Kaine: Obama and Congress shouldn’t ‘cut corners’ on Islamic State debate

One of President Obama's top congressional allies on Tuesday implored him to seek House and Senate approval for a prolonged military campaign against the Islamic State, and criticized lawmakers who don't agree that the issue should be debated with elections fast approaching.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who as Virginia governor was one of the first major Democratic elected officials to endorse Obama's 2008 for president, said he disagrees with the president, lawmakers and foreign policy experts who believe that new congressional authorization isn't needed for expanded military operations against the Islamic terror group.

Kaine is a vocal advocate for overhauling the War Powers Act to better clarify when a president is supposed to seek congressional authorization for military action. Last fall he teamed up with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to revise the law, a move that earned global attention because it came as Obama was seeking congressional approval for military intervention in Syria. Later, Kaine and other lawmakers heralded Obama's decision to seek congressional authority, even though he ultimately decided not to intervene in Syria.

But on Tuesday he went farther than he had previously, raising concerns that Obama and Congress are on the verge of avoiding a serious debate on possible military action simply because midterm elections are just weeks away.

During a Senate floor speech, Kaine argued that presidents have sought to avoid engaging Congress on military action because the process "is too cumbersome and unpredictable. And that attitude is shared on the Hill by some who view questions of military action -- especially in a difficult circumstance like this -- as politically explosive and best avoided, if at all possible."

Instead, Kaine urged Obama and colleagues "to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process."

"There is no more important business done in the halls of Congress" than authorizing military action, he said. "If we have learned nothing else in the last 13 years, we should have certainly learned that. Coming to Congress is challenging, but the Framers designed it to be and we all pledged to serve in a government known for particular checks and balances between the branches of government."

Later, Kaine suggested that any lawmaker unwilling or not eager to debate possible new military action in the Middle East isn't living up to their oath of office.

"During a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. When compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a president to engage in a possibly contentious debate with Congress about whether military action is a good idea?" he said. "How much of a sacrifice is it for a member of Congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? While congressional members face the political cost of debate on military action, our service members bear the human costs of those decisions. And if we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision, how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives?"

Kaine said he awaits Obama's address Wednesday night "with a firm willingness to offer support to a well-crafted military mission. I believe the American public and this Congress will support such a mission."

After Kaine's speech, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said on the Senate floor that Congress should hold a serious debate on possible action.

"This is not Libya, this is not Grenada, this is not Panama. This is at least two or three years," Alexander said. "It’s not nation-building -- we assume -- but anytime our country is expected to have a military action, especially in the Middle East again, it needs to have the full support of the American people, and that starts here."

###