Rep. Amash Says ISIS Mission Amendment Plainly Advances Regime Change in SyriaRep. Justin Amash Those years should have taught us that when going to war, our government must: (1) be careful when defining a military mission, (2) speak forthrightly with the American people about the sacrifices they will be called to make, (3) plan more than one satisfactory end to the conflict, and (4) be humble about what we think we know. These lessons should be at the front of our minds when Congress votes today on whether to arm groups in Syria. Todays amendment ostensibly is aimed at destroying ISISyet youd hardly know it from reading the amendments text. The world has witnessed with horror the evil of ISIS: the public beheading of innocents, the killing of Christians, Muslims, and others. The amendments focusarming groups fighting the Assad government in Syriahas little to do with defeating ISIS. The mission that the amendment advances plainly isnt the defeat of ISIS; its the defeat of Assad. Americans stood overwhelmingly against entangling our Armed Forces in the Syrian civil war a year ago. If Congress chooses to arm groups in Syria, it must explain to the American people not only why that mission is necessary but also the sacrifices that that mission entails. The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arms length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes assistance to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the presidents power to order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress doesnt provide specific statutory authorization for such escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war. As we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must plan for multiple satisfactory ends to military conflicts before we commence them. If the Syrian groups that are appropriately vetted (the amendments language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result? Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would Syrias territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control one of the resulting countries? If the Syrian groups that we support begin to lose, would we let them be defeated? If not, is there any limit to American involvement in the war? Perhaps some in the administration or Congress have answers to these questions. But the amendment well vote on today contains none of them. Above all, when Congress considers serious actionsespecially warwe must be humble about what we think we know. We dont know very much about the groups we propose to support or even how we intend to vet those groups. Reports in the last week suggest that some of the appropriately vetted groups have struck deals with ISIS, although the groups dispute the claim. The amendment requires the administration to report on its efforts to prevent our arms and resources from ending up in the wrong hands, but we know little about those precautions or their effectiveness. Today, I will vote against the amendment to arm groups in Syria. There is a wide misalignment between the rhetoric of defeating ISIS and the amendments actual mission of arming certain groups in the Syrian civil war. The amendment provides few limits on the type of assistance that our government may commit, and the exit out of the civil war is undefined. And given whats happened in our countrys most recent wars, our leaders seem to have unjustified confidence in their own ability to execute a plan with so many unknowns. Some of my colleagues no doubt will come to different judgments on these questions. But its essential that they consider the questions carefully. That the president wants the authority to intervene in the Syrian civil war is not a sufficient reason to give him that power. Under the Constitution, it is Congresss independent responsibility to commence war. We are the representatives of the American people. The government is proposing to take their resources and to put their childrens lives at risk. I encourage all my colleagues to give the decision the weight it is due. You can follow Congressman Justin Amash on Twitter and Facebook. 