A POLITICAL eternity ago, back in May 2013, President Barack Obama felt able to boast that the core of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan was on a path to defeat, allowing America to declare an end to the global war on terror that began after the September 11th 2001 attacks. “This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands,” Mr Obama said two years ago. He announced his intention to work with Congress on refining and ultimately repealing the hastily drafted Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) granted in the first days after the 2001 attacks.

Alas for Mr Obama—whose political rise was rocket-powered by his opposition to the 2003 Iraq war—events have intervened. On February 11th the president asked Congress for a fresh AUMF endorsing a limited use of America’s armed forces, including ground troops, against Islamic State (IS) and its allies.

“I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East, ” Mr Obama assured Americans in a televised statement. Local forces were best placed to defeat the extremist group, he said, adding that the AUMF wording is intended only to give him “flexibility”, for instance to send special forces after targets in locations where local allies could not act.

Though reactions do not divide perfectly along party lines, some Democrats grumbled that the new AUMF, which would need renewing after three years, is too vague, lacks geographic limits and sets no timetable for repealing the 2001 AUMF. Senior Republicans complained that the draft is too restrictive. “If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorisation, not one that limits our options,” said John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The request to Congress comes six months after America began air strikes against IS fighters, first in Iraq then in Syria. Mr Obama already claims legal authority for today’s strikes under a broad reading of the 2001 AUMF, which permits attacks on al-Qaeda and “associated” groups, as well as under his presidential powers of national self-defence. This new authorisation invites the Republican-controlled Congress to give explicit backing for a long-lasting campaign to “degrade and defeat” IS. Mr Obama pointedly urged Congress to seek a bipartisan agreement after “thoughtful and dignified debate”.

The draft AUMF rules out “enduring offensive ground combat operations”. In an accompanying letter Mr Obama says it would allow “limited” ground missions alongside local allies, including rescue operations, attacks by special forces on IS leaders, and the use of troops to “enable” air strikes and render “advice and assistance to partner forces”. The draft would repeal a 2002 AUMF under which President George W. Bush invaded Iraq.

Such Republican hawks as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina signalled that Senate hearings would become a broader debate about Middle East strategy and whether American firepower also needs to be used against the regime of President Bashar Assad in Syria. The AUMF risks failing in the Senate if it does not “let us counter Assad’s air power”, Mr Graham told reporters. Libertarian Republicans are more sceptical that American might can do much good in that region.

Some Democrats, including members of Congress who drew up their own draft AUMFs last year, fret that the current language could allow Mr Obama or his successor to launch a fresh ground war in the Middle East. With 60 votes needed to ensure passage in the Senate, a final text will need bipartisan support there.

There are already some 2,630 American troops in Iraq, advising Iraqi and Kurdish forces and protecting American facilities. A programme to train vetted Syrian opposition fighters in neighbouring countries remains embryonic. Polls show that Americans consider IS a serious threat, notably after the murder of Americans, most recently Kayla Mueller, a young aid worker. But most oppose sending ground troops to Iraq if air strikes do not work.

Jack Goldsmith, a former Pentagon lawyer who teaches national-security law at Harvard Law School, says the draft AUMF amounts to a striking expansion of presidential authority. The 2001 AUMF is already being interpreted broadly to allow strikes on IS. But rather than supersede that old authorisation or place time limits on its validity, this new 2015 AUMF “builds on and adds to it”, he says.