But one has to wonder why.

In tonight’s State of the Union, President Obama called for a congressional resolution authorizing his use of military force against the ISIS terrorist organization, which has seized control of large parts of Iraq and Syria. This is a step in the right direction, because US military intervention against ISIS amounts to a war that requires congressional authorization under the Constitution. A congressional AUMF might also prevent further violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires congressional authorization for military actions abroad that last more than 60 days (as this one already has). Whether he intends it as such or not, the president’s request is at least an implicit acknowledgement that the president requires congressional approval to initiate wars.

Of course, one has to ask what happens if he does not get that authorization. Does he disengage from the conflict with ISIS? Or does he keep on fighting that quasi-war, despite the fact that Congress has rejected it? My guess is the latter, meaning he just wants the fig-leaf of congressional action.

But I still have to wonder why this conflict with ISIS at all. After all, in his speech Obama assured us that the problem is not Islam.

It's why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims – the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.

But wait – doesn’t an authorization of force against the Islamic State constitute an acknowledgement that Islam is a part of the problem, and that there are large numbers of Muslims who are properly treated as the enemy of America and its values? Isn’t that offensive?

I raised that issue last night.