So you have this cart and you have this horse — which goes first?

Because we are talking about Congress, you know that you put the cart before the horse.

For instance, after two months of bombing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL), the White House this week gave Congress a draft Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to authorize increased bombing.

The almost medieval savagery of the Islamic State answers the question of should the U.S. continue the campaign that President Barack Obama says will defeat the terrorists.

But at the same time, there is no guiding principle that is directing Hawaii’s four-person congressional delegation.

Today Obama is relying on the AUMF that passed days after the 9/11 attacks.

Here’s a summary:

"Authorizes the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons."

Although the White House says that is good enough to bomb the Islamic State, there is a new resolution in the mix.

Hawaii’s two U.S. House members, Tulsi Gabbard and Mark Takai, are both Iraq War veterans and now serve in the National Guard.

Interestingly, Hawaii appears to be the only state with its entire House of Representatives delegation in the Guard.

Time in service, however, does little to firm up the pair’s thinking on the issue.

Instead, they are saying there needs to be a lot of probing and discussions and weighing of options.

Takai notes that the new AUMF "is vague regarding use of U.S. ground troops, with no specific geographical limitations that this conflict will take place within."

Gabbard is even more hesitant to express an opinion, saying she was studying it "very carefully to determine the ramifications of it."

In the U.S. Senate, Sen. Brian Schatz notes that Obama’s new declaration is fuzzy about putting U.S. ground troops back in the Middle East.

"Congress risks authorizing a war against an ever-expanding list of persons and organizations in an ever-growing number of countries," Schatz says.

Schatz adds that if Congress is to adopt a new AUMF, it should repeal the one that got us into the Iraq War in the first place.

Perhaps the clearest stand on the war issue was that of U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, who says she was looking for "a limited and narrowly tailored military authorization."

Hirono was clear in saying, "I will continue to hold the president to his promise of no boots on the ground. This will not be another Iraq War."

Of the four, it appears that Hirono has already focused her principles, so it is easy for her to say no more foreign adventures.

In previous statements, Schatz also said we "cannot commit U.S. ground forces to combat ISIL," although that was not included in his statements in reacting to the AUMF.

Before the debate goes any further, the entire delegation should say precisely what they want the president to be able to do.

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.