Every parent has had this experience: You catch your kids doing something problematic. They say, "Is it OK if I do this?" You reply, "How can you ask me permission? You're already doing it." They respond, "Yeah, but is it OK?" That's kind of what Barack Obama did yesterday, by sending Congress a proposed text of a resolution authorizing him to use force against ISIS, which he's already been doing for six months. Except if they say "No, it isn't OK," then he doesn't actually have to stop.
Let's be honest here: Congress's power to check the president's ability to wage war is a joke. Neither this president nor any other is going to be constrained in whatever military action they want to take because of what the legislative branch thinks.
That isn't to say there's absolutely nothing of value in the resolution the White House drew up. It does repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that authorized the Iraq War. But it leaves in place the more sweeping 2001 AUMF passed after the terrorist attacks of September 11, which basically allows the president to do anything he wants with the military anywhere in the world so long as he says it has something to do with fighting terrorism. That isn't so much a product of the text of that AUMF, but rather how it was later interpreted by the Bush administration (more on that here). The point remains that Barack Obama has never felt particularly limited in where he could take military action. And he's a guy who would plainly rather not do so most of the time, even in many cases where he has. Just think how President Walker or President Cruz would interpret it.
So the fact that Obama's proposed ISIS AUMF would expire after three years doesn't make much of a difference because, thanks to the earlier 2001 authorization that would remain in place, a future president can say that whoever he wants to fight-whether it's ISIS or anyone else-is connected by the infinite web of "associated forces" to someone who's connected to connected to al-Qaeda, and therefore there are no constraints. Furthermore, the language in Obama's proposal is completely vague on all its critical points. For instance, it says the resolution "does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." As Obama said in announcing it, there might be some cases where you'd need to use a small number ground troops-say, if we found out about a meeting of all the top leaders of ISIS, and we wanted to send in a special forces team to get them, that would still be allowed. That sounds perfectly reasonable, but what does "enduring" mean? It could mean anything. A president could say, "Yeah, I'm sending a quarter of a million troops to invade Iran, but we'll take care of this thing in a few weeks, so it won't be enduring."
The resolution also authorizes the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces." It even helpfully defines that term:
In this joint resolution, the term "associated persons or forces" means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.
"Or any closely-related successor." There's that infinite web again-you could use that to justify almost any attack against almost anyone.
Today it's hard even to contemplate a future situation in which a president is eager to undertake a significant military operation, but Congress steps in to stop him or her. Were it a limited operation, the president would say that as commander in chief, I have all the authority I need. If it were a major war like Iraq, it wouldn't be all that hard to whip up the frenzy required to get Congress to go along.
My guess is that Congress is going to tinker with the language a bit, then pass an authorization by huge margins. Democrats will vote for it because they want to support Obama and they don't want to look weak. Republicans will vote for it because it'll give Obama's successor, who they hope will be a Republican, the ability to wage more war. Heck, they may even try to take out the three-year time limit. There aren't many guarantees in American politics, but it's almost certain that the next president (and the one after that, and the one after that) will be sending American forces to invade somebody or bomb somebody or engage in kinetic freedom-bestowing actions against somebody. And what Congress wants or doesn't want won't make any difference.
