Rewrite

Running head: United States Congressional Authorization

United States Congressional Authorization

Name:

Institution:

Course:

Date:

United States Congressional Authorization 2

The United State Congressional Authorization passed by the United State Congress on

September 14, 2001, and it gave powers and authority to the president to make use of any force

to fight against those who plans an attack. The agreement reached because of the September 11th

attack, and it was also meant to deal with any other person or groups or even any nation with the

ill intention of attacking the citizens (Blanchard, 2015).

The major objective of such agreement was to gain War Power Resolution mainly among

the (ISIS )and other organizations and groups that presented a challenge to the United States and

its major towns and citizens (Bradley, 2005). When this agreement reached, there has been a lot

of debate on whether the president has the right to discharge such duties or he will need another

new congressional authorization to carry out the mission (Fishman, 2014).This has not passed

yet

The debate is fading away since the article II of the US Constitution gives the president

powers as a commander in chief to use military forces in some certain circumstances (Fishman,

2014). The Congress defined a scope that allows the president to use military force at the outset

of a conflict since the War Power Resolution aims at attaining constitutional balance among the

legislative and the executive branches. The authorization for a president to utilize the military

forces directed at the attackers of the 9/11 attacks, and it became the longest use of the force

authorization (Blanchard, 2015).

The issue that is of the matter now is to whether to update 2001 Authorized Use of

Military Force so as to cover more military actions against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-sham.

The same issue is currently in the national security lawyers and aims to fight against the ISIS

United States Congressional Authorization 3

given that they have now joined with the al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and other forces

(Daugirdas, 2015).

In the today's state of affairs, there is no urgent need to use the military force because:

1. ISIS is not a threat to US homeland and using military force might expose the US to

unnecessary risks with the national security benefits realized.

2. Different armies are rising on their defenses and thus using the military war just increases

the war (Blanchard, 2015).

3. The current information is that ISIS and al-Qaeda are divided, and the US can reunite

them if they enter into war again.

4. There is still an urgent requirement to reconsider the impacts of interventions so as to

bring back the fall security strategies and avoids further chaos and violence (Bradley,

2005). where is the alternative opinion ?

The US Congress has a mandate of saving the wastage of resources and get full control of the

runaway. The resources regarding money and time wasted in all these strategies can be used back

in the development of the entire nation and comes up with other priorities to best protect the

nation from harm (Daugirdas, 2015).

At first, the agreement was met to defend the security of the US against ISIS and enforce

necessary resolutions in the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq (Fishman, 2014).

United States Congressional Authorization 4

This was the major benefit in those time when the attacks from the ISIS was common, but

nowadays, there is a change of things and US need to be dynamic and flexible about it. There is

no need of using resources in areas where there are no threats anymore, and thus, this calls for an

urgent review of the congress agreement in the year September 14, 2001 (Daugirdas, 2015).

u should write, policy_ what is the policy?

AUMF_ what does it mean?

who authorizes it?

purpose_ what for?

References

Blanchard, C. M. (2015). The Islamic State and US Policy. Congressional Research Service.

Bradley, C. A. (2005). Congressional authorization and the war on terrorism. Harvard Law

Review.

Daugirdas, K. &. (2015). Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International

Law. American Journal of International Law.

Fishman, B. (2014). The Islamic State: A Persistent Threat. Prepared testimony to the House

Armed Services Committee.