Congress Revives Debate on U.S. Military Operations Against Islamic State
Lawmakers took modest steps this week to revive a moribund congressional effort to authorize new powers for military operations against Islamic State militants.
But Congress has yet to resolve partisan sticking points that have kept the effort stalled.
A bipartisan pair of lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week introduced a draft of a new resolution authorizing military force against the terrorist group often known as ISIL or ISIS. The panel’s chairman, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) pledged to hold a closed-door committee meeting to discuss the proposal from Sens. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) and Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) and see whether it has enough bipartisan support to move through Congress, a committee aide said.
“I would suspect our draft is going to be the starting point. People are going to want to kick its tires and say what they don’t like about it,” Mr. Kaine said Wednesday, adding the upcoming discussions offered the best path for reaching a bipartisan agreement on a new authorization.
Messrs. Kaine and Flake had initially introduced the draft resolution as an amendment to a State Department policy bill passed by the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. They withdrew it in hopes of reaching broader consensus on the committee later. Mr. Flake said he expected the private meeting would occur sometime in the next few weeks.
Lawmakers said Wednesday that President Barack Obama’s latest plan to send about 450 military personnel to a new base in a strategic Iraqi region underscored the need for a new plan backed by Congress.
“It sure is evidence of the proposition that the need for an authorization is more urgent,” Mr. Kaine said. “This is not going away anytime soon.”
Lawmakers have struggled for months to respond to a proposal Mr. Obama sent to Congress in February authorizing military force against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Democrats have generally called for more limitations on the use of ground troops, while Republicans have argued the president needs more flexibility in taking on Islamic State fighters.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) has repeatedly criticized Mr. Obama for not mapping out a guiding strategy for defeating Islamic State militants, and for submitting an “authorization for the use of military force,” or AUMF, to lawmakers that Republicans said could curtail the administration’s wartime powers.
“The president should withdraw the AUMF he sent up here, which calls for less authority than he has today under the law, and get serious,” Mr. Boehner said Wednesday. When asked why House Republicans don’t draft their own authorization, Mr. Boehner said “it’s difficult to do when the president hasn’t outlined a strategy to win.”
Mr. Boehner said he supported Mr. Obama’s decision to send 500 more advisers to Iraq, but that it didn’t constitute a comprehensive plan.
“I support the tactical move the president is taking, but where’s the overarching strategy?” he said.
Lawmakers have also worried about the signal it would send to foreign allies and adversaries if Congress tried—and failed—to pass a new military force authorization.
“We don’t benefit from airing our differences on this and then not having a finished product,” Mr. Flake said. A proposal with bipartisan momentum would attract more GOP backing, he said. “If they think there is a product that can actually get across the finish line, we’ll have more people on my side on board.”
The new draft from Messrs. Flake and Kaine would authorize for three years the use of force to protect U.S. citizens and provide military support for regional partners in the battle to defeat Islamic State. The draft says that the use of “significant United States ground troops” is “not consistent” with that purpose, except to protect the lives of U.S. citizens from imminent threat. The draft would also repeal an earlier 2002 war authorization that gave former President George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq. Mr. Obama has also proposed repealing the 2002 authorization.
The draft doesn’t specify repealing a separate 2001 AUMF, the White House’s current legal justification for Islamic State operation, but says that the new authorization would be the “sole statutory authority” for U.S. military action against Islamic State.
The 2001 AUMF was adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks and allowed for operations against al Qaeda.
The White House proposal sent in February would authorize force for three years and contains vague language on the use of ground forces in the authorization proposal. Mr. Obama has vowed not to deploy U.S. ground forces in combat against Islamic State. It wanted to retain some leeway to counter evolving threats, White House officials have said.
###
