WASHINGTON — The debate around a formal authorization of America's fight against the Islamic State is starting to resemble a game of political chicken. And though the president called for just that during his State of the Union address, a key lawmaker called it the "strangest" part of the speech.
US military aircraft have been striking the violent Sunni group since the summer, but Congress has yet to approve a specific legal framework. The White House says an authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) covers the ongoing operation.
On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are calls for a new AUMF, one crafted specifically for the Islamic State. Yet, neither side has taken a serious step toward passing one.
The months-long back-and-forth can be summarized like this: You go first. No, I insist, you go ahead. And so on.
"And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against [the Islamic State]," Obama said Tuesday evening. For the latest national security news from Capitol Hill, go to CongressWatchSen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who as Foreign Relations Committee chairman would be tasked with pushing an AUMF through the Senate and negotiating differences with the White House and House of Representatives.
"I thought it was the strangest portion of the speech," Corker told CongressWatch. "He's pointing to Congress on the AUMF when we're all waiting for them to send over language."
The day after Obama's speech, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters the lower chamber will debate and vote on a new AUMF by the spring.
But Boehner and Corker have both said they want the White House to craft the version from which lawmakers will begin work on their own versions -- or perhaps different versions.
"I haven't gotten any language yet," Corker said two days after Obama's latest endorsement of a new measure.
Corker's panel in the late summer of 2013 approved an AUMF that would have covered American strikes on Syrian government targets after it allegedly used chemical weapons. He views work with the White House on that later-scrapped measure a template.
"We sat in a room and they gave us their language. We worked it out," he explained. "We haven't received a word. Not one."
"They've given an indication that they think soon," Corker said. "But they haven't committed."
The situation has left some scholars wondering whether there's any legislative smoke behind the rhetorical fire.
The President has not accompanied this very slight rhetorical progression with any indication of what he wants the new AUMF to say or do, or with any action to secure a new AUMF," says Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith.
"Historical practice shows that President Obama won't get an AUMF from Congress unless he formally asks Congress to act, proposes terms, and pushes for enactment; or unless the fight against Islamic State goes so badly that Congress intervenes in reaction," Goldsmith wrote Wednesday on the popular Lawfare blog.
Goldsmith concludes Obama "does not want his legacy associated with a new AUMF that extends the endless war against Islamist terrorists legally, conceptually, and geographically."
Late last year, a White House spokeswoman explained what she dubbed the administration's ongoing "engagement" with lawmakers.
"The goal of this engagement is to produce an AUMF that specifically addresses the current fight and, as the president has said, 'reflects what we perceive to be not just our strategy over the next two or three months, but our strategy going forward'," the spokeswoman said.
"We will continue to engage with the Congress on the elements of an AUMF to ensure that they are appropriately tailored," she said, "while still preserving the authorities the president needs to execute his counter-[Islamic State] strategy and to respond as might be necessary to defend the United States."
email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter: @bennettjohnt
