Five months after launching military operations against the Islamic State, the White House has finally submitted draft legislation to Congress to approve of the mission. But despite the seeming futility of the exercise, lawmakers aren’t keen on rubberstamping the initiative.
Legislators have expressed doubt, in particular, about the administration’s language on ground troops and the bill’s lack of a repeal for prior legislation that the administration has used to justify the ongoing war.
“I have serious concerns about the breadth and ambiguity of this proposal,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the top ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. The White House’s reliance on the 2001 War on Terror authorization “to justify such things as indefinite detentions and drone strikes far from Afghanistan has taught that Congress must carefully limit any authority it grants a president to engage in war,” he said in a statement.
The Obama administration has also used the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to justify the ongoing war against the Islamic State, as The Sentinel has noted.
Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) promised “to hold rigorous hearings where the administration will have an opportunity to provide Congress and the American people greater clarity on the US strategy to address ISIS, particularly in Syria.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of that committee, told an NPR affiliate that some of the issues he would bring up pertain to “clear restrictions” on ground troops. Kaine has supported exemptions on ground forces in the event of search and rescue missions, scouting operations for airstrikes, and a loophole for “special forces.”
The language prohibiting “enduring offensive ground combat operations” also caused Kaine’s party colleagues in the House to raise red flags.
“I don’t think that’s an established [term]. It sounds pretty open-ended to me,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) told The Hill. He noted that, in internal discussions, he told a White House lawyer that the Pentagon already has the authority to help a downed pilot.
“I would prefer language that was a little bit more definitive,” he said. “If that could be tightened up, I think I could be supportive.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said at a press briefing Wednesday that the ground troops clause was “deliberately drafted to be ambiguous.” A troop surge in Syria with an 18-month time limit, he pointed out, could reasonably be interpreted to comply with the provision.
Schiff also said that any bill approving of the war against the Islamic State should bring an eventual end to the 2001 AUMF. Despite seeking a repeal to the 2002 Iraq War authorization, the administration wants to deal with the War on Terror approval separately, Yarmuth told The Hill.
It is not likely that House Democrats will mutiny over the vague war proposal that would be rendered effectively superfluous without the 2001 repeal. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “stopped short of saying” a 2001 AUMF sunset should be folded into the debated resolution. She did suggest, however, that it should expire in tandem with the time limits that the administration is seeking for its ISIS war—a three year constraint “unless reauthorized,” the bill explicitly notes.
An alternative to the President’s proposal with some anti-war credibility did emerge on Tuesday. Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the only lawmaker to vote against the 2001 AUMF, called for a bill that would explicitly set out an economic and diplomatic strategy.
“National security experts have clearly stated that there is no military solution to ISIL,” Lee said, referring to an another name for the Islamic State. “In order to ultimately degrade and dismantle ISIL, we must craft a robust regionally-led, political, economic and diplomatic strategy.”
The bill has the support of Win Without War, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Just Foreign Policy—three groups that have decried a seemingly endless war waged by the United States since the 9/11 attacks. But it does not explicitly prohibit any use of US force.
“While this legislation prevents the deployment of US ground troops, it does not close the door for military action,” Lee noted.
On Wednesday afternoon, Lee praised the White House for calling for a repeal to the 2002 AUMF and for offering a military strategy that does give a nod to “the vital role that a comprehensive, diplomatic, economic and political solution must play.”
“However,” she noted, “I have serious concerns about the proposed authorization’s overly broad language and lack of geographic or other limitations. Most importantly, I am deeply concerned about the lack of repeal language for the 2001 AUMF, which has been and would remain a blank check for endless war.”
