President Obama’s war powers resolution has many Republicans and Democrats agreeing on one thing — they don’t like it.
Obama’s request for authorization to use military force against the Islamic State is a tough sell on Capitol Hill in its current form, with Republicans calling it too soft and Democrats questioning its scope and size.
“I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Wednesday. “I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.”
Sanders is among many Democrats who are skeptical of the terms of the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), which would approve “limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.” That group now controls substantial land areas in Iraq and Syria and has been very successful in attracting jihadist volunteers from countries around the world, including the United States.
On the GOP side, Obama’s proposal doesn’t go far enough to ensure the U.S. military has the flexibility and power it needs to defeat and eliminate the Islamic State, which has destabilized the Middle East and has kidnapped and brutally murdered Americans and and allied citizens.
“The president’s point is that he wants to dismantle and destroy ISIS,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday, when asked about Obama’s AUMF request. “I haven’t seen a strategy yet that I think will accomplish that.”
The proposal, sent to lawmakers on Wednesday, would limit use of ground troops through language specifying that the authority does “not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.” It also puts a three-year expiration date on the authorization.
The prohibition on enduring ground combat operations seems clearly aimed at appeasing the legions of Democratic war opponents in Congress. Obama cautioned in a speech Wednesday afternoon that that limitation is “not a timetable”.
“It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period,” the president said in remarks in the White House Roosevelt Room. “What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president’s term. It’s conceivable that the mission is completed earlier. It’s conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation, that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area.”
But Democrats say the language remains too broad. There is no geographical limitation on where the fight against ISIS can expand, for example.
“Timelines, exit strategy, boots on the ground is problematic,” Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told the Washington Examiner when asked about Obama’s proposal.
Grijalva said Democrats are in a difficult position because many of them fought to end the lengthy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two wars were authorized by Congress through AUMF resolutions in 2001 and 2002, respectively.
“We have ‘I told you so’ syndrome from the previous two wars, that this is the way it started,” Grijalva added.
Yet the ISIS murders make the case for a new AUMF more compelling, even for Democrats, he said, noting that latest victim, Kayla Mueller, is from his state.
“The levels of the atrocities have made it more difficult,” Grijalva said. “It’s a very humanized issue.”
While passage of an AUMF is far from certain, it’s clear that Congress will make changes before bringing the measure to the House and Senate floors for a vote.
The resolution will churn through multiple committees, including the Senate Armed Services panel, where Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., hinted he could insert language allowing the U.S. military to use force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Obama’s plan limits U.S. military force against only ISIS-brand groups. That excludes Assad.
“Bashar al-Assad has butchered 200,000 people,” McCain told the Washington Examiner, “and we are supposed to have a resolution that exempts him?”
McCain said he predicted expanding the AUMF language to “groups that are committing acts of terror, anybody who’s doing it.”
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Congress should consider ideas to combat ISIS other than new military action. Many war-weary House Democrats agree with him.
“What’s missing in this debate is what other alternatives are out there … as opposed to the same old, same old,” McGovern said. “I kind of feel like I’ve seen this movie before, but I’m not sure that the response being proposed here is effective.”
