WASHINGTON — A senior House Democrats doubts Republicans and Democrats can bridge wide differences and pass an Islamic State Wwar-authorization measure.
The White House earlier this month sent over a draft authorization of the use of military force. Among other things, it limits what US military ground forces can do and limits the legal basis for the ongoing conflict to three years.
Lawmakers have begun analyzing the White House-crafted document, and the Obama administration's language on what constitutes an "enduring offensive ground combat operations," as the draft AUMF puts it.
But that's just the biggest point of contention on Capitol Hill, with Republicans worried the measure is too operationally limiting and Democrats concerned it is a vague document that could be used to justify a slew of future US military actions.
For House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith, D-Wash., the points of disagreement outweigh those on which members agree.
"Unfortunately, I am skeptical that Congress will find the will to overcome our internal divisions, both between parties and internal to them, to authorize this action," Smith said Thursday.
He also listed other concerns he has with what the White House submitted, and the construct of any AUMF that could pass both chambers.
The Islamic State "is concentrated, but not completely, in Iraq and Syria, the center of its so-called caliphate," Smith said. "Does it make sense to focus an authorization geographically on these areas or to enable the Administration to pursue any ally of [Islamic State] anywhere in the world? And would that, to go back to the strategy question, risk diffusing our efforts?"
Smith said "there is an open question about how a new AUMF will interact with prior authorizations, particularly the 2001 AUMF," passed just after the 9/11 attacks.
"If the administration feels it can conduct military action in Syria and Iraq under the 2001 AUMF, then the limitations on ground troops in the draft AUMF language the president sent over may not mean very much," he said. "There are certainly many other variables and potential effects that we need to think through as we consider drafting a new AUMF."
email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter:@bennettjohnt
