Congress shamefully dodging war debate

This commentary from the Chicago Tribune does not necessarily reflect the view of The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board.

Members of a fractious Congress apparently have reached bipartisan consensus on one key issue: They won’t risk even debating a broad measure to authorize President Barack Obama’s military campaign against the Islamic State until after the Nov. 4 election.

Sorry. Gotta go campaign. War vote has to wait.

Bulletin to Congress: This war isn’t waiting for you. Islamic State militants are busy rolling up real estate in Iraq and Syria and beheading innocent Westerners. They’re on the march – well-financed, impressively equipped and battle-ready. American airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq have helped slow the momentum, but these jihadists won’t melt into the desert. The White House says a serious, sustained campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy Islamic State forces could last several years.

That’s an extensive, and expensive, goal. And where is Congress?

Well, on Wednesday, the U.S. House voted to approve a small part of that mission: Obama’s request to train and arm Syrian rebels to fight the jihadists. The Senate followed suit on this relatively small-bore initiative Thursday. But the overarching, much thornier debate about the president’s war powers and battlefront strategy likely won’t happen until after voters go to the polls.

This being a risk-averse bunch, it’s easy to see why many members of Congress are scared of a vote that would allow Obama wide latitude to pursue this war. No one wants to be on the record, before an election, on a vote that could quickly boomerang (think errant bombs and dead schoolchildren).

Congressional leaders of both parties may be putting off a vote until later because they know they can’t win it. Some anti-war Democrats oppose another open-ended U.S. commitment to a Middle East war. They blanched when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that this war could someday require U.S. combat boots on the ground. (Dempsey’s commander in chief belittled that notion Wednesday.)

Across the aisle, some Republicans don’t trust Obama’s ability – or his resolve – to pursue a complex military campaign after staking his political legacy on getting America out of wars.

The White House argues that Obama doesn’t need additional congressional approval to fight Islamic State jihadists. Yet the president also has said he would welcome congressional “buy-in” for his years-long strategy. In other words, many members of Congress don’t want to vote. And Obama isn’t demanding that they do so.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced a proposal that would authorize Obama to use military force against the Islamic State – with tight restrictions on the deployment of American troops on the ground. Under Kaine’s bill, the president’s authority to use force against the Islamic State would expire in a year but presumably could be extended.

“If Congress isn’t willing to do the hard work – to debate and vote on an authorization – we should not be asking our service members to go into harm’s way,” Kaine said.

That’s exactly right.