Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, said that he expected the White House to send a new military authorization to fight the Islamic State up to Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
Mr. Inhofe said he was eager to read the president’s authorization for the use of military force — known as an AUMF in legislative-speak — but didn’t support any plan to limit what resources the president could use to defeat the terrorist group, also known as ISIS.
“The president’s proposed AUMF should not contain restrictions on U.S. forces or time or geographic limitations,” Mr. Inhofe said Monday on the Senate floor. “An AUMF should authorize the use of all necessary and appropriate force.”
The conflict of whether or not to limit putting American boots on the ground will likely play out in the coming weeks.
Many lawmakers have said that the war on the Islamic State should be limited to an air campaign, while the White House has asked lawmakers to leave all options on the table in case they’re needed at a later date.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, said limiting what the U.S. can do in terms of time or geography limits or putting American boots on the ground may help the Islamic State plan its own strategy.
“These are restrictions that the Islamic State could use to its advantage,” he said. “If we are telling the Islamic State upfront that we will not use ground forces, will they not tailor their strategy around that fact?”
The president began an air campaign against the Islamic State last year, saying that he has the authority to do so under a previous war authorization from 2001, which allows military force against al Qaeda and its affiliates, and from 2002, which allows military force in Iraq.
• Jacqueline Klimas can be reached at jklimas@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.