Why won’t Congress vote on war with ISIS?

2015-11-24T13:23:54-05:00

Answer by Tim Kaine, United States senator from Virginia, @timkaine:

My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of members who believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in some sort of military action against ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus—and despite the constitutional demand that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress—there’s been a strange degree of silence on this issue for the past 16 months.

If you look back a few years to the last war vote on Iraq, we saw the political consequences of that vote. I think that may have something to do with why Congress has been unwilling and remained mostly silent when it comes to holding a debate and vote on the war against ISIL.

I believe strongly that the voice of Congress is needed. It’s needed to fulfill our Article I responsibility and to send a clear message to our troops, allies, and adversaries that we are committed to this mission. I think when it comes down to it, deciding whether to go to war and put our service members at risk is one of the toughest votes any member will make during his or her time in Congress.

But taking these votes shouldn’t be an option—it’s our constitutional responsibility, and it’s what the American people and our service members deserve.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/11/20/why_won_t_congress_vote_on_war_with_isis.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Why Won’t Congress Vote on War With ISIS?

Answer by Tim Kaine, United States senator from Virginia, @timkaine: My sense is that in both houses of Congress, there is an overwhelming majority of memb

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 24 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-11-24T13:24:54-05:00

Okay, the survey may be a little facetious.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 24 at 2015 1:30 PM

2015-11-24T13:30:55-05:00

If they vote, they're responsible for the outcome. If they hang back and wait, they can either attempt to pass the buck if it goes poorly, or attempt to take credit if things go well... They're just hedging their bets...

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Nov 24 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-11-24T13:39:24-05:00

All of the above.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Nov 24 at 2015 1:52 PM

2015-11-24T13:52:23-05:00

When it comes to running around saying nothing we have the best elected officials in the history of man.
When it comes to actually buckling down and hammering out a viable solution that works in the best interests of the common man, we have the best legislators Big Anything can buy. Because nothing will be done to help us.
When it comes to doing what they've spent millions saying Obama did wrong by going to war, and how important it was to get Congress involved in the war process, we have the best no nothings in the 240 years of the US.
Nothing will change regardless of party, and it's business as usual. #JUSTSAYNOIN2016

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 2:22 PM

2015-11-24T14:22:24-05:00

Are you saying that the whitehouse wants to do something but the GOP is stonewalling? How can that be when the whitehouse isn't committed to it anyway while asking other countries to step up. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/11/23/white-house-asks-allies-step-campaign-against-isis/A7P2oMHV5J6PFoWWCBAI4M/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=

White House asks allies to step up in campaign against ISIS - The Boston Globe

The White House urged allies on Monday to do more in the campaign against the Islamic State, while President Obama faced pressure to show the US-led coalition will intensify its own efforts.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 2:33 PM

2015-11-24T14:33:49-05:00

who want problem solved? if problem solved, what can each politician campaign about?? This go same with Dem.

Personally, I really don't want a full scale war ... i would rather let the Kurd fight for us. We just bomb the hell out of them.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 24 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-11-24T15:46:55-05:00

None of the above. It would be pointless for congress to declare a war that the president will not fight in any case - declaration or not.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 4:10 PM

2015-11-24T16:10:18-05:00

Isn't the operative question why doesn't the President go to Congress and ask for a formal Declaration of War?
He won't, because... well...reasons.
Why should he, if he is going to do what he wants anyway?
I think that the President very much does not want his name on anything that has to do with the gong show in Syria and Iraq. A request for a DOW puts him clearly in focus.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Nov 24 at 2015 5:32 PM

2015-11-24T17:32:59-05:00

I'm with SCPO David Lockwood, All the Above!

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Nov 24 at 2015 8:31 PM

2015-11-24T20:31:51-05:00

Going to have to agree w/ SCPO David Lockwood - All of the Above.

Maybe if ISIS could be defined as a sovereign nation, Congress could muster the courage to declare war... or, minimally, take action. Set up trade embargos against those nations who fund/support ISIS? Maybe. However, I think our boys in Washington are stuck in antiquated model of "what" or "how" to define the enemy. The dogma: Once we acknowledge ISIS in the context I described, we validate their existence. And I'm not sure ISIS rates a seat in the U.N.

...just my random thought to close the day.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 25 at 2015 12:58 AM

2015-11-25T00:58:27-05:00

I hope people understand what a low 'low' it was in the history of the United States for the House of Representatives to pass this legislation basically barring these 10,000 Syrians who are already in the midst of the vetting process.

When France is going to take 30,000 and Germany up to 1 million -- is that how the leader of the Free World acts?

And the bulk of the Amercan people have also showed themselves as unworthy of what has gone before.

The system set up by the Framers will hopefully work and the Senate will not sanction this cowardly action.

