The United States-led coalition’s fight with ISIS militants has dominated American news media in recent weeks. Congressmen and senators alike continually warn us about the dangers of ISIS, yet the bombing campaign occurred without a congressional debate or authorization. How can something so important not receive congressional approval? The answer, in short, is politics.
Republicans attacked President Obama’s decision to act independently of Congress almost immediately after he outlined his strategy against ISIS in an address to the nation on Sept. 10. Sen. Rand Paul said that Obama was “arrogant” to act without consulting Congress while Sen. Lindsey Graham argued for U.S. boots on the ground. While many prominent Republicans vocally expressed their displeasure with Obama’s decisions, they have yet to debate the bombing campaign within the chambers of Congress.
Worse still, their failure to debate is not a product of the usual dysfunction in Congress; it is by design.
John Boehner initially argued that he did not want to raise a debate in the House of Representatives during the post-midterm election “lame duck” session of Congress because he believed that lawmakers who may not return should not make such a momentous decision. However, Rep. Jack Kingston offered a more cynical yet plausible justification for Congress’ refusal to debate the anti-ISIS campaign.
Kingston stated that the decision to avoid debate was a conscious political decision made by both parties to protect themselves before the midterm elections. He went on to say that while some Democrats are skeptical of how a war vote would play with their constituents, Republicans are in a politically advantageous situation if they avoid a vote altogether. And he’s right. By refusing to debate or vote, members of Congress will be able to avoid a divisive war vote right before an election. In addition, waiting until next year allows the Republicans to avoid the embarrassment of publicly agreeing with Obama. Better yet, Republicans get to criticize the president no matter how the conflict goes, a luxury that will likely provide the opportunity for many pre-election sound bytes.
After facing scrutiny about this decision, Boehner revised his stance on Sept. 28, saying that he would call Congress back from recess if Obama puts forward a resolution on the anti-ISIS campaign. But this offer is no better than his previous one. If members of Congress are voicing their opposition to Obama’s decisions, they should exercise their constitutional rights and create a plan of their own.
No matter what Congress’ intentions are for avoiding an authorizing vote for our military engagements against ISIS, the fact is that they are not doing their jobs. Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Therefore, members of Congress should do their duty and return from their campaigns to hold a vote, regardless of the potential electoral consequences.