A War Authority Both Parties Dislike

The Republican criticism is that the president's proposal would cede too much authority. Yes, that's right: The president they have assailed as a unilateral executive orderer is not trying to be dictatorial enough.

But once you stop chuckling over the inconsistency, you have to consider -- there's a real issue here. Obama's suggested restraint on his own authority is both substantive and temporal. He would limit presidential power to commit ground troops and set a three-year expiration date.

I'm not worried about the first. The point of an authorization is not to serve as a presidential blank check. And the administration's wording -- the military is not to be used in "enduring, offensive combat operations" -- contains more than enough flexibility. (See Democratic distress, above.)

But the expiration date should be removed. What happens when the time expires, hostilities are continuing, and a future Congress is unable to get its act together to reauthorize? (See DHS funding, above.)

An AUMF that forswears ground forces is not going to embolden an Islamic State already aware of those limits. A three-year timetable sends a more alarming message: Hang on and the infidels will retreat.

Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who served in the George W. Bush Justice Department, contends that the risk is overblown, writing that "it should not be hard for the next president to make the case ... if such authorizations are plausibly warranted." (Really? See DHS funding, above.) Since an 1819 authorization to use force against pirates, the only such time limit came in a 1983 resolution involving Lebanon, according to the National Security Network, which supports a sunset.

I'm not so naive as to think passing an authorization will be easy. I'm not so cynical as to believe it's impossible. Not yet, anyway.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.