President Obama scolded congressional Republicans on Thursday for failing to pass a new war authorization measure to fight the Islamic State, and instead fighting Obama’s policy prescriptions.
“It’s easier to talk about Guantanamo, I guess, than it is to, for example, pass an authorization for the use of military force [AUMF] in Syria, which hasn’t gotten done yet,” Obama said while appearing in Manila Thursday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He was referring to his plan to close the detention facilities in Cuba, something most Republican oppose.
“It’s easier to talk about refugees than to talk about the hard work that’s going to be required in putting organizations like ISIL out of business, but they don’t actually have the kind of impact that we need on the problem,” Obama added about lawmakers who oppose allowing more Syrian refugees into the U.S. given the domestic threat ISIL poses.
Speaking later to reporters traveling across Asia with Obama, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that in the 2001 AUMF issued to fight al Qaeda, the administration has the authority it needs to engage the Islamic State militarily. However, officials have been asking Congress to pass a new one focused on the Islamic State.
“[W]e clearly believe that that AUMF was written at a different time, in a different threat context, with a focus on al Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors,” he continued. “If we want to indicate to the world that the United States is united in this effort, is in it for the long haul, and is very clear about the objective of destroying ISIL, the very best thing that Congress could do is pass an authorization to use military force.”
Obama sent Congress an AUMF proposal earlier this year, but it went nowhere due a lack of support from both sides. Democrats have said Congress doesn’t need a new AUMF, while many Republicans say they can’t vote for a new one given the lack of a clear strategy from Obama on how to fight the terrorist group.
Rhodes also took issue with critics who say that Obama is unwilling to define the struggle with ISIL as a war.
“I don’t know how many times we’ve been asked if we’re at war with ISIL, and I don’t know how many times we’ve said, ‘yes, we are at war with ISIL,'” Rhodes said. “We have been engaged in a war with ISIL for some time now.”
The U.S. “was engaged in a war with ISIL’s predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq,” Rhodes continued. “So, yes, we do believe we are at war. We are at war with a terrorist network, a lethal terrorist network. We’re at war with ISIL, just as we’re at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
