Should the United States Declare War on the Islamic State?

Should the United States Declare War on the Islamic State?



Rand Paul is pushing for a resolution declaring war on the Islamic State.

Most of the criticisms of it involve its implicit recognition of the Islamic State as a country. Even after September 11, the United States did not declare war on Al Qaeda. Paul’s resolution declares a “state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State”.

I’m less concerned with inflating ISIS by declaring a war against it, though it would have that effect. In a more practical sense, the resolution is pointless.

ISIS used to be Al Qaeda in Iraq. There were authorizations to use force against Al Qaeda and against Iraq.

Paul’s resolution specifies that,

Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization-
(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or
(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

You can see the problem with that already.

Paul has to list two names for ISIS and include affiliates, which is a grey area that could concievably cover half the world considering some of the international pledges of loyalty coming in.

It’s likely that Rand Paul didn’t realize that, he did after all run a filibuster which also suggested that Al Qaeda affiliates weren’t our problem, which raises other questions about his basic understanding of the War on Terror.

ISIS has gone through multiple transformations. Its affiliates consist of umbrella groups which call on the loyalty of militias whose names shift and whose people blend together. This is one reason why the CIA tried to put the brakes on arming any rebels.

A terrorist group is not a country. It’s one thing to declare war on a country. It’s another to declare war on a terrorist group which keeps morphing and transforming and which relies on extended international networks.

It doesn’t make sense to declare war on a terrorist group which is not bound by any treaties or international laws and which doesn’t even have a conventional shape or clearly defined territory.

What happened if ISIS renames itself? Do we need a new declaration of war? It’s an absurd but serious question considering that his resolution also attempts to repeal the Iraq AUMF by arguing that “The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.”

Not only did the 9/11 AUMF cover that, but the Iraq AUMF explicitly mentioned the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq as one of the reasons for military action. It states that,

acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take  the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

That clearly covers conflicts with Al Qaeda in Iraq. So Rand Paul is wrong unless his entire argument is that a terrorist organization that changes its name requires a new resolution.

Rand Paul isn’t really doing this to declare war, but to roll back assorted warmaking powers. But he isn’t very good at that either.

After declaring war, he tries to bar the use of ground troops, but leaves open use of “advisory” ground troops. He doesn’t seem to be aware that Obama designated the remaining US troops as advisory. US forces in Afghanistan will soon be advisory too.

It’s a hole the size of a barn door which again shows that Rand Paul is inexperienced when it comes to the practical issues.

This resolution is pointless. Congress authorized military force against Al Qaeda and its various affiliates on September 11. It authorized military action against terrorists to prevent future attacks on America.

Considering the threats ISIS has made and its growing collection of weapons and fighters, it’s clearly covered by the 9/11 AUMF.

There’s no reason to puff up ISIS by treating it like a country. We have enough restraints on fighting Muslim terrorists that we don’t need to pile on more.

Until not that long ago, it was understood that fighters who did not wear uniforms or follow any laws of war had no rights or protections of any kind. They were pirates. Since 9/11, the rights and protections accorded to terrorists have increased significantly. The last thing we want is to start treating them as prisoners of war.


by Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.