comfort against this seeming futility, but when it comes to the seriousness of war, I dare not acquiesce.
I'm going to raise hell.