Who decides on US ground combat in Syria?

President Trump may soon seek to send foot soldiers to defeat Islamic State quickly in its stronghold. But he first needs buy-in from Congress.

AP Photo
In this April 27, 2016 file photo, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr. testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. Dunford said on Feb. 23 that a Pentagon-led review of strategy for defeating the Islamic State group will present President Donald Trump with options not just to speed up the fight against IS but also to combat al-Qaida and other extremist groups beyond Iraq and Syria.

In coming days, President Trump is expected to decide whether to send thousands of combat troops into Syria to attack Islamic State. A month ago, he asked the Pentagon for options on ways to “accelerate” the defeat of IS in its stronghold. If he does seek to put so many American soldiers on the ground, the commander in chief must first get the approval of Congress, where constitutional authority for war belongs.

For decades, starting during the cold war and later after the 9/11 attacks, Congress has steadily given up much of its responsibility to define the use of violence in the name of the American people. Previous presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, have broadly defined their executive power in conducting military operations in many countries. Yet a democracy must continually set clear parameters for the official use of violence, especially as threats change and weapons evolve.

Lawmakers, and not only a president, should be held accountable for the effects of warfare. Achieving and keeping peace relies on the collective wisdom of knowing when not to fight or knowing what kind of war to wage. If Mr. Trump wants to send soldiers into combat, now is the time to define that wisdom.

Few Americans would disagree with the goal of defeating Islamic State or its related militants around the world. But citizens must also have a say, through a consensus in Congress, on the means and methods as well as the scope of time and geography for such warfare. Congress should also emphasize the nonmilitary ways to help end the threat of terror, such as the work of Muslims to prevent the radicalization of their youth with the peaceful precepts of Islam.

The struggle against both IS and Al Qaeda can often seem too complex for Congress to anticipate all the limits to be set on a president. And it may be difficult to know whether a US attack on a militant group is being done strictly in “self defense.” But such issues are not an excuse for lawmakers to give up their constitutional responsibility in declaring war.

Trump is now the third president to rely on an authorization passed by Congress in 2001 to wage war on “Al Qaeda and associated forces.” That authority is very out of date. If he plans to put boots on the ground in Syria to directly attack IS, he needs to do what his defense secretary, retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, suggested in 2015 in a blog.

Mr. Mattis said that a new authorization is needed, one supported by a majority of both parties in both houses of Congress. That authority, he stated, “will send an essential message of American steadfastness to our people and to the global audience. Its passage will demonstrate our country’s fundamental unity and enable a broader commitment to deal firmly with a real and growing menace.” 

The recent history of the US role in troubled conflicts, such as Iraq, Yemen, and Libya, calls for restoring full accountability in warmaking. With a new president seeking new military action, Congress can again show its proper leadership in the wise use of force. 

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.