Why Congress must vote on Obama's war with IS

President Obama would welcome the backing of lawmakers for his war on Islamic State group, or ISIS. But Congress must first debate in full view the moral underpinnings of the war.

AP Photo
Members of the anti-war group CodePink interrupt a Senate hearing Tuesday with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Some wars are necessary. Yet war itself is human folly. Reconciling these two seeming truths will long remain a challenge, President Obama stated in a 2009 speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now in 2014, as he revs up the American military to “destroy” the Islamic State (IS) militant group in a war that may outlast his time in office, Mr. Obama is throwing this challenge back on Americans. Will they help him reconcile these two aspects of war?

He has welcomed Congress providing legal backing for him to bomb IS in Syria and Iraq and to deploy military advisers there. Yet he also claims he already has such authority under the post-9/11, Bush-era authorizations for war on Al Qaeda and in Iraq. His request may be really aimed at gaining political and moral support for war actions already begun in Iraq – perhaps just in case the war goes badly and a blame game erupts.

But precisely for these reasons, many members of Congress are hiding in the weeds. Lawmakers have decided to wait until after the midterm congressional election in November to vote on any approval for the war, or for a measure known as an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). In a warm-up for that vote, they are voting this week on authorizing money for the United States to arm “moderate” rebels in Syria.

The American people deserve a full-throated debate in Congress on the causes, purposes, and conduct of the war against IS being fought in their name. Is this a war of self-defense or simply the defense of others? Will it bring a just and durable peace? What non-war means might achieve the same goals? And what restraints can be placed on this war, such as its duration or the tactics used to avoid civilian deaths?

These are not easy questions, which explains why lawmakers should be granted the liberty to vote their conscience on a war measure. Such a debate should also be done without emotion, such as revenge for the IS beheading of two Americans, or for sectarian motives, such as attacking Islam.

And given past atrocities committed by American troops in recent wars, the US must make doubly sure that this war is legally secured on the highest moral ground. The means of war are as important as its ends.

The wars against Al Qaeda, and now IS, are somewhat unique in the history of American warfare because they call for total destruction of the enemy. While this is not quite genocide, it does raise difficult questions about sticking to a principle of warfare known as proportionality, or moderation in choosing targets and allowing for an enemy to plead for peace.

IS commands an estimated 10,000 fighters and controls a territory roughly the size of New England. Obama plans to rely on ground fighters in the region to wipe out this budding caliphate, with US air support. Yet his commanders also say they would recommend using US combat forces if Americans are attacked by IS.

The chance for mission creep, or a “slippery slope” toward wider war, also requires Congress to act with a solid moral footing – and wide public consensus – before passage of an AUMF. War can quickly turn to folly if its motives and tactics are not in line with highest principles.

Congress is off to a bad start by not holding this debate before the election. Being held to account for a war is one way to reduce its potential folly. But even in a lame-duck session, lawmakers can still rise to the occasion and make sure Americans know the causes, purposes, and conduct for a war already being waged.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.