U.S. Congress has repeatedly passed the buck on debating war on ISIS. (Photo: U.S. House of Representatives/flickr/public domain)
Jun 12, 2015
U.S. lawmakers sent the message on Thursday that they do not want to touch the war on ISIS, let alone engage in real debate.
In a 196-231 vote, the House defeated an amendment attached to the defense spending bill that would have forced lawmakers to vote on authorization of the war on ISIS, which has already been waged for ten months.
Introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the legislation would have required Congress to hold a vote on a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) by the end of March 2016 by tying Pentagon funding to lawmakers' explicit approval.
"Ten months into an undeclared war against ISIS, Congress yet again dodged its responsibility to authorize the use of force," declared Schiff during Wednesday's debate on the House floor. "If we are going to ask service members to risk their lives, we ought to have the courage ourselves to take a vote on this war."
We Interrupt This Article with an Urgent Message! Common Dreams is a not-for-profit news service. All of our content is free to you - no subscriptions; no ads. We are funded by donations from our readers. This media model only works if enough readers pitch in. We have millions of readers every month and, it seems, too many take our survival for granted. It isn't. Our critical Mid-Year fundraiser is off to a very slow start - only 406 readers have contributed a total of $15,070 so far. We must raise $34,930 more before we can end this fundraising campaign and get back to focusing on what we do best. |
However, Schiff made it clear that he backs the war the war on ISIS: "If this is worth fighting ISIS, and I believe it is, it's worth having Congress do its job."
In a climate where even pro-war AUMF proposals can't get a vote, real debate over the war itself is almost completely absent.
The two AUMF requests submitted so far--by President Barack Obama in mid-February and bipartisan senators this week--both call for open-ended and geographically-limitless war against a broadly-defined enemy.
As Congress continues to pass the buck on those proposals, the war on ISIS is escalating, seemingly unaffected by lawmakers' actions--or lack thereof.
The White House revealed this week it is planning to deploy up to 450 more troops to Iraq, adding to the roughly 3,000 already there, and establish a military base in eastern Anbar Province. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the base could serve as a model for "lily pad" hubs across Iraq.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
U.S. lawmakers sent the message on Thursday that they do not want to touch the war on ISIS, let alone engage in real debate.
In a 196-231 vote, the House defeated an amendment attached to the defense spending bill that would have forced lawmakers to vote on authorization of the war on ISIS, which has already been waged for ten months.
Introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the legislation would have required Congress to hold a vote on a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) by the end of March 2016 by tying Pentagon funding to lawmakers' explicit approval.
"Ten months into an undeclared war against ISIS, Congress yet again dodged its responsibility to authorize the use of force," declared Schiff during Wednesday's debate on the House floor. "If we are going to ask service members to risk their lives, we ought to have the courage ourselves to take a vote on this war."
We Interrupt This Article with an Urgent Message! Common Dreams is a not-for-profit news service. All of our content is free to you - no subscriptions; no ads. We are funded by donations from our readers. This media model only works if enough readers pitch in. We have millions of readers every month and, it seems, too many take our survival for granted. It isn't. Our critical Mid-Year fundraiser is off to a very slow start - only 406 readers have contributed a total of $15,070 so far. We must raise $34,930 more before we can end this fundraising campaign and get back to focusing on what we do best. |
However, Schiff made it clear that he backs the war the war on ISIS: "If this is worth fighting ISIS, and I believe it is, it's worth having Congress do its job."
In a climate where even pro-war AUMF proposals can't get a vote, real debate over the war itself is almost completely absent.
The two AUMF requests submitted so far--by President Barack Obama in mid-February and bipartisan senators this week--both call for open-ended and geographically-limitless war against a broadly-defined enemy.
As Congress continues to pass the buck on those proposals, the war on ISIS is escalating, seemingly unaffected by lawmakers' actions--or lack thereof.
The White House revealed this week it is planning to deploy up to 450 more troops to Iraq, adding to the roughly 3,000 already there, and establish a military base in eastern Anbar Province. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the base could serve as a model for "lily pad" hubs across Iraq.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
U.S. lawmakers sent the message on Thursday that they do not want to touch the war on ISIS, let alone engage in real debate.
In a 196-231 vote, the House defeated an amendment attached to the defense spending bill that would have forced lawmakers to vote on authorization of the war on ISIS, which has already been waged for ten months.
Introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the legislation would have required Congress to hold a vote on a new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) by the end of March 2016 by tying Pentagon funding to lawmakers' explicit approval.
"Ten months into an undeclared war against ISIS, Congress yet again dodged its responsibility to authorize the use of force," declared Schiff during Wednesday's debate on the House floor. "If we are going to ask service members to risk their lives, we ought to have the courage ourselves to take a vote on this war."
We Interrupt This Article with an Urgent Message! Common Dreams is a not-for-profit news service. All of our content is free to you - no subscriptions; no ads. We are funded by donations from our readers. This media model only works if enough readers pitch in. We have millions of readers every month and, it seems, too many take our survival for granted. It isn't. Our critical Mid-Year fundraiser is off to a very slow start - only 406 readers have contributed a total of $15,070 so far. We must raise $34,930 more before we can end this fundraising campaign and get back to focusing on what we do best. |
However, Schiff made it clear that he backs the war the war on ISIS: "If this is worth fighting ISIS, and I believe it is, it's worth having Congress do its job."
In a climate where even pro-war AUMF proposals can't get a vote, real debate over the war itself is almost completely absent.
The two AUMF requests submitted so far--by President Barack Obama in mid-February and bipartisan senators this week--both call for open-ended and geographically-limitless war against a broadly-defined enemy.
As Congress continues to pass the buck on those proposals, the war on ISIS is escalating, seemingly unaffected by lawmakers' actions--or lack thereof.
The White House revealed this week it is planning to deploy up to 450 more troops to Iraq, adding to the roughly 3,000 already there, and establish a military base in eastern Anbar Province. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the base could serve as a model for "lily pad" hubs across Iraq.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.