This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/19/obama-iraq-war-approval-air-strikes

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Obama can't declare a new Iraq war without approval. Even Bush knew that Obama can't declare a new Iraq war without approval. Even Bush knew that
(about 5 hours later)
Open contributions: Ask our reporters.
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speechIn his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
four-and-half years ago, when the United States was still fighting George Wfour-and-half years ago, when the United States was still fighting George W
Bush's battles against al-Qaida, Barack Obama spoke not so much aboutBush's battles against al-Qaida, Barack Obama spoke not so much about
peace as the necessity of sometimes going to war. "Evil does exist in thepeace as the necessity of sometimes going to war. "Evil does exist in the
world," Obama remarked. "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler'sworld," Obama remarked. "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's
armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms."armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms."
Seemingly out of nowhere, that pragmatic visionSeemingly out of nowhere, that pragmatic vision
of the world has now turned back to Iraq. A well-organized and blood-thirstyof the world has now turned back to Iraq. A well-organized and blood-thirsty
group of insurgents, Islamicgroup of insurgents, Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), is on the march. They may soon be headedState in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), is on the march. They may soon be headed
for Baghdad. The Iraq government has now officially requestedfor Baghdad. The Iraq government has now officially requested
the United States to engage in airstrikes to stave off the militants' advance,the United States to engage in airstrikes to stave off the militants' advance,
and the US military is considering whether it has sufficientand the US military is considering whether it has sufficient
intelligence to carry out effective droneintelligence to carry out effective drone
and other air operations.and other air operations.
In the meantime, the Pentagon appears to beIn the meantime, the Pentagon appears to be
quickly gathering the information it needs "toquickly gathering the information it needs "to
gain clarity" for what the White House has termed "the days to come" as Secretary of State John Kerry says "nothing is off the table" – all while Senate majority leader Harry Reid insists "theregain clarity" for what the White House has termed "the days to come" as Secretary of State John Kerry says "nothing is off the table" – all while Senate majority leader Harry Reid insists "there
has been sufficient authorization" for an air campaign. After a meeting with Congressional leadership on Wednesday afternoon, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said the president "didn't feel he had any need for authority from us".has been sufficient authorization" for an air campaign. After a meeting with Congressional leadership on Wednesday afternoon, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said the president "didn't feel he had any need for authority from us".
But if President Obama wants to start aBut if President Obama wants to start a
brand-new war, he will need prior approval from Congress to fight a brand-newbrand-new war, he will need prior approval from Congress to fight a brand-new
enemy – and he'll need to mull his decision out in the open. Because Congressenemy – and he'll need to mull his decision out in the open. Because Congress
hasn't given a green light for Iraq 3.0. And justifying a new war on the basishasn't given a green light for Iraq 3.0. And justifying a new war on the basis
of a false link to al-Qaida would amount to just that – a redux of the Bushof a false link to al-Qaida would amount to just that – a redux of the Bush
administration's disastrous Global War on Terror. It would also overlook theadministration's disastrous Global War on Terror. It would also overlook the
hugely different array of forces, including localhugely different array of forces, including local
tribes in Iraq helping Isis, which could make this new war even worse thantribes in Iraq helping Isis, which could make this new war even worse than
it already is.it already is.
New war, you ask? Hasn't the United StatesNew war, you ask? Hasn't the United States
already decided to use the military option to counter al-Qaida, and isn't thealready decided to use the military option to counter al-Qaida, and isn't the
threat posed by Isis just a new version of the battle that Congress alreadythreat posed by Isis just a new version of the battle that Congress already
authorized Bush and Obama to fight? The answer – contrary to what many haveauthorized Bush and Obama to fight? The answer – contrary to what many have
suggested – is very clearly no.suggested – is very clearly no.
Sending drones to fight Isis isn't simplySending drones to fight Isis isn't simply
some new front on a disappearing border. Congress has only authorized, in thesome new front on a disappearing border. Congress has only authorized, in the
wake of 9/11 and before Reaper drones were even introduced, the use of force against al-Qaida – and potentiallywake of 9/11 and before Reaper drones were even introduced, the use of force against al-Qaida – and potentially
groups working in directgroups working in direct
association with it. But Isis is very clearly not one of them.association with it. But Isis is very clearly not one of them.
