Operation Featherweight: Month 8, Week 4, Day 4 - AUMF.

On February 11th (11/2/15) US President Barack Obama sent his Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to Congress for approval. I read the three page letter at the time under the assumption that a much more detailed version would emerge later that I would have to go through line-by-line.

It turns out that I was wrong and those slightly more then two double spaced pages are all it takes to send America to war these days. It's almost as if Obama was seeking a blank check.

My main objection to the request is Section 3 which grants authorisation for a minimum of three years. A similar French operation to drive Islamists from an area of northern Mali roughly the same size as Texas took just four weeks. Therefore I would have estimated that operations against ISIL would have taken a maximum of six months. As a result I am struggling to find a legitimate reason why the operation has made little progress in almost eight months.

Therefore I would find it impossible to support an AUMF that last for more then 12 months (1 year) before it has to be renewed. The hope being that if Obama is forced to go through the embarrassment of explaining why the operation has not yet succeeded whilst seeking an extension to the operation he might be encouraged to hurry things up a bit. As such even with a 12 month time limit I still think that Obama should be obligated to provide a progress report to Congress every six months.

Another substantial objection I have to the AUMF in its current form is that it significantly lacks focus. Therefore I would change the 3rd paragraph to read; "Where as ISIL has grown out of the civil war in Syria, has moved to invade the neighbouring state of Iraq and has stated its intention to seize more territory whilst demonstrating its ability to do so." Although it sounds pedantic I think this wording really helps to further illustrate the nature of the enemy being faced.

Similarly I would amend the 9th paragraph to read; "Where as the US is working with [...] to liberate Iraq and then Syria from the territory seized by ISIL whilst working to cut off its flow of funding and [...] local communities as they reject ISIL. To my mind this provides a more clear and specific remit for the operation rather then the wishy-washy "degrade and ultimately destroy" language by briefly indicating how that degradation and destruction will occur.

I am also extremely concerned by the 6th paragraph which alludes to ISIL's genocide and vicious acts of violence against minority ethnic and religious groups. Here I can't help but notice that the Kurdish ethnic group has been excluded entirely. With the Yezidis being ethnic Kurds this omission excludes the one ethnic group that has suffered the most at the hands of ISIL and has done the most to fight them. As such it belies a complete failure to understand the situation on the part of the author and needs to be amended to make specific reference to the Kurds.

Under Section 2(c) Limitations beyond the ban on US combat troops I would also limit the US ability to arm, equip or train the aforementioned "local communities" so it requires the approval of the appropriate Congressional committee. Currently I believe that is the Foreign Affairs Committee but I think it may be worth setting up a specific committee to deal with ISIL.

Primarily I see this as the Iraqis and the Syrians fight with the coalition nations merely being on hand to provide them with assistance. As such it is essential that the AUMF make provision for the US to provide assistance to local forces. However this is a very complicated issue.

For example the usually rather tame Human Rights Watch (HRW) has found itself with no other option then to admit that the so-called moderate opposition in Syria have no greater regard for human rights and Syria's civilian population then ISIL themselves. Despite this AUMF not being granted the Obama administration has seen fit to agree with Turkey to equip, arm and train members of this "local community."

Previous attempts to train Syria's moderate opposition has resulted in groups such as the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF) taking their American weapons and training and joining up with Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria which doesn't strike me as being in the US' long-term interest.

Within Iraq Obama has talked extensively about using this AUMF to train and equip Sunni militias to act as a something of a home guard force. In the absence of productive support to the Iraqi army they have been forced to rely on support from Shia militias. If the US is building up Sunni militias at the same time that Iran is building up Shia militias while no-one is acting to strengthen the Iraqi state/army this is not a recipe for Iraq to become a stable nation capable of defeating ISIL. Instead it is a recipe for Iraq to become a failed state such as Libya or Somalia where Islamist terror groups such as ISIL are allowed to prosper.

Therefore I cannot support this AUMF in it's current form and urge Congress to immediately either reject it in it's entirety or force the administration into negotiations over amendments. After all Obama sadly seems to be struggling to acknowledge that he is a war time President.

21:25 on 24/3/15 (UK date).