Today, newly appointed House Speaker Paul D. Ryan ordered the House majority leader and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to investigate authorizing war against ISIS. Ryan is acting on the belief that Congress should carry out its Constitutional duty and declare war, which puts him at odds with Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, and many other high-ranking Republicans. They say that President Obama already has the authority to wage war against the Levantine terrorist group.
However, despite this conflict of opinion, Ryan reported having instructed the House Foreign Affairs Committee to "begin the process of gathering ideas and having listening sessions with our members about whether and how we could [authorize military force]." Ed Royce, the chairman of the committee, has been reluctant to act but has recently reconsidered due to the horrific Paris and San Bernadino attacks. He says he will investigate a way to give American commanders more flexibility using an AUMF (authorization of military force), but like other he believes that the decision is up to the President to step up and fight back. The situation harkens back to 2001, when Congress authorized force to avenge 9/11, and 2002, when another AUMF was used to begin intervention in the Iraq War.
Ryan has a history of deferring power to House committees. But it is uncertain how much muscle he will use to back up his opinions, given the need for party unity as we approach the election. He seems to be firmly against the President in most cases, having stated recently that the atrocities committed by ISIS had the same emotional effect on him as the Newtown shooting. In any case, a growing number of Republicans are considering using Congressional power to authorize force in a classic case of checks and balances. As with most things, only time will tell.
What do you think Ryan's instructions mean? How will he continue to act? Do you believe that greater military force is needed against ISIS? How should Obama act?
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-orders-closer-look-at-authorizing-war-against-isis.html?ribbon-ad-idx=9&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
2 comments:
I believe that Ryan will continue to push for a war against ISIS. Throughout the presidential debates for the GOP, the candidates have repeatedly answered questions about how they would deal with ISIS. Ideas such as no fly zones, air strikes, and troops on the ground have been tossed out. Ryan is in alignment with some Republicans trying to combat terrorism and increase US military presence on an international level so that the other countries will be intimidated. However, if high ranking Republicans in the Senate continue to oppose Ryan's ideas it is possible that he will back down and try other actions, especially if The leader of House Foreign Affairs Committee is unwilling to cooperate. Although I do not agree with all of the tactics recommended by Republicans I do understand the need for stronger military force against ISIS. ISIS has been able to target Americans, many of whom were not even Islamic, and convert them to extremism. It has launched numerous attacks on an international level and is only growing in power. ISIS is a force that should be reckoned with and ignoring it is denying that they pose an threat to the United States. For this reason, I believe that Obama and Congress should consider plans and strategies for combatting ISIS and look into military action. I am doubtful that war will truly be declared as there seems to be a lack of party unity. However, if Ryan is able to persuade other party members a military campaign against ISIS may be in the future for America.
As far as Paul Ryan is concerned, within Congress, he can push for whatever he wants. If that is war against Daesh, so be it. That being said, he is obviously fighting an uphill battle due to the fact that many high-ranking Republicans, and even the Majority Leader, do not agree with him. In order for Ryan to even have a shot at a successful declaration of war, he is going to need significant bi-partisan backing, as well as, bad as it may sound, another major development by Daesh; at least one that could seriously threaten the United States on all levels. Thus, it seems unlikely that a declaration of war, especially against a power that has not been formally established as a nation and runs without a structured, not to mention unrecognized, government. This all taken into account, 'gathering ideas' and 'listening' are two very vague terms when it comes to making significant action in Congress.
The unlikely nature of Ryan's successful pursuit aside, the idea of going to 'war' with Daesh, in its self, is a terrible idea. America is the world leader of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not the world's police force. Especially after two disastrously costly wars, the United States needs to put its guns down and be the bigger man, so to speak. For Daesh, there would be nothing more on planet earth that the barbarians could want, rather than fighting against the Americans themselves. By putting countless men and women, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, on the ground, we are only making it easier for Daesh to live the dream of going into combat against the West. It's almost as if they would be obliged to go toe-to-toe with the most powerful military force on the planet, even if it meant being absolutely obliterated. We shouldn't let their taunts and acts of terror get to our head, America needs to pursue a responsible political solution in conjunction with the major players in the Middle East.
Obama needs to think with a clear head and pursue peace through the olive branch, not the arrow.
Post a Comment