Key Democrats are hardening their opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposal for attacking Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, raising fresh doubts the White House can win congressional approval of the plan as concerns grow over its handling of crises around the globe.

In interviews this week, not a single Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed support for the president’s war plan as written; most demanded changes to limit the commander in chief’s authority and more explicitly prohibit sending troops into the conflict.


That opposition puts the White House and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, in a quandary — stuck between Republican defense hawks who are pushing for a more robust U.S. role against the terrorist group known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and liberals who fear a repeat of the Iraq war.

In an interview, Corker issued a stark warning: If Democrats refuse to lend any support to Obama’s request for the Authorization for Use of Military Force against ISIL, he may scrap a committee vote, making it less likely the full Senate or House would even put it on the floor, much less pass it. The comments put pressure on the White House to deliver Democratic votes or witness the collapse of a second war authorization plan in Congress in as many years.

“He is asking us to do something that takes us nowhere,” Corker said of Obama. “Because from what I can tell, he cannot get one single Democratic vote from what he’s sent over. And he certainly wouldn’t get Democratic votes for something Republicans might be slightly more comfortable with. … It’s quite a dilemma.”

Corker added: “Before we begin the process of considering marking up a bill, I want to know that there’s a route forward that can lead to success.”

Last month, the president proposed a draft AUMF aimed at giving him the flexibility to wage war with ISIL, but also restricting his own authority. The plan would set a three-year time limit and ban “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” While ISIL, also known as ISIS, is the main enemy targeted by the plan, the U.S. would have the flexibility to attack forces “associated” with the terrorist group. And while Obama sought to rescind the 2002 Iraq War authorization, his plan would leave in place the post-9/11 war powers resolution that the U.S. is currently using to justify its ongoing military campaign against ISIL and terrorist organizations worldwide.

The effort, to carve a middle ground between hawks and doves, appears to have pleased nobody on Capitol Hill. Republicans want to give this and the next president wide latitude to “degrade and destroy” ISIL, while Democrats want to impose a round of new restrictions further prohibiting ground troops while rescinding the 2001 war authorization.

The new challenges facing the White House plan come as a growing number of Democrats are breaking with the administration over its handling of a range of international crises. Several Iran hawks in the Senate Democratic Caucus signed onto a bill calling on the White House to send any nuclear deal with Iran for immediate congressional approval. They were working to gather enough Democratic support to override a threatened presidential veto, but the plan has stalled temporarily over a partisan procedural squabble. Influential Democrats like Dick Durbin of Illinois have joined a push calling on the White House to toughen sanctions against Russia while arming Ukraine in the fight against Russian-backed rebels.

And on ISIL, Democrats say the president needs to swallow changes to his proposed draft to win backing from his own party, even if doing so could turn off even more Republicans.

“No,” said New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, when asked whether he would support the president’s proposal. “I think we have to do a better job of defining what is ‘no enduring offensive combat troops.’ That is a critical element. I think if we can get past that element of it, other elements could fall into place. But we need to do a better job of that — otherwise, many members feel that is the equivalent of a blank check.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will get the first crack at taking up the plan, and how it proceeds could determine whether Congress can formally endorse Obama’s escalating military conflict in the Middle East. A crucial moment comes Wednesday, when Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey testify before the committee to explain how the president would use a war authorization.

After a round of hearings, Corker may unveil his own draft proposal, and it remains to be seen how closely he embraces — or how much he disregards — the president’s plan.

But given the GOP control of Congress, Corker could decide to abandon his pursuit of Democratic support since the middle-ground approach outlined by the president already goes too far for most Senate Democrats and has virtually no Republican support. That means Obama may need to woo his own party to muscle an AUMF through a divided Congress or risk seeing it founder.

It’s unclear how aggressive the president will be, but senior administration officials have indicated they would not play a heavy hand in the negotiations on Capitol Hill, at least at the onset of the debate. A White House spokesperson said, “We remain open to reasonable adjustments that are consistent with the president’s policy and that can garner bipartisan support. However, it is ultimately up to Congress to pass a new authorization.”

Getty photo

There is little margin for error on the committee, given that it is split between 10 Republicans and nine Democrats. On the Republican side, two senators who are likely running for president and have opposite foreign policy views — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida — will be difficult to court no matter how the proposal is structured. And the nine Democrats on the committee each have strong reservations about the president’s proposal, arguing it’s too broad in scope.

“No,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked whether he could back the president’s plan, saying he wants to rescind the 2001 war authorization and tighten restrictions on the use of combat troops.

“If the Vietnam War taught us anything, and if the president’s interpretation of the 2001 authorization has taught us anything, it’s that Congress better be pretty specific on our authorization,” Cardin said.

“The hearings and meetings we’ve had raised as many questions as they have answered,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “I appreciate the president has done something unprecedented — he’s proposed restrictions on his authority — but it’s likely got to change for me to support it.”

“I’m really wrestling with the AUMF,” said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware. “I’m torn between what I think are legitimate concerns about its architecture, its scope, its timing, its duration — and the importance of a bipartisan authorization of the conduct of conflict that has already begun against ISIS.”

If that dynamic doesn’t change, members of both parties privately believe that having no vote on an AUMF would be less embarrassing than having a vote that’s completely partisan in committee and fails on the Senate floor.

“My goal is to have no American troops on the ground,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), another committee member. “I’m going to give the administration at least a chance to make the case. But that’s my bottom line.”

It’s not just Democrats who are pushing for a war authorization that limits the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Syria. That issue came up during a recent discussion between the committee’s members and the Emir of Qatar and the King of Jordan; the foreign leaders warned that using U.S. ground troops against ISIL could motivate more militants to join, according to the senators.

“They said: ‘We don’t want American ground troops. It will then become the U.S. against ISIL or the West against ISIL, which would become a recruiting bonanza for them. It has to be the region fighting against ISIL,’” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), recounting the conversation last month. “’If we do that, we would love your help. But U.S. ground troops changes it into a different kind of a battle.’”

Those policy positions put Corker in a tough spot. He can’t write the bill to address Democrats’ troop concerns because his party takes the opposite view. And he doesn’t want to hold a vote on a straight Republican bill that turns off all of the Senate’s Democrats, a partisan exercise that would be at odds with the goal of demonstrating bipartisanship on an issue as profound as war.

The way Corker sees it, the president sent him a draft in the hopes that Republicans would carry it across the finish line, even though they oppose both limiting Obama’s options and generally the administration’s strategy in the Middle East.

With the current Democratic blockade, a way forward, Corker said, is “difficult to understand. But we’re going to keep working at it.”