Robert Naiman, a Policy Director for Just Foreign Policy, wrote an article for the Huffington Post on Obama's speech a few weeks ago regarding U.S. military strikes in Iraq to dismantle ISIL. Naiman believes that Obama did a poor job in his speech at explaining how his decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq without Congressional approval is Constitutional and legal. Alluding to the bombings of Libya in 2011 and Syria in 2013, Naiman argues that decisions are detrimental to what he calls the "democratic fence the Framers wisely constructed to try to impede the president" because it sets a precedent of expanded war powers for future presidents. He then goes on to urge the administration to explain why it waited until Congressional recess and an Israel cease fire to authorize the airstrikes.
Questions to ponder: What would Publius and Tocqueville have said about Obama's authorization of airstrikes if they lived today? Is Obama acting within his constitutional limits as Commander in Chief? What should Obama have said in his speech to justify his airstrikes using the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973?
My thoughts: I would agree with this premise IF we were talking about war. The problem with Naiman's article is that he wrongly associates airstrikes in Iraq with going to war with them. Although these airstrikes may lead to a slippery slope and could potentially result in a war, Obama is not going to war with anyone. Time and time again, presidents have taken limited actions like this without Congress (e.g. Bush II). Obama is not alone on this one.
Here is the link to the Huffington Post article. Any other thoughts?
KC
P.S. I'm a big fan of John Oliver, so I looked up an article on his response to Obama's speech. Here it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment