John Kerry: Coalition fighting Islamic State making a ‘big 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 [ISIS], they’ve routed [ISIS].”

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 provided them with a comprehensive plan to defeat the Islamic State.

And Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez suggested an open-ended authorization would dangerously give President Obama too much authority.

The pending authorization for military force against the Islamic State “is the most important vote that any member of Congress can take,” the New Jersey Democrat said. “It is a vote to send America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way, and we do not take that responsibility lightly.”

Kerry said the administration needs a broad authority because “there is no way to go through all the hypotheticals.” And he said that congressional “micro-managing” would be no way for the U.S. to fight the terrorist group.

The secretary added 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 [ISIS] that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq and Syria,” he said.

Menendez, a frequent critic of the administration’s strategy against the Islamic State, said his authorization proposal doesn’t including geographic limitations. But he complained that the administration has failed to send Congress as detailed plan of its strategy against the Islamic State.

“There is a famous movie that says ‘show me the money.’ Well, show me the language,” the senator said.

Menendez said it’s imperative the U.S. not get dragged into another long, 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.”

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.”