Obama's war proposal draws fire
Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill pined for months to get a chance to approve President Barack Obamaâs war against ISIL. On Wednesday, they finally got their wish. But now the onus is on Congress to show the world itâs united behind the U.S. entanglement with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant â and the early returns werenât pretty, as Obamaâs proposal drew fire from both parties. Story Continued Below The administrationâs sales job with Democrats has gotten off to a rocky start, with lawmakers in both chambers blasting the White Houseâs proposed war authorization text for not putting stricter limits on ground combat. Meanwhile, Republicans say the White House is seeking to constrain Obamaâs ability to react to an evolving war and continue to question whether he has a strategy to take out the Islamic militants. The divisions formed within hours of the White Houseâs request landing on Capitol Hill, raising questions about whether Congress will be able to pass anything. âI am worried that we wonât get an AUMF [authorization for use of military force],â one Democratic senator concluded after listening to the early sniping. If the bill fails, the administration could continue its existing military operations under the 2001 congressional authorization that has been used to justify anti-terror operations across the globe. But it would risk sending a confusing signal to both allies and adversaries about the depth of the United Statesâ commitment to taking on terrorism, less than 14 years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Concerns about that possibility are bipartisan. âThereâs so little give-and-take,â a GOP senator griped. âWeâre still just having staring contests at each other. Thatâs why I wouldnât be surprised if we didnât get an AUMF passed.â Despite the grumbling from both parties, Obama said Wednesday afternoon that he was âoptimisticâ Congress would forge a bipartisan authorization measure and pass it. He underscored the high stakes by emphasizing that the world is watching Congress. âIâm optimistic it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission,â Obama said. The president has been bombing ISIL for six months and can continue to do so if Congress does nothing, so key lawmakers are in no hurry to pass something. The private message from Republican leaders and committee chairmen is a deliberative approach that keeps the spotlight on Obama to explain a broad military strategy and bring reluctant Democrats on board. And given the bipartisan criticisms, whatever Congress takes up is almost sure to break from the version Obama submitted Wednesday, which would expire after three years, repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization and prohibit âenduring offensive ground combat operations.â But the man in the middle of it all, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), is saying little about how he will shape Congressâ first war vote in a dozen years. The Senate Foreign Relations chairman declined to take a position on any of the ground-troops language thatâs become so contentious this week, or any other particular provision of the White House draft. Instead, heâs concentrating on getting the administration to publicly articulate in fine detail how the United States can wipe out ISIL. Corker is set to hold hearings on the authorization in less than two weeks, preparing to haul in Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and other top military officials to talk about the United Statesâ tactics. Though he will ultimately write a force authorization to get a committee vote and send it to the Senate floor, Corker said the âbigger issueâ is for Republicans to tease out Obamaâs strategy in the hearings. âThe language is interesting, but whatâs of paramount importance is them being able to lay out a way forward that is sensible and that people believe could be successful,â Corker said. âI hope they would not have sent it over until they were in a position to be able do that.â In the interim, Corker is urging his colleagues to stay away from taking hard positions on the AUMF. But thatâs not happening. In fact, as Corker prepared to give a joint presentation Wednesday afternoon to Senate Republicans, the other presenter was breathing fire after reviewing Obamaâs request. Asked what he would tell his Senate GOP colleagues in the closed caucus meeting, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said his message would be that Syrian President Bashar Assad is âa very happy man todayâ given that the AUMF doesnât target him. âWe are training young men in Saudi Arabia as we speak to fight Assad, spending American taxpayer dollars to do that,â McCain said. âAnd they will go into Syria to be barrel-bombed by Bashar Assad and we wonât prevent it from happening. Thatâs immoral.â Obamaâs request wasnât getting a much better reception on the Democratic side in the House. Democrats groused that the White House spent only 30 minutes making its case and that Obama wasnât asking for repeal of the 2001 authorization that permitted the war in Afghanistan. White House Counsel Neil Eggleston faced a number of critical Democrats as he tried to whip up support for the AUMF: Reps. Mike Capuano of Massachusetts, Charles Rangel of New York, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Adam Schiff of California. Schiff called the White Houseâs language âvery ambiguous for ground forces,â especially in its implications for how the next president could use it. Eggleston responded that the presidentâs language is written to ensure that Iraqis, not Americans, are fighting on the ground, according to a source in the room. Though Republicans control Congress, Democrats are determined to tilt the debate by showing party unity. âThere are concerns with the breadth of the resolution proposed by the administration. Our power to influence that will be heavily determined by our ability to stay together,â Schiff said late Wednesday. Speaking to congressional Democratsâ concerns, Obama argued in a short address from the Roosevelt Room that the draft proposal would help the U.S. defeat ISIL while keeping it out of another âprolonged ground war in the Middle East.â âIt is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq,â Obama said. âAt the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.â House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and a number of Senate Republicans have opposite priorities and seem certain to push for further loosening of the language on ground troops â and they are positioned to win, given that Republicans now run Congress. But they will need at least six Democrats to help them pass any AUMF in the Senate. And the entire point of the exercise is for both parties to show approval for Obamaâs ongoing war. A failed vote or Congress ultimately shirking a roll call is also within the realm of possibility, given what happened to Obamaâs doomed 2013 request for approval to strike Syria, as well as the Iraq War votes that still haunt Congress. Lawmakers who have begged for Congress to take a position hope they donât have to shame congressional leaders into moving forward on a vote that makes many lawmakers uneasy. âIf weâre going to ask people to risk their lives â and theyâre risking them every day â then we ought to do our job,â said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). It âstrikes me as the height of public immorality to duck a question like this.â Yet some Republicans contend that doing nothing might make more sense than what the president presented Wednesday. âMy goal is to do no harm to the war effort. Harm to the war effort would be passing an AUMF that restricts our ability to win and destroy ISIL,â said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). âThe harm is to embrace a strategy with no chance of success.â After his partyâs 45-minute closed-door caucus, Corker seemed unmoved by bipartisan complaints about the White Houseâs AUMF. The debate is just starting, he said, and no oneâs âhair is on fire over this.â