For almost a decade, the United States has been in a continuous armed conflict with Islamic terrorist states and more recently with the ISIS terror group. These Islamic terrorist groups have been constant enemies against the United States and its close allies. According to Bruneau (2015), the United States has experienced a nearly 13 years of armed battle conflict against the Al Qaeda terrorist Islamic group that led to the adoption and use of force authorization against these groups. The Obama administration is passing a new AUMF policy similar to the 2001 AUMF that was in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as the 2002 Iraq War AUMF policy that all provided the necessary congressional authorization for military use against these ISIS terror groups. In February after an extended period of delay, the White House sent a proposed authorization policy to the Congress for the use of military force against ISIS. The AUMF proposed plan is a modern day declaration of war statement against the Islamic terror states.
The ISIS Islamic terror group presents as a unique set of challenge to the United States. The group operates an international border with sanctuary in Syria and Iraq nations taking control of large amounts of land, cash, foreign fighters, and military equipment that makes the group’s operation a success. Moreover, the group enjoys access to large fields of oil and other substantial money sources that provide adequate money used in financing its operations. The AUMF primary focus is to combat these strong ISIS areas to be able to overcome the terrorism threat (Paasche & Gunter, 2016).
AUMF gives the United States authority of waging military campaigns attacks against the ISIS terror group that has been quite vigilant in its activities in Syria and Iraq. The Authorization of Military forces plans using airstrikes against the major ISIS targets inside the two countries to cut off its operations. The United States nation has been on the front row against fighting terror groups, and it has been leading and supporting international coalitions that have been fighting ISIS. The AUMF gives the United States authority to expand its airstrikes war to other neighboring regions where the ISIS terror group has gained control (Tams, 2009). These attacks are aimed at crippling ISIS operations, and they include destroying the group’s sources of revenue such as the oil field, destroying the military machinery, killing key leaders, and waging attacks in territories that they control so that they can flee thus completely defeating the terror group.
The best way that this can be achieved is through air strikes to prevent offensive ground combat battles. The on ground combat operations with these ISIS group will only be limited to special forces operations to take out the key leaders and rescue operations. AUMF proposal gives the US military the flexibility to be able to foresee potentially threatening circumstances and combat them by employing special operations in the region. The AUMF proposal prevents the US from engaging in another ground battle war in the Middle East as it did several years back as it is not part of the national security interest (Bradley & Goldsmith, 2005). Airstrike campaigns are crucial as they will enable the United States to gain a battlefield advantage over its enemies that will make it quite essay to block sources of revenue in an effort of defeating the group. The AUMF proposal expires in three years meaning that all the operations will have to be completed within the period.
References
Bradley, C. A., & Goldsmith, J. L. (2005). Congressional authorization and the war on terrorism. Harvard Law Review.
Bruneau, T. (2015). Impediments to Fighting the Islamic State: Private Contractors and US Strategy. Journal of Strategic Studies, 2390(October), 1–24.
Paasche, T. F., & Gunter, M. M. (2016). Revisiting Western Strategies against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The Middle East Journal, 70(1), 9–29.
Tams, C. J. (2009). The use of force against terrorists. European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 359–397.
