Obama sends war draft to Hill It calls for a three-year authorization of military force against ISIL and would prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”

President Barack Obama asked Congress on Wednesday for a three-year authorization of war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant that would restrict the U.S. military from engaging in “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”

Now comes the hard part: selling it.


While congressional leaders of both parties enthusiastically embraced the idea of blessing the six-month old bombing campaign against Islamic militants, the specifics of the White House text immediately drew fire from Republicans and Democrats who are set to battle for weeks over its language prohibiting the “enduring” use of ground troops.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he won’t support “efforts that impose undue restrictions on the U.S. military and make it harder to win,” while Senate Democrats badgered the administration both publicly and privately over language they believe is too vague.

“There’s a real ambivalence there,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in an interview. “There should be more clarity in terms of what that means. There’s a lot at stake.”

The draft authorization, which Congress is likely to begin considering after next week’s recess, would also repeal the 2002 Authorization of the Use of Military Force that allowed the George W. Bush administration to launch the Iraq War. The 2001 AUMF used to justify the war against terror in Afghanistan and other countries — a subject of Democratic concern — would remain in place even after Senate Democrats asked the White House to make 11th-hour changes to the text during a Tuesday meeting with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and White House counsel Neil Eggleston.

The draft war authorization targets ISIL as well as “individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside” the terror group, and also targets “any closely-related successor entity.

“It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq,” Obama said Wednesday afternoon in a short televised address from the Roosevelt Room. “At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.”

Adding that “we need flexibility, but we also have to be careful and deliberate,” the president noted that the White House had reached out to both Democrats and Republicans before submitting a draft AUMF, and implied he was open to changes from Congress.

“I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands,” Obama said. “I’m optimistic it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission.”

The White House immediately began putting the hard sell on lawmakers on Wednesday. After working the Senate Democratic Caucus at a Tuesday lunch, top administration officials trained their attention on the House. Eggleston briefed House Democrats Wednesday morning during their weekly conference meeting, following his private meeting with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democratic leadership Tuesday evening.

The proposal is almost sure to be altered as it works its way through the Republican Congress, probably starting in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Corker and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will lead a closed-door special GOP caucus to get Senate Republicans on the same page as they prepare for a weeklong recess and hearings that could begin in late February. McCain is expected to lead a push to further loosen the ground troops’ language, though he no longer serves on Corker’s committee, which must ultimately write, amend and vote on a war authorization.

Corker said Wednesday morning that Obama’s work is not done, even though Capitol Hill has finally received a draft text six months into the conflict with ISIL.

“It also will be important that the president exert leadership, lay out a clear strategy for confronting the threat posed by ISIS, and do the hard work of making the case to the American people why this fight is necessary and one we must win,” Corker said.

Obama argued in a letter accompanying the text that the growing threat of Islamic militants in the Middle East mandates that Congress work with the White House to strengthen the country’s authorization to combat ISIL.

“The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security. It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens,” Obama wrote. He added: “If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who have pushed their party leadership for months to write an AUMF regardless of Obama’s engagement, quickly scheduled a joint news conference on the authorization proposal Wednesday. Schiff said in a statement that the proposed language from the administration strips Congress of “excuses for any further delay of a debate and vote on a new authorization.”

Obama said he is still committed to repealing the 2001 AUMF, which authorized the bulk of the military operations that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Democrats are broadly skeptical of continuing to use that authorization as legal justification in the ISIL conflict.

“Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF,” Obama wrote.

But that promise might not be enough to quell Democratic complaints. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) , who is playing an integral role in the Democrats negotiations with the White House, said he had “serious concerns” with the proposed draft.

“It provides overly-broad, fresh authority for the deployment of U.S. ground forces in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, and any other countries in which ISIL or its affiliates may be operating. Second, it leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the Executive in the 2001 AUMF,” the Maryland Democrat said. “It makes little sense to place reasonable boundaries on the Executive’s war powers against ISIL while leaving them unchecked elsewhere.”

Van Hollen also said he is eager to avoid “dragging the United States into another unnecessary ground war in the Middle East” — comments that highlight the upward struggle the White House will face among Democrats who are deeply troubled by the Iraq War and have little appetite to see U.S. troops return to en masse to the Middle East.

In a nod to Democratic concerns, Obama stressed in his appeal to lawmakers that the draft proposal would not “authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations,” Obama wrote. “The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.”

Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.

This article tagged under: White House

ISIL

ISIS