Peter King: The President Has "Absolute Authority" to Undertake War In Syria Without Congressional Authorization

He does allow that it would be "better" if the President complies with the Constitution.

REP. PETER KING (R-NY): As a Republican, I do believe the president has the constitutional authority to take action now in Iraq and in Syria against ISIS. I believe as a matter of course, it's probably better for him to get Congressional approval, but I -- which I would certainly vote for. But I don't believe he needs it. And if that's going to delay what he wants to do, he should go ahead and just take action without waiting for Congress. This is too important to get this bogged down in a Congressional debate if the president does not believe the support is there.

If it is there, ideally he should get it. But I believe as commander-in-chief he is the absolute power to carry out these attacks.

Meanwhile, Obama will be giving a speech -- and announcing his plans, whatever those might be, for defeating IS. This may take up to three years. (Actually, it might take a decade, but the Administration is prepared to fight IS for three years.)

Obama has scheduled a combination golf cool-down/address to the nation on Wednesday.

The Obama administration is preparing to carry out a campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that may take three years to complete, requiring a sustained effort that could last until after President Obama has left office, according to senior administration officials.

The first phase, an air campaign with nearly 145 airstrikes in the past month, is already underway to protect ethnic and religious minorities and American diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel, and their facilities, as well as to begin rolling back ISIS gains in northern and western Iraq.

The next phase, which would begin sometime after Iraq forms a more inclusive government, scheduled this week, is expected to involve an intensified effort to train, advise or equip the Iraqi military, Kurdish fighters and possibly members of Sunni tribes.

The final, toughest and most politically controversial phase of the operation -- destroying the terrorist army in its sanctuary inside Syria -- might not be completed until the next administration. Indeed, some Pentagon planners envision a military campaign lasting at least 36 months.

On the exclusive softball interview on Chuck Todd, Obama courageously announced his resolve to pander to domestic politics.

"You've ruled out boots on the ground. And I’m curious, have you only ruled them out simply for domestic political reasons?" NBC’s Chuck Todd asked the president. "Because your own-- your own guys have said, 'You can’t defeat ISIS with air strikes alone.'"

"Well, they're absolutely right about that," Obama replied. "But you also cannot, over the long term or even the medium term, deal with this problem by having the United States serially occupy various countries all around the Middle East. We don’t have the resources. It puts enormous strains on our military. And at some point, we leave. And then things blow up again."

So, the answer is, 'Yes, domestic reasons.'

I think it's certainly the preference of America that we do not commit ground forces to the fight. That is, so long as IS can be defeated without such a commitment -- which Obama seems to admit it can't.

If our "regional allies" are going to commit the ground forces necessary, then this plan could work.

But what are the odds of that? Very, very, very low, I'm thinking.

Update: AllahPundit ponders Peter King's woeful grasp of the constitutional scheme of war.

He emphasizes part of King's substitute for thoughts that I didn't -- that the war against IS is too important to get involved in a congressional argument about.

posted by Ace at 11:26 AM

| Access Comments