Executive Overreach: Use of Military Force Without Congressional Authorization

There are many arguments to be made against the continuation of the American Empire and Wars of Choice.  Making flimsy, legalistic arguments against political opponents, and ignoring clear crimes of a greater magnitude committed by those in the same party, is partisan hackery.  Holding all Presidents accountable in an unbiased fashion is the only way to stand up for the constitutionally mandated division of powers.

Barack Obama’s military intervention to overthrow the government of Libya in 2011, is the most clear, blatant and damaging example of executive overreach for a military intervention not authorized by U.S. Congress since 2001.  This intervention would be the focus of any sincere commitment to challenge executive overreach of unauthorized military intervention.  This clearly impeachable offence by Obama should be cause for an investigation seeking the prosecution of Obama and his administration.  There can only be a real deterrent to future violations with the prosecution of this offence.  Otherwise, it will become clear that such blatantly unconstitutional actions, for all to see, go unpunished.

Libya had nothing to do with September 11, 2001, and had no relationship with Al Qaeda.  Obama intervened not only without congressional authorization, but in defiance of a vote by the House of Representatives, defeating a motion authorizing further military intervention in Libya.  Consequently, Obama specifically violated the War Powers Resolution by continuing to intervene militarily in Libya.

There are some in politics and associated policy and commentary professions that choose to make US military action against The Islamic State the focus of their condemnation.  I will demonstrate that the only argument that has any validity, at best relies on a flimsy legalistic interpretation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The following is the most relevant part of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. 

The following sequence of events should make it clear that The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) should be considered an authorized target for use of military force, regardless of what some commentators and elected representatives contend.

Sequence of Events:

·   Al Qaeda leadership - determined by the President to have committed the attacks of September 11, 2001 - recognized Al Qaeda in Iraq as an affiliate.

·   Al Qaeda in Iraq underwent several mergers with ex Iraqi Ba'athists and other parts of the Iraqi resistance to US occupation, adopting the name The Islamic State of Iraq.

·   After nearly being totally defeated in Iraq, The Islamic State of Iraq was able to reconstitute itself by infiltrating the Syrian opposition in the Syrian Civil War.  They eventually emerge as The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS).

·   Following longstanding tensions between Al Qaeda leadership and their Iraqi affiliate, a full break occurred, severing the organisations.  Around this time period, the truncated name “The Islamic State” is adopted.  This rupture represented a challenge from The Islamic State to Al Qaeda for dominance and leadership of the global Jihadi movement.

·   There is speculation, that I am inclined to believe, that within the Iraqi affiliate the ex Iraqi Ba'athists became dominant and resented following orders from Al Qaeda leadership based primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An interpretation of the intention of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that exempts The Islamic State is flimsy and absurd, especially with regard to the purpose “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States”.  Following the logic of the proponents of this interpretation, the mere development of an internal Al Qaeda power struggle bringing a splinter faction to prominence, in its own right, must be interpreted as reason enough to exempt the newly independent organization from being an authorized target.  It is exactly the same conclusion members of the House Progressive Caucus reached to condemn Donald Trump for escalating the anti Islamic State Syrian intervention initiated by Obama.  It is clear that the argument of executive overreach is extremely weak in the matter of combating ISIS.

There are inconsistencies in positions regarding Obama's and Trump's actions combating ISIS.  There is also a severe lack of condemnation for Obama's 2011 Libyan intervention, which so far has been the far greater crime compared to Trump's so far limited attacks on Syrian government forces recently.  Trump's military engagements against the forces of the State of Syria, and their allies, constitutes his own genuine executive overreach.  Trump has not sought authorization from Congress for these actions, and has not indicated he is intending to, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution is an attempt to allow The President, in their capacity as Commander in Chief, to respond to imminent threats to the United States and maintain the constitutional requirement that vests the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force with the Congress.  It would seem most reasonable to grant the greatest leeway to the President to combat the credible and ongoing threat presented by Al Qaeda and ISIS.  There should be no leeway to allow the President to make unilateral war on a sovereign state that presents no credible threat to the United States, overriding the authority of the Congress in doing so.  Far too many people, judging by their emphasis on the matter, seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion.

There can, and should, be a separate debate if a military response to organisations like Al Qaeda and ISIS is necessary at all, and what is the effectiveness of the actions taken in diminishing the threat.  It is my conclusion that Obama's drone war policy was largely counterproductive.  What should not be tolerated are wars that only serve the personal interests of the President or murky geostrategic and corporate interests.