Senate Panel Votes to Authorize U.S. War on Islamic State

By Terry Atlas and Nicole Gaouette Dec 11, 2014 1:53 PM PT


A Senate panel voted to give President Barack Obama a three-year authorization to use military force against Islamic State, opening a debate unlikely to be settled until the new U.S. Congress convenes next month.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee acted today along party lines, with the 10 Democrats voting yes and the eight Republicans voting no.

It was the first congressional vote on granting Obama war-fighting authority against the Sunni extremist group and its affiliates. Chairman Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who offered it, said he’d like to see a Senate floor vote even if there isn’t time for action in the House.

The panel was holding its final meeting before Republicans take control of the Senate in January. Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican in line to become chairman next month, said the resolution “is going nowhere because we’re going to be out of here in two days.”

The debate underscored the tangled politics of the issue. Democrats led by Menendez sought to put more conditions on the war authorization than the Democratic Obama administration would like.

The resolution would impose a three-year limit on authorization and bar the use of U.S. forces in ground combat in most cases, restrictions that Secretary of State John Kerry had urged Menendez to drop.

Military Restrictions

Most of the committee’s Republicans expressed concern about the restrictions on military operations, even as they criticized Obama’s approach to the fight as too timid.

“Even if it doesn’t get to the president’s desk by the end of the year, I think we have sped up our ability to work in a bipartisan way next year, perhaps, to pass an authorization that fulfills our constitutional responsibility,” said Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

Corker said the committee will revisit the issue early in the new year, which would give Republicans the chance to use the measure as leverage on Obama in matters such as fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Republicans have criticized Obama for not doing enough to remove Assad while focusing on Islamic State.

Corker said he has “no earthly idea” of how Obama intends to degrade and defeat Islamic State and “zero understanding” of his strategy against Assad. Corker said he wants to hear more from officials about the strategy before moving ahead with a new version of the measure, and said he may subpoena officials if the administration doesn’t cooperate.

Incrementalism Condemned

The administration’s approach “almost reeks of the incrementalism” of the Vietnam War era, said Corker, citing a view expressed by panel member John McCain of Arizona.

Obama has asserted that he already has adequate authority for military operations against Islamic State militants under the 2001 authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, from Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks, which authorized military force against al-Qaeda. Islamic State was previously known as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Lawmakers from both parties have challenged that interpretation, and Obama agreed to seek a new AUMF that directly addresses the fight with Islamic State. Yet the White House was largely uncooperative with the committee, and never proposed language that the president would find acceptable.

In his testimony this week, Kerry said that the provision generally barring the use of U.S. forces “for the purpose of ground combat operations” would “bind the hands” of the president in case of unforeseen circumstances, even though Obama has vowed not to use Americans in such a role.

Paul Versus Rubio

The measure approved today would repeal the 2002 AUMF that authorized the war in Iraq, and would phase out the 2001 measure.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky broke with his Republican colleagues -- including potential presidential rival Marco Rubio of Florida -- with an amendment seeking to limit the authorization to operations in Iraq and Syria.

Paul said the language in the measure -- referring to Islamic State and “associated persons or forces” -- could give Obama authority to act in as many as 30 countries where groups have expressed solidarity with the militant group.

“To limit it geographically would be a terrible mistake if we’re serious about the objective of this undertaking, which is to defeat them,” said Rubio. It’s important that the president have authority to target the Islamic State militants “wherever they emerge as a threat to the United States.”

That amendment was defeated on a bipartisan 13-5 vote, and Paul then joined the panel’s other Republicans in voting against the measure that was approved.

Retaking Mosul

In a sign that the fight against Islamic State will be long and difficult, the U.S. envoy to the international coalition fighting the extremists cautioned today against premature attacks by Iraq’s security forces to retake the city of Mosul.

“The moment that the battle is joined at Mosul has to be one that is very carefully considered,” retired Army General John Allen told an audience at the Wilson Center, a Washington policy group.

Using an alternate name for Islamic State, Allen said that care had to be taken that “the forces arrayed are the right combination of forces with the right support so that when Daesh ultimately feels the weight of the counteroffensive, it is something it simply cannot resist.”

Some U.S. military and intelligence officials have said they’re worried that the Iraqis may attempt to recapture Mosul from Islamic State before their military is up to the task.

“Mosul will be probably the climactic battle of the fight in Iraq,” Allen said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...mic-state.html