Remember the “Khorasan group”? On Sept. 23, when beginning airstrikes against the Islamic State, Obama cited this hitherto unmentioned menace in connection with the U.S. military action. It has hardly been mentioned since. Should an AUMF mention it?
Corker believes that congressional action legalizing Obama’s current military actions would be akin to responding to a teenager who habitually drives too fast by raising the speed limit. Nevertheless, many legislators, including some who are indignant about Obama unilaterally setting environmental and immigration policies, seem reluctant to leash him regarding war. Others want an AUMF that would place geographic and time limits on U.S. military action and would bar use of U.S. ground troops. Corker hopes an AUMF debate will, for the administration, lay out a plausible path to stated goals regarding Syria.
Meanwhile, the training of Syrian moderates remains as chimerical as the Bashar al-Assad regime’s “barrel bombs” are real, and Congress continues, Corker notes disapprovingly, to fund U.S. wars off budget. Making a mockery of supposed budget targets, there was another $73 billion “OCO” — overseas contingency operations — expenditure in the recent $1.1 trillion spending bill in the 14th year of an “emergency.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member