The United States would not face such a difficult dilemma in northern Syria if Congress had asserted its constitutional duty to act as a check on executive power.
The Constitution delegates Congress with the power to declare war. Congress has passed a law granting the president war powers, allowing him to respond quickly to emergencies, but this comes with requirements that Congress approve the action within 60 days. But presidents rarely seek such approval, and Congress generally does not cut the purse strings for military involvement.
And so undeclared wars, waged by presidents, have abounded since the end of WWII.
If things worked as intended, U.S. forces would be in northern Syria as part of a congressional mandate, a declared war against ISIS forces, and to serve as a buffer between Kurdish allies and their Turkish nemesis, also a U.S. ally.
With such a mandate in place, U.S. foreign policy would be less at the mercy of the whims of presidents who come and go. Military actions would be subject to the collective wisdom of the people’s representatives, which means they would come much closer to representing the will of the people.
President Trump is right when he says alliances and factions in the Middle East are complicated. For instance, the United States has declared the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, to be a terrorist organization. It has had several clashes with Turkish forces.
And yet the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, is another Kurdish force that has helped the U.S. fight ISIS, and it set up a government in Kurdish controlled areas that grants rights to minorities and women. Turkey also considers it to be a terrorist group, while the United States considers it to be friendly.
Turkey, meanwhile, is a U.S. ally and a member of NATO, although its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is considered by many to have dictatorial ambitions.
These complications are only a part of the greater complications in the region that have Russia, Syria and Europe expressing alarm over Turkey’s offensive actions on Wednesday, all for different reasons.
One could argue that presidents should be free to nimbly navigate these choppy waters, and that is true as far as diplomatic actions go. But American resolve, and its relationship with trusted allies, deserve the steadiness and certainty that comes from the actions of a deliberative body.
Instead, the White House has been offering reactions this week that seem contradictory — pulling U.S. forces from the region to allow Erdoğan unimpeded access to Kurish territory, then threatening Turkey with sanctions if it did act, and finally issuing a tepid condemnation when the offensive had begun.
The Kurds have helped the United States subdue ISIS, which a few years ago threatened the stability of the region and, through terrorist networks, the world. Thousands of ISIS fighters remain imprisoned in Kurdish territory.
Allowing ISIS to reconstitute itself would be a grave setback. Reestablishing a relationship with the Kurds to help defeat ISIS again would be difficult after the actions of this week.
If the United States had followed the Constitution, the nation’s involvement in Syria, or lack thereof, would have a greater sense of certainty and consistency, which is far preferable to the current sense of crisis and confusion.