The Senate took the first step Thursday to redefining the war on terror, passing a new authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State that would grant President Obama limited authority to go after the insurgency, including severely restricting his ability to use ground combat troops.
The administration says it doesn’t want ground troops but had implored Congress to leave the option open in case of unforeseen circumstances.
Instead, on a 10-8 party line vote, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved the more narrow resolution that would authorize up to three years of limited force against the Islamic State, with no limitations on geography but with restrictions preventing ground troops except for emergency rescue or intelligence-gathering purposes.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry had pleaded this week, in a personal appearance before the committee he used to run as chairman, for senators not to restrain Mr. Obama. He said even though they don’t want to use combat troops, Congress shouldn’t limit the president’s options to defeat the terrorist group.
But the administration was operating from a weak hand, having failed to send up its own proposal and instead picking apart the senators’ version, written by Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat.
“If the president feels he needs that, he should ask for that, and Congress can consider it,” said Mr. Menendez, who added Congress should pass his resolution and, if circumstances change, the administration could always come back later and ask for ground troop authority anew.
Thursday’s vote was chiefly symbolic, with Congress expecting to adjourn for the year by this weekend without any floor votes on the resolution.
“It has no chance in the world,” said Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican. “It’s going nowhere because we’re going to be out of here in two days, but even if we had time, we know the administration wouldn’t support what is before us today.”
Even if the Senate were to squeeze in a vote, House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has also said he wants to wait until next year to deal with a new war authorization so that new members can be part of the decision.
Mr. Corker, who will become chairman of the committee in the next Congress, which begins in January, said he will work on a new authorization the administration would actually accept that meets its needs.
He suggested he may want to subpoena administration witnesses to offer more in-depth testimony ore on Mr. Obama’s plan to defeat the Islamic State, saying that no one knows what the president has in mind for the fight, especially in Syria.
The authorization that passed out of the committee would require the administration to report to Congress with clear details on the mission within 60 days. It would also cancel the 2002 authorization that launched the war in Iraq and sunset the 2001 authorization that initiated the war against al Qaeda unless Congress reauthorizes or revises that authorization.
The president has argued that even without a new authorization, he has the ability to use the military against the Islamic State under his inherent commander in chief powers and under the outdated 2001 and 2002 authorizations.
But some lawmakers disagree and have argued that the president is acting illegally by unilaterally waging war.
“I think that’s absurd on the face and almost embarrassing for anyone [who] even makes the argument,” Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, said. “I don’t think an objective observer would say the vote in 2001 has anything to do with what we’re doing now.”
Some lawmakers tried to change the authorization to just one year, allowing Congress to provide more oversight, and also tried to limit fighting to Iraq and Syria, though both amendments failed to make it into the final bill.
Sen. Tom Udall, New Mexico Democrat, said he wants Congress to stay in Washington beyond the end of this week and cut its holiday vacation short to vote on the authorization on the Senate floor.
“I think we ought to stay. We’re in here as a Congress, and [we should] debate it and do it,” he said. “That’s what I would prefer to do. It may not be the popular position now.”
It seemed as though Congress would leave for the year without any debate of a war powers bill until Mr. Paul pushed the committee last week to debate the fight against the Islamic State as an amendment to an unrelated water bill.
Mr. Paul withdrew his amendment once he was promised a hearing and a vote in committee before Congress left Washington.
Despite his insistence on having the debate, Mr. Paul voted against the authorization that passed the committee. One of his biggest issues was that, without limiting the authorization’s geography to Iraq and Syria, it could potentially allow the president to wage war against more than 60 affiliated terrorist groups in 30 countries, including places like Jordan, Pakistan and Gaza.
“Let’s limit where we’re going and not have a worldwide war,” he said. “I’m very worried this will be open-ended enough that we could be in war in 30 countries.”
He also said he supported a shorter authorization to give Congress the chance to reassess the war, since withdrawing funding from troops who are in harm’s way is not a viable way to keep the administration in check.
• Jacqueline Klimas can be reached at jklimas@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.