The Obama administration’s request for renewed congressional authorization to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria faced bipartisan skepticism from a Senate panel Tuesday, as lawmakers from both parties accused the administration of seeking too much power in its ongoing battle to defeat the terrorist group.
Secretary of State John Kerry, while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration needs significantly broad authority because “there is no way to go through all the hypotheticals.” And he said that congressional “micro-managing” would handcuff efforts to fight the terrorist group.
“The authorization … should give the president the clear mandate and flexibility he needs to successfully prosecute the armed conflict against,” Kerry said.
Kerry said that while authorization proposal by committee Chairman Bob Menendez, D-N.J., “has covered a lot of the bases,” he added “we think the president does need some flexibility that is not reflected in it.”
Congress in September gave the administration short-term authorization to launch airstrikes against the Islamic State and provide military assistance to opposition groups to fight the terrorist group. The administration is now seeking a three-year extension.
But many lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren’t pleased the administration escalated its air campaign against the Islamic State without their direct approval. And many — including members of both parties on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — complain the administration hasn’t been forthcoming with them on its Islamic State strategy.
“It sounds to me like you’re making a case for a rather open-ended authorization — which if that’s what the administration wants, it should say it,” said Menendez. “We have shared several drafts with the White House chief counsel on this issue, as we have with the rest of the administration. But to be very honest with you, we get relatively little in response.”
Sen. Bob Corker, the panel’s senior Republican, said he believes Congress and the administration can hash out a bipartisan plan. But he suggested the White House must show lawmakers more respect.
“The reason we’re here is a total failure of the president to lead on this issue,” the Tennessee lawmaker said. “We all want the same thing — we want to authorize the president to be able to do the things that are necessary to deal with ISIS. [But] the reason we’re in this cluster is because the president really hasn’t sought [specific] authorization.”
Sen. Marco Rubio said he also is frustrated by a lack of details from the administration regarding its plans.
“I don’t understand why the administration has not come forward and presented [a detailed plan] as other administrations have in the past — at least as a starting point,” the Florida Republican said. “You don’t have anyone over there [at the State Department] that can type that up real quick and send it over to us so we can have a debate?”
Kerry countered that no matter how detailed its authorization is, Capitol Hill still would complain that it wasn’t enough and would draft its own substitute plans anyway.
“Let’s not kid ourselves. I mean, seriously,” Kerry told Rubio. “It’s the same debate one way or another.”
Rubio shot back, “But the president is the commander in chief.” Kerry responded, “Yes he is. And he is doing what he is supposed to do, which is putting together a coalition and beginning to win the fight.”
The secretary also said that while the administration doesn’t anticipate conducting operations in countries other than Iraq or Syria, he warned Congress against placing a “geographic limitation” on any authorization of force against the Islamic State.
“It would be a mistake to advertise to [the Islamic State] that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq and Syria,” he said.
But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said it’s vital that Congress establish limits regarding where the U.S. can conduct its counter-terrorism operations against the Islamic State. Otherwise, he said, the campaign could spin out of control, spreading throughout the Middle East and beyond.
“That’s the message that we’re sending, that if Medina or Mecca [Saudi Arabia] pledges allegiance to the Islamic State, they are open to be bombed to the United States,” he said. “That is very very scary and I think a wrong-headed message to send to the Middle East.”
Kerry characterized Paul’s example as absurd, saying “nobody is talking about bombing everywhere.”
Menendez, a frequent critic of the administration’s strategy against the Islamic State, said his authorization proposal doesn’t including geographic limitations. But he said it’s imperative the U.S. not get dragged into another protracted war in the Middle East.
Congressional authorization “should limit the activities of our forces so that there will be no large-scale ground combat operations,” he said. “If the president feels he needs that, he should ask for it, and Congress can consider it.”
Kerry said said it will take “years, not months” to defeat the Islamic State. But but he said the multinational coalition targeting the terrorist group is “already measurably making a difference.”
The Obama administration has launched more than 1,100 air strikes against Islamic State targets, which Kerry says has “reduced [the group’s] leadership, undermined its propaganda, squeezed its resources, damaged its logistical and operational capabilities and compelled it to disperse its forces and change its tactics.
“It is becoming clear that the combination of coalition air strikes and local ground partners is a potent one,” he said. “Virtually every time a local Iraqi force has worked in coordination with our air cover, they’ve not only defeated [the Islamic State], they’ve routed [the Islamic State].”
