United States Congressional Debate Opens on New War Powers
Obama Asks Congress to Back Islamic State Fight
By CAROL E. LEE And MICHAEL R. CRITTENDEN
Feb. 11, 2015 7:29 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama asked Congress for new powers to wage military operations against the Islamic State militant group, kicking off a renewed national debate over the scope of wartime powers that should be afforded to the commander-in-chief.
American warplanes have pounded Islamic State targets for six months, but Mr. Obama on Wednesday said the proposed resolution authorizing military force is important not only for the U.S. strategy against the group, but also to the cohesion of an international coalition, which includes Arab countries.
The new powers must be approved by Congress, where a debate quickly began taking shape as both Democrats and Republicans voiced sharp concerns. Democrats advocated for stricter limitations on presidential war power, particularly on the use of ground troops; many Republicans said the president needs greater flexibility in the fight against the group in Syria and Iraq than Mr. Obama has proposed. The U.S. has the authority to keep fighting while Congress debates the proposal.
Mr. Obama spoke to both concerns in remarks at the White House. He said he doesn’t want the power to start another lengthy ground war in the Middle East. But he also warned against a resolution that unduly restricts the president’s ability to respond to an evolving threat.
“We need flexibility but we also have to be careful and deliberate,” Mr. Obama said.
His proposal calls for a three-year “authorization for the use of military force,” or AUMF, which would lock in those stipulations for the next president. He also proposed repealing the 2002 war authorization that gave former President George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq.
The draft proposal doesn’t repeal a separate 2001 AUMF, the White House’s current legal justification for the Islamic State operation, although the president reiterated support for eventually replacing it. The 2001 AUMF was adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks and allowed for operations against al Qaeda. Administration officials have argued that a new and updated AUMF is needed for the current U.S.-led operations in Iraq and Syria.
The White House worked with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the draft language in hopes of increasing its chances of winning bipartisan support.
The initial reaction by lawmakers suggested a rare case in which Republicans wanted to provide Mr. Obama more leeway than did members of his own party. At the same time, Republican calls for greater presidential authority to wage war against Islamic State run counter to Mr. Obama’s view that military power should be used sparingly and in coordination with local partners. In addition, the more expansive authority GOP lawmakers favor would be available to the president who succeeds Mr. Obama, possibly a Republican.
The new authorization faces a lengthy road to approval in Congress. House Speaker John Boehner said Mr. Obama’s request is “the beginning of a legislative process” of hearings, committee votes and amendments. “So at this point, I think that we’ve got an awful lot of work to do before I get into what I’m for, what I’m against.”
Earlier Wednesday, the Ohio Republican said: “Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people…I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.”
Democrats said the measure may not go far enough in limiting U.S. operations against Islamic State fighters.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the authorization needs to be more narrowly tailored in regards to geographic scope and the ability of the administration to use U.S. combat troops.
“A new authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the president coming to Congress to make the case for one,” Mr. Schiff said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), who has been consulting with the White House for months on the issue, said the language governing the administration’s ability to use U.S. troops was too broad and vague, and vowed to try to clarify it before lawmakers vote on the authorization.
He also said the emphasis needs to be on the U.S. assisting allies in the Middle East to lead the fight, “rather than carrying the unsustainable burden of policing a region that won’t police itself.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest faced questions about the vague language on the use of ground forces in the authorization proposal. Mr. Obama, who has vowed not to deploy U.S. ground forces in combat against Islamic State, left the proposed resolution intentionally vague to give him maximum leeway to counter evolving threats, Mr. Earnest said.
“We believe it’s important that there aren’t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander-in-chief, who needs the flexibility to be able to respond to contingencies that emerge in a chaotic military conflict like this,” Mr. Earnest said.
In a letter to Congress on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said his proposal provides the military with flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in limited circumstances, such as rescue operations and special operations against Islamic State leadership.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel urged Congress to pass the authorization, while warning that lawmakers should avoid undue restraints on Mr. Obama’s ability to carry out the Islamic State mission while they debate.
“The president’s draft language reflects important input from Congress, and would give our personnel the support and flexibility needed in our military operations against ISIL,” Mr. Hagel said, using another name for Islamic State. “We want Congress’s full, bipartisan support in this fight because the country is stronger when both parties and both branches of government stand and work together.”
Republicans said the onus was on Mr. Obama to make the case for the authorization, both with Congress and the broader country.