If you read some news reports, you'd beIf you read some news reports, you'd be
forgiven for thinking that Isis and al-Qaida are essentially one in the same. Theforgiven for thinking that Isis and al-Qaida are essentially one in the same. The
Wall Street Journal informed its readers when the "AlWall Street Journal informed its readers when the "Al
Qaeda-Linked Militants" seized control of Iraq's second largest city. TheQaeda-Linked Militants" seized control of Iraq's second largest city. The
Washington Post wrote about how "Al-QaedaWashington Post wrote about how "Al-Qaeda
renegades" seized another major town this past weekend. CNN told itsrenegades" seized another major town this past weekend. CNN told its
audience that members of the Senate panel that held hearings on Wednesday wereaudience that members of the Senate panel that held hearings on Wednesday were
concerned that "alconcerned that "al
Qaeda-affiliated Islamists" will establish a beachhead in Iraq.Qaeda-affiliated Islamists" will establish a beachhead in Iraq.
Those misleading connections, it seems, cameThose misleading connections, it seems, came
largely from the Obama administration itself: the US State Departmentlargely from the Obama administration itself: the US State Department
called Isis "a branch of al-Qa'ida" and "a common enemy of the United Statescalled Isis "a branch of al-Qa'ida" and "a common enemy of the United States
and the Republic of Iraq" late last year, and outlets like the New York Times repeatedand the Republic of Iraq" late last year, and outlets like the New York Times repeated
that frame of analysis without questioning it. The administration had anthat frame of analysis without questioning it. The administration had an
opportunity to set the record straight in early 2014 when a senior administrationopportunity to set the record straight in early 2014 when a senior administration
official testified in public hearings before Congress. The title of hisofficial testified in public hearings before Congress. The title of his
prepared testimony: "Al-Qaeda'sprepared testimony: "Al-Qaeda's
Resurgence in Iraq: A Threat to US Interests" – and then he spoke about Isis "flying the black flag of al-Qaida".Resurgence in Iraq: A Threat to US Interests" – and then he spoke about Isis "flying the black flag of al-Qaida".
But if you ask legal scholars andBut if you ask legal scholars and
independent terrorism experts, you find a completely different reality –independent terrorism experts, you find a completely different reality –
one that should give Obama pause before acting on any air strikes, even if theone that should give Obama pause before acting on any air strikes, even if the
time to send in the drones is running short. Because there is minimizingtime to send in the drones is running short. Because there is minimizing
civilian casualties before Isis reaches Baghdad, and then there is rushing intocivilian casualties before Isis reaches Baghdad, and then there is rushing into
war with a public so badly misinformed by parts of the media and its ownwar with a public so badly misinformed by parts of the media and its own
government.government.
On various legal blogs, academics such as Deborah PearlsteinOn various legal blogs, academics such as Deborah Pearlstein
and Jenniferand Jennifer
Daskal have been at pains to show how Isis is not associated with al-QaidaDaskal have been at pains to show how Isis is not associated with al-Qaida
– far from it. Fissures grew between the two groups last year when Isis "repeatedly– far from it. Fissures grew between the two groups last year when Isis "repeatedly
refused" instructions and advice from the head of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri,refused" instructions and advice from the head of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri,
and outright opposed his goals and directives. This year, Zawahiri officially gave up and announcedand outright opposed his goals and directives. This year, Zawahiri officially gave up and announced
that al-Qaida would have nothing to do with Isis. Al-Qaida's senior leadershipthat al-Qaida would have nothing to do with Isis. Al-Qaida's senior leadership
stated that it has "no connection" with Isis, and that Isis isstated that it has "no connection" with Isis, and that Isis is
"not an affiliate with the al-Qaida group and has no organizational"not an affiliate with the al-Qaida group and has no organizational
relation with it."relation with it."
So what about that black flag? As ProfessorSo what about that black flag? As Professor
Pearlstein notes:Pearlstein notes:
[T]errorist experts have[T]errorist experts have
regularly pointed out the popularity of the black flag with the white letteringregularly pointed out the popularity of the black flag with the white lettering
among a range of Islamist groups across the region.among a range of Islamist groups across the region.
Of course, most Americans don't read legalOf course, most Americans don't read legal
blogs or research reports. Most Americans believe what they see on cable news. But theblogs or research reports. Most Americans believe what they see on cable news. But the
American public needs to understand from President Obama the choices ahead –American public needs to understand from President Obama the choices ahead –
and the enemy we are now apparently prepared to fight. And the president shouldn'tand the enemy we are now apparently prepared to fight. And the president shouldn't
just consult Congress on this one. He needs to receive our backing, too.just consult Congress on this one. He needs to receive our backing, too.