Congress should reconvene to debate and pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force to govern operations in and around Syria and against the Islamic State.
Congress has neglected its duties in this matter for far too long, and President Donald Trump’s missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfields in Syria last week underscored the fact that Congress can delay no longer. We are at the precipice of large-scale involvement in Syria, and in our democracy the people – acting through their chosen representatives – must weigh in before we commit ourselves to major military operations.
Our military deserves to know the larger strategic context of our actions in Syria. What is it we are truly fighting for? What are we ourselves willing to risk? If we go into Syria with significant force, are we willing to own that choice and back up our military with every diplomatic, intelligence and economic resource needed to secure victory?
The debate on an AUMF would force us all to grapple with the difficult set of choices and risks that we face with Syria. This is why Congress must act now.
The need for Congress to act is both a constitutional necessity and a civic imperative. America has been relying on an AUMF that was signed in September 2001 as justification for a vast array of operations in countries such as Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia and Syria, among others.
The initial focus of the 2001 AUMF was to target “those nations, organizations, or persons he (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” In the immediate aftermath of the horror of Sept. 11, we gave the president a sweeping mandate to use military force.
But in the ensuing 15 years, presidents from both parties have used this AUMF to justify military operations where the connection to the original guiding principles was tenuous at best. For example, using the 2001 AUMF to justify operations against ISIS, a group that did not exist in 2001.
These operations may have been necessary and valuable – clearly with ISIS we face a brutal group of murderers intent on killing Americans and innocent civilians across the globe – but by relying on the 2001 AUMF we have avoided real public debate. Public debate is critical to our national security – in our democracy, we are at our strongest when we deploy our strength behind a strategy that has the support of the American people.
In the context of Syria and ISIS, we need an AUMF to define the scope of the mission and provide a check on the president committing American forces to a military endeavor that may not have enduring public support or that lacks a clear definition of victory backed by a comprehensive military and political strategy.
Before we are drawn further into Syria, we need Congress to debate whether there is any viable military strategy that does not further destabilize the region and foster the conditions where anti-American terrorist groups thrive.
If we conclude that further military action is necessary, then Congress must clearly outline the military and political objectives. For example, if we decide that defeating ISIS is of paramount importance, then we must also recognize that this will bolster Bashar Assad and secure his position in post-civil-war Syria.
Is that truly in our long-term best interest? And how do we reconcile any military action with the ongoing refugee crisis, a moral and security imperative? These are questions only the American people can answer. That there are no easy answers is not a reason to dodge the questions. In fact, the complexity and risk of the situation demands that we engage in serious and open debate and arrive at a clear set of principles and strategic goals.
We should trust that the American people can engage in difficult debates. We should have faith in our ability to grapple with the complex array of challenges that we face in Syria and with the fight against ISIS. We have the most powerful military, with the most incredible men and women serving in uniform, in our diplomatic corps, and in our intelligence services. But all this power rests upon the increasingly fragile bonds of trust and civic faith among Americans.
Let us strengthen these bonds and send our military and the world a resounding message by asserting a clear set of principles and strategic goals to guide our efforts in Syria and against ISIS.
(Dan Vallone is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer. He lives in Concord.)