Over at the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson breaks down the "awfully fine line" that President Obama is walking with his request to Congress for war power in the fight against ISIS:
President Obama’s request to Congress for authority to use military force against the Islamic State explains his view of why to fight this war. But it doesn’t really tell us how.
Obama has asked to be liberated and constrained at the same time. He wants no geographical boundaries placed on his ability to go after the Islamic State and “associated persons or forces.” But he also asks that Congress rule out “enduring offensive ground combat operations” and wants the war authority to expire after three years.
"This is walking an awfully fine line," Robinson writes. "One has to wonder whether the president is trying to satisfy both hawks and doves in Congress — or displaying his own ambivalence about using military force in a situation where, he has said, there is 'no American military solution.'"
"Obama’s aim seems to be to leave his successor a somewhat smaller and less threatening problem," Robinson concludes. "Maybe that’s all that can be done. But wars, once started, develop their own logic and momentum. The first of many questions Congress should ask is why Obama wants to pursue a military solution when he says none exists."
[Vinnie Rotondaro is NCR national correspondent. His email address is vrotondaro@ncronline.org.]
