Congress is preparing to scrap President Obama’s request and write its own authorization for war against the Islamic State, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Monday.
Mr. Obama’s request has met opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike, said Rep. Mac Thornberry, Texas Republican, who told reporters the two parties are trying to figure out what they can do that would earn support of majorities in both chambers.
“I really have not heard many people who were standing up for the president’s proposal,” Mr. Thornberry said. “I think we’ve kind of moved past that and everybody agrees that doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Mr. Obama’s plan, sent to Congress earlier this year after months of delay, would grant the commander in chief power to combat Islamic State for three years, without any limit on where the U.S. could strike — though it would put an outer limit on the use of ground troops in any conflict.
Republicans have criticized the president for tying his own hands, and say an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, should leave all options available to the president, including ground troops. Many Democrats, however, say Mr. Obama’s plan already goes too far, saying it amounts to a blank check for another endless war.
The political stalemate has left Mr. Obama with a free hand to continue strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq, which he says are authorized under 2001 and 2002 AUMF resolutions targeting al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
SEE ALSO: Republicans demand voice on Iran deal
Mr. Thornberry questioned whether Mr. Obama even wants a new authorization to replace those previous ones, saying that the administration may only be searching for someone to blame as the fight progresses.
“The cynical among us think he might have just wanted to throw that over here. If we passed what he sent, then we would share the responsibility. If we didn’t pass anything, at least he tried and he could put all the blame on us,” he said.
“We need to act on it regardless of his motivations,” he added.
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey will testify Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee on the president’s AUMF. The two military leaders appeared with Secretary of State John F. Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.
While House and Senate international relations committees have primary jurisdiction over such an authorization, but Mr. Thornberry said he expected his committee to play some role in crafting it because troops will be affected by whatever Congress writes.
Mr. Thornberry also criticized the president’s handling of negotiations to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon. While he declined to weigh in specifically on the letter from 47 Senate Republicans, Mr. Thornberry said it is better for the nation if Congress weighs in on matters of national security like this one.
SEE ALSO: Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton risked exposing classified info to terrorists
“You end up with an Obama policy for this or a Bush policy for that, you don’t end up with a national policy for anything,” he said. “Only going through that messy process of really consulting, really working with Congress can you end up with a national policy toward something.”
The letter, authored by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, caused a rift in Washington with administration officials saying it was an unprecedented slight to go over the president’s head and contact a foreign leader directly to say that any deal reached could be undone.
Mr. Thornberry blamed the White House for creating a gap between lawmakers and the administration on foreign policy, and said it’s hurting national security.
“I think it is really short-sighted,” he said. “It just adds insult to injury to say, ’No, we’re not going to send this to Congress for a vote, but we’re going to send it the [United Nations] for a vote.’ It just provokes so much antagonism, adds to the mistrust.”
• Jacqueline Klimas can be reached at jklimas@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.