AUMF

Listening to the Senate committee grill Secretary of State John Kerry was quite curious. The Republicans seemed determined to get a suggestion for an AUMF from the president or to delay consideration of the matter until the new Congress sits (when the Republicans would have control of the committee). Congress has already delayed consideration of this for some months, but the election campaigns were on-going and that made sense. Now it doesn't. The president could have sent a suggested AUMF to Congress, but everything he suggests is just fodder for the Republicans to dismiss. In this instance it's simply better for Congress to pull itself up off the floor and do its job. I hope that's not asking too much.

To the question of an AUMF -- an authorization for the use of military force -- it's important for Congress to decide if modernizing the 2001, 2002  laws is necessary in their opinion. Those limited the Executive branch to fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates, though President George W. Bush surprised many by shifting from Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden and his part of al Qaeda were located) to Iraq. If they decide to leave those in place, then the president will continue under cover of those unless a court decides it's inappropriate. Sec. Kerry said today the courts have already ruled on that.

Assuming they decide modernization is needed, then they also need to decide if they want one over-arching AUMF for al Qaeda and all possible affiliates anywhere in the world or if they would prefer one for that and another for fighting ISIL in a more limited way (geographically or otherwise). I would suggest that two separate AUMFs is quite reasonable and leaving the old laws in effect for that purpose might suffice, though creating a new one specifically for the fight against ISIL would be very useful.

The AUMF for opposing ISIL could easily specify that the fight is geographically bound, though many other resources from other sites might be acceptable. For example, a stealth aircraft, cruise missile or drone can come from far away and training camps in countries neighboring Iraq-Syria are also necessary. A time duration is quite appealing as unlimited duration for this engagement commits us to unlimited involvement with all its costs and it isn't an incentive to actually complete the war in a timely fashion. With a time limit there should be a process for reconsideration,  recommitment, reauthorization or extension which the Senate should be required to handle. This could be much like a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process. The president (whomever it may be) could request an extension of the AUMF and then the Senate would consider it and vote to extend or not. A limitation on the use of ground troops is limiting and undesirable from the point-of-view of the Executive branch, but the Senate could include that if it desires. The list of exceptions to the rule is the problem.

It's essential we have two key things: recognition this is a fight America needs to fight and win AND authorization for use of sufficient resources & means to win. Other limits can be dealt with.

Sec. Kerry already stated the cost of the war is dealt with in the budget. That too needs to be reviewed by Congress and accepted or amended.