Walt

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Dec 1 at 2015 6:56 AM

2015-12-01T06:56:10-05:00

Your poll options are pretty absurd. But the problem with your whole post is this -- who are we going to declare war on? What is "ISIS"? It's not a country. It's an ideology. And it's an ideology the current government wants to pretend isn't responsible for what it has done since 600AD

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2015 10:18 AM

2015-12-01T10:18:40-05:00

Not one response worthy of checking below. Congress does not need to vote on direct action unless required. The problem is our current President is failing to take any actions. Seven sorties a day is nothing compared to the number flown against Iraq and Afghanistan. When you have a leader who thinks that our biggest threat is the weather, ISIS means nothing.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 1 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-12-01T11:29:27-05:00

I think that members on all sides in the obama administration and both congress and the senate need to be held accountable for the disasters and lack of a plan over the last 7 years

Response by CPL Xavier Jones made Dec 1 at 2015 11:29 AM

2015-12-01T11:29:39-05:00

The only thing that they are good at is running a campaign against the current administration and/or lying to the American people. Our country was formed on the basis of fighting for the little guy. But we have lost that sentiment somewhere in our checks and balances with big corporations.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 1 at 2015 12:44 PM

2015-12-01T12:44:58-05:00

I feel your poll is very polarizing and one-sided. The GOP doesn't decide the direction of the administration's foreign policy and the GOP-controlled house only has the power of the purse, not the power command the military. They can apply political pressure, but to say they want the country to fail or wants POTUS to fail at any cost or is too busy campaigning really shows a lack of understanding of the process.
In statecraft, you need to be careful about how you go about declaring war, since in this case, if we were to explicitly declare war against ISIL/Daesh, then we're also formally recognizing them as a state. There is already standing authorizations to engage terrorist organizations and if the Executive Branch was to ask for additional funds appropriated by Congress or order additional troops on the ground, the political appetite is suggestive of that request being granted. According to Doe vs. Bush, the court ruled that an authorization is sufficient for the use of military force and there is nothing in the Constitution stating a specific process for declaring war. In fact, only 5 wars in our history have been formally declared by Congress: War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican War, WWI, and WWII. Everything else has been done through Congressional authorization; or in the case of Korean War, Bosnia, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War, Haiti, Liberia, and Libya, authorized by UN Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.
If you feel that the current troop levels, the rules of engagement, the CIA programs, the DoD programs or the regional strategy are the doing of the GOP or have anything to do with Congress, you really haven't been paying attention.
As usual, POTUS stated what he wouldn't do. His AUMF request stated:
(c) LIMITATIONS.—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.
SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION.
This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.

This didn't satisfy the actual requirement to win the fight, however. One of the biggest After-Action Points from Kosovo was that you need personnel on the ground to conduct proper targeting and seize and hold terrain. Since Daesh has effectively set up a state and taxes businesses/people and seizes natural resources for revenue to continue their military operations, the fact that they're still fighting and funding operations shouldn't surprise us. Especially given the PR-based ROE which doesn't allow us to strike areas like mosques where we know they hide or hitting their industrial sectors for fear of civilian casualties or angering Muslims in the region. We're basically waiting and watching as the Kurds, Iraqis, and proxy organizations of various countries advance and hold ground rather than using American troops. The Executive Branch thinks that climate change is the biggest threat to the US according to the President. These wars and conflicts are more of an inconvenient afterthought compared to their domestic objectives.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 1 at 2015 8:48 PM

2015-12-01T20:48:15-05:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner. Although I'm a died in the wool liberal, the answer here is rather simple. The last time the US Congress declared a state of war was on December 8, 1941, it was against Japan. This same Congress neglected to declare war on Nazi Germany, to many people of German decent living basically in voter rich midwestern states. Hitler had to declare war on the United States. The reason is rather simple Capt. Members of the House face election every two years. War have a nasty tendency to become unpopular even WW II that was approved by the House and Senate with only a single defending vote. The same US Senator that was the lone vote against war in 1917. Wars are always popular at the start until those letters start coming to parents that tells you a son or daughter will be coming home shortly in a coffin. Nixon took care of the necessity of Congress have to make this wrenching decision when he enacted through executive order, War Powers Act that says a President in effect can go to war when ever he/she feels like it. Once the first KIA comes home no Congressman would vote to stop a war. The questions below are irrelevant. This is not a partisan issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-12-02T18:01:22-05:00

That was funny, however it wasn't right. If your going to have a poll... you should be able to cover a majority of potential respondents opinion on the matter.

Response by SSG Clarence Thomas made Dec 5 at 2015 4:35 PM

2015-12-05T16:35:27-05:00

I cannot understand a veteran wanting to go to war, especially if he have been there. It is best to negotiate first, then after all fails, consider other avenues. I have served in many MOSs, and do not want to back to war in any of them, but will support my country when called.

Response by SGT Rodrigo Contreras made Dec 5 at 2015 11:19 PM

2015-12-05T23:19:17-05:00

Your survey questions show extreme bias. While the Republican party currently holds a majority in both the House and Senate, that was not always the case and it doesn't hold a veto proof majority now. Sen Reid (D-NV) as Majority Leader blocked many pieces of legislation and as current Minority Leader still has a powerful enough voting block to stall any vote he chooses on behalf of the White House. Pres. Obama would first have to be willing to make a request for that Decleration of War vote (which I do not believe he ever would), then and only then might a Declaration of War pass. Because if Congress tried to declare it without the President's request and approval it would get vetoed, I guarantee it!

Response by LTC Richard Cassem made Dec 28 at 2015 10:05 PM

2015-12-28T22:05:11-05:00

Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII. And since Da'esh isn't a legitimate state, I don't think we'll see a change in congressional behavior now. Besides, custom and president have granted the president powers to use the military that didn't exist in the 40s.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 10:38 AM

2015-12-29T10:38:25-05:00

It would be tough for Congress or any Government to declare war on a non-entity. ISIS/ISIL is not a country, they do not own a country (against their own beliefs obviously) and therefore it goes against an official declaration of war. I do think that we need a better strategy to follow in regards to ISIS/ISIL but declaring war should not be on the table.

Response by SSG Raymond Whitener made Dec 29 at 2015 9:11 PM

2015-12-29T21:11:56-05:00

Election year