Why the Freedom Caucus Wants to Declare War on ISIS

By Josh Siegel

Many members of the House Freedom Caucus want to declare war—no, not on their party leadership, but against Islamic State terrorists.
While Republicans in Congress have long ridiculed President Barack Obama’s military campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, lawmakers have so far refused to authorize the use of force against the group, for political and practical reasons.
But as part of his bold, aggressive agenda for 2016, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is pushing for his members to consider a new Authorization of Military Force this year.
Authorizing the use of military force is supposed to be a simple exercise. Rather than delineating a specific strategy, an AUMF—as a war authorization is known—gives the basic legal authority for the U.S. military to use force against an enemy.
The president has argued that he already has the power to carry out his ISIS offensive under the existing 2001 AUMF permitting the targeting of groups connected to 9/11 attacks and the 2012 AUMF authorizing the Iraq war.
Obama has urged Congress to give him new authority, but there’s been bipartisan reluctance among lawmakers to do so.
That may be changing.
This month, Ryan enlisted his committee chairmen to gauge the commitment of members to proceed on an AUMF against ISIS. House leaders will find most of the Freedom Caucus’ 40 or so members supportive.
“It is our constitutional responsibility,” said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., who is spearheading the Freedom Caucus’ push for an AUMF. “I believe that ISIS definitely poses a threat to everything I love and stand for, and I believe that if we are going to get serious about eradicating them, then we need an updated AUMF. And I think the clear majority of the Freedom Caucus believes we need to lead on this issue as well.”
Though the group is not prepared to take a formal vote as a group that—if 80 percent of members approved—would make their support of an AUMF an official position, interviews with The Daily Signal make clear how committed members are.
“Our job is to do our job,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus. “If the speaker thinks we need to move on an AUMF, and our members think that, then I don’t have a problem with that at all.”
The act of defining the effort against ISIS in language that everyone can support has proven so far to be perilous—so challenging that both Republicans and Democrats have found it easier not to engage.
Obama, of course, has been waging a campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria since June of 2014.
And most in Congress agree that the president is able to confront ISIS under the old war authorizations.
Seeking unity, Obama last year sent Congress a draft AUMF explicitly providing congressional authorization for the ISIS fight. In his State of the Union, Obama called on Congress to act this year.
So far, both Democrats and Republicans have refused to consider Obama’s AUMF, for vastly different reasons.
Most Republicans dismiss Obama’s proposal as too restrictive.
The president’s measure does not allow for “long-term, large-scale ground operations,” and the AUMF expires in three years.
“Obama’s proposal is a big non-starter among Republicans,” Salmon said. “It’s a lame proposal. It’s laughable. When politicians try to micromanage wars, they almost always end up badly.”
Many Democrats, meanwhile, believe that Obama’s proposal is not limiting enough. Liberals were angry that it does not repeal the 2001 AUMF.
But the biggest thing stopping Congress from acting seems to be politics: a fear of the consequences if Obama’s efforts against ISIS fail, and of having their names behind an uncertain result.
“I know a lot of people feel very, very cautious about committing our young men and women again because politically it’s a dicey issue,” Salmon said.
“But there are some things you have to be willing to risk your political station on, and one of those is the security of our country. This is far more important than any election. To play politics with it and say, ‘It’s his quagmire, and I don’t want any of that on me’—to me, that’s a real cop-out. If that’s your attitude, then why did you come here?”
Even if the House can find the political will to act on something, ideological differences within the chamber, Republican Party, and even the Freedom Caucus make it challenging to find common ground on what exactly the AUMF would say.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., last year offered an AUMF with no restrictions on ground troops or time limits.
Many traditionally hawkish Republicans would likely support a measure along those lines.
“I would support a very robust AUMF that simply says, ‘Defeat ISIS. Eradicate them,’” Salmon said. “Whatever it takes. Basically, I am willing to give him [Obama] a no-excuses AUMF, and if he decides to continue to be the wimp of a commander-in-chief that he has been so far, it won’t be because we failed. We have the responsibility to do everything we can to succeed in spite of him, not because of him.”
Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian-minded Freedom Caucus member, told Politico he prefers that the enemy and goals be “clearly defined” and that an AUMF have a sunset provision forcing the White House to go back to Congress for authorization after the original measure expires.
Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., of the Freedom Caucus, said he would broaden the definition of the enemy.
“I would like to redefine who the threat is,” Duncan told The Daily Signal. “That’s radical Islam. It’s not just al-Qaeda and its elements or ISIS. It’s more of a global war against radical Islam.”
Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., meanwhile, would go beyond an AUMF and support Congress formally declaring war against ISIS.
Congress has not formally declared war since World War II.
“I am strongly considering supporting a declaration of war,” Harris, a Freedom Caucus member, told The Daily Signal. “The fact of the matter is we have to send a clear signal to ISIS that they have declared war on us, and it’s probably time we declared war on them.”
Some Freedom Caucus members don’t support taking any action at all. Not now, at least, under this president and during an election year.
“What good is an AUMF if you have no strategy?” Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told The Daily Signal. “If we do an AUMF, it signs off on Obama’s strategy. If he doesn’t have one, that means Congress is approving his no-strategy strategy. So it’s going down the same stupid road that gives the president more authority to do dumb things, and gives him more cover because now Congress is going along with his plan.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is similarly worried about taking action while Obama is president.
“I don’t want to tie the hands of the next president,” McConnell said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “The next president may want to actually defeat ISIL and I think an AUMF that ties the president’s hands behind his back is not something I would want to do to a new president who is going to have to clean up this mess created by all this passivity over the last eight years.”
Other lawmakers believe there’s no time to wait. The world’s campaign against ISIS won’t stop for the U.S. Congress to act.
“My son is a paratrooper in the Georgia National Guard; he could be someone deployed to do this,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., of the Freedom Caucus.
“You send him overseas, I want to make sure my son, his commanders, have the authority to do what he needs to do to kill the bad guys and get out of there.”