Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., rightly believes the current Authorization for the Use of Military Force being cited to target the Islamic State is inappropriate to the present terrorist threat. Unfortunately, Johnson says he accepts it anyway.
Asked by the Washington Examiner for his view on the AUMF, Tuesday, Johnson stated, “No way does it apply to this situation right now. It’s just obvious it doesn’t, but by precedent it does. And so by precedent I really don’t have a problem in — Obama took that authority — and I have no problem with future presidents doing that as well.”
Why doesn’t Johnson demand a replacement AUMF?
“I would be happy to do a new AUMF it was broad enough,” he says, but “the problem is the bipartisan ones proposed are just too narrow.”
I’m mixed in my view of Johnson’s approach here. While I share his belief that any new AUMF requires broad authorities attuned to the mobility and franchising that defines Salafi-Jihadist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, I don’t think he should just accept the present situation. After all, as Johnson himself notes, the current AUMF is clearly unfit for the purpose. Constructed to confront al Qaeda following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, today, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups operate very differently.
There’s a simple solution here. Johnson should write and propose his own replacement AUMF.
