“A clear and careful expression of this Congress’ backing at this point and time would expel doubt,” Kerry said. Obama's war resolution stalls on the Hill

President Barack Obama’s proposal to authorize U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria is slipping deeper into trouble on Capitol Hill.

After yet another hearing on the issue Wednesday, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker sought to lower expectations about the prospect of Congress voting for a fresh war authorization, saying a path forward would be “somewhat difficult” given the sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats.


The Tennessee Republican also noted there’s little support among Democrats for Obama’s proposal as written. And he played down the urgency of the effort, explaining that the White House believes it has the authority to continue the current military campaign in Iraq and Syria under the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force.

“The fact that this operation’s been going on for a long, long time points to the fact that nothing regarding the AUMF is going to affect what’s happening on the ground at present,” Corker told reporters.

His remarks came after top administration officials pleaded for congressional action on the White House proposal to authorize the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — updating a framework that has governed U.S. operations abroad since early in the George W. Bush administration.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter urged senators Wednesday to approve an authorization, with Kerry calling on Congress to make clear it supports the U.S. war against ISIL with a “single, powerful voice.”

“A clear and careful expression of this Congress’ backing at this point and time would expel doubt that might exist anywhere that Americans are united in this effort,” he said.

But Corker said the lack of support for the president’s proposal among Democrats has left him and his fellow Republicans in a bind.

“What that does on this side of the aisle is put Republican senators in the position of looking at a limited authorization of the use of military force that in some ways ratifies a strategy that many people do not consider effective,” Corker said.

The sticking points are the administration’s proposed three-year expiration date for the authorization and its ban on the “enduring” use of U.S. ground combat troops. Hawkish Republicans consider the language too restrictive, while Democrats, fearing a repeat of the last war in Iraq, want the measure to be clearer in prohibiting a large U.S. ground combat presence.

“What I think Democrats are not willing to do is give this, or any other president, an open-ended authorization or a blank check,” said the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. “Clearly, there’s a need to define exactly what would be allowed.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) added: “I see a real danger of a ground-troop creep here.”

Carter tried to reassure the senators the administration’s proposed authorization wouldn’t lead to a large-scale U.S. ground war in Iraq, saying the only way to defeat ISIL permanently would be through assisting local forces in taking on the terrorist group themselves.

Meanwhile, several Republicans on Wednesday voiced concerns about the influence of Iran in the fight against ISIL. In a terse exchange, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tangled with Kerry over the issue, saying he believes the U.S. strategy against ISIL is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran amid sensitive nuclear negotiations.

“The facts completely contradict that,” Kerry responded, explaining that the negotiations with Iran were designed to curtail its nuclear program — and would not result in a “grand bargain” that would normalize relations with the Islamic Republic.

“This is about a nuclear weapon — that’s it,” Kerry said.

Carter, who testified along with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, said the administration’s proposal to authorize the campaign in Iraq and Syria provides the U.S. military the necessary “flexibility” to wage a campaign that would result in the lasting defeat of ISIL.

But he also said he couldn’t guarantee the campaign would be completed in three years, explaining the proposal’s sunset provision could allow Congress to evaluate the campaign in three years and decide whether to reauthorize it.

During the hearing, Kerry was interrupted several times by protesters from the anti-war group Code Pink, including one who yelled that the U.S. campaign against ISIL would lead to the deaths of “innocent people.”

Kerry responded: “I wonder how our journalists who are beheaded and the pilot who was fighting for freedom, what they would say about their efforts to protect innocent people.”

For his part, Corker pledged to continue working to forge a deal that Republicans and Democrats can support — even as he tamped down expectations about the prospect.

“The next step will be to try to determine if there’s a plausible bipartisan path forward,” he said.