For starters, we're not seeing torture employed or "enemy combatants" sent to Gitmo. But the big difference is that we're not hearing lies about the need to invade the wrong country. The "regime change" that was necessary for Iraq to effectively fight back against ISIS was done via diplomacy rather than "shock and awe."
Another big difference is that this time there really is a "coalition of the willing." Much of that is a result of the fact that Muslim countries in the Middle East are significantly more threatened by ISIS than we are. Just recently Jordan, UAE, Egypt and Libya either joined the battle or stepped up their efforts due to atrocities committed by ISIS. That is an affirmation of how President Obama described the situation.
But this is going to be a generational challenge in the Muslim world and the Middle East that not only the United States but everybody's going to have to deal with. And we're going to have to have some humility in recognizing that we don't have the option of simply invading every country where disorder breaks out. And that to some degree, the people of these countries are going to have to, you know, find their own way. And we can help them but we can't do it for them.In the end, Waldman acknowledges that a return to the "global war on terror" of the past will be more of a possibility if our next president is a Republican.
So as much as anything this debate [about the AUMF against ISIS] is about what powers the next president will have. Republicans pushing for a more expansive authorization are hoping that president will be a Republican, and that this resolution can be a tool for him to renew the Global War on Terror to all its former glory. Which could happen whether a resolution passes or not.With that perspective in mind, I'd say that whether or not we return to the Bush/Cheney "global war on terror" is a question that American voters will decide in 2016 rather than Congress this session. As the saying goes...ELECTIONS MATTER!!!