A War Resolution Against ISIS

It is nigh time for Congress to take up an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the "Islamic State."  If it is within the ken of Potomac Man to do it, this measure would not only provide the President with clear authority to act against this barbaric group, but could also address another soul-destroying problem for our republic that has been our bane since 9/11:  the never-ending, abstract "War on Terror."

James Risen of the NEW YORK TIMES (currently under threat of imprisonment by the Department of Justice for refusing to compromise a source) has commented on this point.  The 2001 AUMF against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been applied to action in some six nations altogether.  President Obama has been drawn to drone attacks like catnip, claiming cover under the AUMF, unfettered by being on the outer cordon of that legislation.  The problem is that "terrorism" is not an enemy entity, it is a tactic; hence, the object of military force can be cagily shifted to suit the US's policy agenda at anytime and presto! the AUMF applies.

Ironically ISIS (or ISIL) has declared itself to be a "state."   Now, we shan't declare war on the Islamic State because that would legitimize their claim.  But at least they constitute an identifiable enemy for an AUMF.  But President Obama has also asked that this AUMF also update and supersede the 2001 AUMF "to suit the current fight."

I would prefer to maintain the distinction between an AUMF against ISIS, and an updated AUMF against these more nebulous terroristic affiliates of various kinds.  The latter should, however, more clearly spell out the President's authorities, the NSA's and CIA's constraints, and the like.  I am an still cogitating on the matter.

One last thing.  I urge the President never to call ISIS "folks" .  Thank you in advance.