Democrats and Republicans said it’s likely they will reshape President Obama’s authorization for the use of military force in the Middle East before they approve it.
“We are hopeful we can come up with a bipartisan agreement,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after Obama administration officials outlined the plan in private to Senate Democrats. “This was the beginning. This was the opening salvo. There was nothing finalized yet as far as I can determine.”
Obama is expected on Wednesday to send Congress his official authorization request, known as an AUMF, to carry out military action in the Middle East against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
He sent top officials, including White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to Capitol Hill to begin selling the plan to Senate Democrats.
Lawmakers and aides who have been briefed on the request say it loosely follows legislation passed by Senate Democrats in December, with some additional flexibility added by the administration when it comes to use of American ground force troops in the region and which terrorist organizations are to be targeted by the U.S. military. The changes are likely included to lure Republican votes without alienating too many Democrats.
The AUMF includes a three-year expiration date and would allow U.S. targeting of ISIS and ISIS-brand terrorist organizations, such as al-Nusra Front, which is connected to al Qaeda.
Democrats said the plan does not geographically limit the U.S. military in fighting ISIS groups but it does restrict American “boots on the ground” to special forces and prohibits “enduring offensive ground operations.”
Democrats and Republicans were already protesting parts of the request, even though an official draft of the language won’t arrive until Wednesday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Washington Examiner that Obama’s top staff briefed him on the AUMF by telephone.
He said he can’t support the plan because Obama administration officials told him it does not allow the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad if Assad attacks Syrian army personnel trained to fight ISIS.
“What happens if Assad’s air force comes in and starts attacking, can we protect them and they said no,” Graham said. “So, that’s it for me.”
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., says he wants the AUMF to allow the United States to go after Assad and “any groups who are committing acts of terror.”
Democrats also were hesitant to back Obama’s AUMF language, with some lawmakers looking for language that is more restrictive on use of ground troops.
In December, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then controlled by Democrats, passed an AUMF proposal along party lines that would have prohibited the use of U.S. ground troops.
Obama’s AUMF “was not as tight as what was reported out of Foreign Relations,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the number-three Senate Democratic leader said. “So I would hope there would be more give and take.”
More hawkish Democrats are likely to back Obama’s proposal closer to the current language.
“I am for virtually the AUMF as I understand it,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I think the big discussion will be over how you word the language on troops. My view is the president should have the ability to use special operations, knowing a little bit about [the Islamic State] and the barbarity of them.”
Congress is in no rush to pass an AUMF, even though lawmakers on both sides have been clamoring for a vote.
The United States has sent thousands of military advisers to the Middle East to help combat ISIS and has been conducting air strikes for months, all under authorizing measures passed by Congress in 2001 and 2002.
The president’s new proposal will churn through multiple committees in both the House and Senate, including the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by McCain.
“I don’t think there is a rush,” McCain said. “We have to do it right. There’s no greater responsibility a member of Congress has.”
