Ten months after President Barack Obama asked for authorization to fight the ongoing war against ISIL, Congress has yet to take any action on the request and West Virginia's two senators are split on whether Congress should hold that vote.
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said Congress should absolutely vote on the authorization, while Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, said a vote is not necessary.
To be clear, just because Congress has declined to authorize military force against ISIL does not mean the United States is not using military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. American and allied forces have launched nearly 9,000 airstrikes since last August, Obama announced Monday.
Those strikes, and the broader war against ISIL, which now includes American troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria, are being conducted under congressional authorizations passed in 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 al-Qaida attack, and in 2002, before the Iraq war began.
That's far too long ago and too removed from the present situation, Manchin said, and Congress needs to hold a vote to provide the public an avenue to hold its representatives accountable.
"We should vote on it, we should have a say in it, what scope we play, how big is that scope and how long is it going to be," Manchin said in a phone interview. "It was done back in 2002, it's just so wide-ranging and, the way this is going, hell, we'll be fighting there forever."
Capito disagreed. "At this point, I feel like the president has the authority that he needs, that he's been moving forward with, to attack ISIS," she said in a phone interview.
Obama agrees, but would like the new authorization anyway.
Essentially: The president wants Congress' authorization to fight ISIL - which the military is already doing - but he also says he doesn't need it. Congress wants the president to keep fighting ISIL, but doesn't want to give its authorization.
Capito said she wants to see a debate in the Senate on a strategy to fight ISIL, but doesn't think it's necessary for Congress to authorize the war.
Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va., said Congress should not vote on authorizing military force until it sees a "definitive, detailed plan from this president on how to defeat ISIS."
ISIS is another acronym for ISIL.
Reps. David McKinley and Alex Mooney, both Republicans, did not respond to questions about whether Congress should vote to authorize the fighting.
Manchin mentioned nobody by name, but he had stern words for those who do not want to vote.
"Every Republican or Democrat should be held accountable for why they don't want to speak up for the people they represent," he said. "If you ask an American soldier to be in harm's way, there ought to be a reason for it and a plan and an exit plan and what's the end game. Lord knows, we haven't had one."
Last February, Obama submitted to Congress a draft Authorization for Use of Military Force, asking for explicit approval to fight ISIL.
"I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our nation's security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL," Obama wrote in a letter to Congress.
Congress, despite overwhelming bipartisan support to fight ISIL, has taken no action.
Obama renewed his call last week, in a primetime Oval Office speech.
"If Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists," Obama said. "I think it's time for Congress to vote, to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight."
Reponse in Congress has been mixed.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Tuesday that Congress should vote to authorize the war.
"It would be a good sign for American foreign policy to have a new one updating our AUMF to declare our mission, with respect to ISIS," Ryan said. "Congress is the one who declares war. This is Congress' responsibility."
However, his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he doesn't plan on bringing an AUMF up for a vote in the first half of 2016. McConnell said he wouldn't want to hamstring the next president with an overly restrictive authorization.
Capito echoed those remarks and said she would not support the AUMF that Obama proposed in February.
That document would expire three years after being enacted and would not allow U.S. forces to be used in "enduring offensive ground combat operations."
Democrats have described it as too vague and open-ended, fearing it might allow the United States to be drawn into a ground war. Republicans have called it too constrictive, saying the time limit and other restrictions could end up limiting military options.
"It's got the three-year termination time, as I said, it ties the hands of our future presidents," Capito said. "Three years is not enough time. We put a date certain on Iraq, and look what's happened; it's fallen into disarray."
Manchin said almost the exact opposite. He said he would not support any AUMF that left open the chance that the United States would send ground troops in large numbers to the Middle East and he said the time limit is necessary to force us to periodically re-evaluate our strategy.
"You have it open-ended and this is what you've got, 13 to 15 years of war," Manchin said. "If military might and money would change that part of the world, by God, we'd have done it a long time ago."
There is some bipartisan support in Congress for voting to authorize the war against ISIL.
In June, Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., introduced legislation to authorize the war that would expire after three years unless it was renewed and which says the use of ground troops, except to protect U.S. citizens, "is not consistent" with the authorization.
Kaine, in June, called it "inexcusable" that Congress had let 10 months of war go by without authorizing the mission. It's now been about 16 months.
Kaine's proposal went nowhere but, last week, a companion piece of legislation was introduced in the House, again with bipartisan co-sponsors.
"Congress has a lawful duty to respond to the president's requested AUMF against ISIL," said Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., one of the bill's House sponsors. "Failure to act is an abdication of our constitutional responsibilities as members of Congress."
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5119 or follow @davidlgutman on Twitter.