That's "Opposition to the Use of Military Force," in case you were wondering.
Two House lawmakers on Thursday introduced a measure to [ban] military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), making it the first bipartisan and bicameral measure to do so.
Representatives Scott Rigell (R-VA2) and Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced the legislation, a companion bill to a measure in the Senate offered [six months ago] by Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA.) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).
It would expire after three years unless reauthorized, repeal the Iraq War authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) and be the sole authorization for the war against ISIS. [emphasis added]
Then what's the point of it? Is there anything stupider than a war declaration with an expiration date? Do you realize that if the U.S. declaration of war against Nazi Germany had had a three-year time limit, American forces would have quit and gone home around the time of the Battle of the Bulge, leaving all of Europe to be overrun by the Red Army? That the same stipulation in the declaration of war against Japan would have had us turning tail and running even before the Philippines had been liberated, guaranteeing the Soviet conquest of Korea, Japan, China, Indochina, Indonesia, maybe even Australia? Or simply that with such an OUMF, the best that could happen is ISIS just running out the clock until 2018, and the worst....well, I think we know what that will look like....
How will this OUMF look then?
But that isn't even the worst part of it:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate against ISIS or associated persons or forces as defined in section 6.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this Act supersedes any requirements of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
(c) Purpose- The purpose of this authorization is to protect the lives of United States citizens and to provide military support to regional partners in their battle to defeat ISIS. The use of significant United States ground troops in combat against ISIS, except to protect the lives of United States citizens from imminent threat, is not consistent with such purpose. [emphasis added]
Not consistent? The ostensible purpose of this resolution cannot be fulfilled any other way. Again, what is the point of an AUMF that doesn't authorize the use of military force? Which is why I call it an OUMF.
And the one Obama was seeking was worse than this one? How is that even possible short of a U.S. unconditional surrender to be signed in the Oval Office itself? And since this OUMF essentially codifies the losing status quo, why in the blue hell would the GOP want to do that, given what's coming? (See above).
I wouldn't wipe my ass with this OUMF, and any significant Republican support for it will forfeit the party's claim to being serious on national security. Period.