“He should explain why he is seeking to tie his own hands by limiting authority that he’s already claimed,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Joe Crowley (D., N.Y.) said there was healthy skepticism to the plan during a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Wednesday morning.
Mr. Obama asserted that the resolution reflects his “core objective to destroy ISIL.” Republicans have questioned whether his strategy is aimed at destroying or containing the group.
Mr. Obama cited the deaths of four American citizens— James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig and Kayla Mueller —while in the hands of Islamic State militants to emphasize the group’s threat to the U.S. Messrs. Foley, Sotloff and Kassig were all executed on video by the group, while U.S. officials confirmed Ms. Mueller’s death this week.
Write to Carol E. Lee at carol.lee@wsj.com and Michael R. Crittenden at michael.crittenden@wsj.com
By CAROL E. LEE And MICHAEL R. CRITTENDEN
Feb. 11, 2015 7:29 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama asked Congress for new powers to wage military operations against the Islamic State militant group, kicking off a renewed national debate over the scope of wartime powers that should be afforded to the commander-in-chief.
American warplanes have pounded Islamic State targets for six months, but Mr. Obama on Wednesday said the proposed resolution authorizing military force is important not only for the U.S. strategy against the group, but also to the cohesion of an international coalition, which includes Arab countries.
The new powers must be approved by Congress, where a debate quickly began taking shape as both Democrats and Republicans voiced sharp concerns. Democrats advocated for stricter limitations on presidential war power, particularly on the use of ground troops; many Republicans said the president needs greater flexibility in the fight against the group in Syria and Iraq than Mr. Obama has proposed. The U.S. has the authority to keep fighting while Congress debates the proposal.
Mr. Obama spoke to both concerns in remarks at the White House. He said he doesn’t want the power to start another lengthy ground war in the Middle East. But he also warned against a resolution that unduly restricts the president’s ability to respond to an evolving threat.
“We need flexibility but we also have to be careful and deliberate,” Mr. Obama said.
His proposal calls for a three-year “authorization for the use of military force,” or AUMF, which would lock in those stipulations for the next president. He also proposed repealing the 2002 war authorization that gave former President George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq.
The draft proposal doesn’t repeal a separate 2001 AUMF, the White House’s current legal justification for the Islamic State operation, although the president reiterated support for eventually replacing it. The 2001 AUMF was adopted after the Sept. 11 attacks and allowed for operations against al Qaeda. Administration officials have argued that a new and updated AUMF is needed for the current U.S.-led operations in Iraq and Syria.
The White House worked with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the draft language in hopes of increasing its chances of winning bipartisan support.
The initial reaction by lawmakers suggested a rare case in which Republicans wanted to provide Mr. Obama more leeway than did members of his own party. At the same time, Republican calls for greater presidential authority to wage war against Islamic State run counter to Mr. Obama’s view that military power should be used sparingly and in coordination with local partners. In addition, the more expansive authority GOP lawmakers favor would be available to the president who succeeds Mr. Obama, possibly a Republican.
The new authorization faces a lengthy road to approval in Congress. House Speaker John Boehner said Mr. Obama’s request is “the beginning of a legislative process” of hearings, committee votes and amendments. “So at this point, I think that we’ve got an awful lot of work to do before I get into what I’m for, what I’m against.”
Earlier Wednesday, the Ohio Republican said: “Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people…I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.”
Democrats said the measure may not go far enough in limiting U.S. operations against Islamic State fighters.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the authorization needs to be more narrowly tailored in regards to geographic scope and the ability of the administration to use U.S. combat troops.
“A new authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the president coming to Congress to make the case for one,” Mr. Schiff said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), who has been consulting with the White House for months on the issue, said the language governing the administration’s ability to use U.S. troops was too broad and vague, and vowed to try to clarify it before lawmakers vote on the authorization.
He also said the emphasis needs to be on the U.S. assisting allies in the Middle East to lead the fight, “rather than carrying the unsustainable burden of policing a region that won’t police itself.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest faced questions about the vague language on the use of ground forces in the authorization proposal. Mr. Obama, who has vowed not to deploy U.S. ground forces in combat against Islamic State, left the proposed resolution intentionally vague to give him maximum leeway to counter evolving threats, Mr. Earnest said.
“We believe it’s important that there aren’t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander-in-chief, who needs the flexibility to be able to respond to contingencies that emerge in a chaotic military conflict like this,” Mr. Earnest said.
In a letter to Congress on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said his proposal provides the military with flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in limited circumstances, such as rescue operations and special operations against Islamic State leadership.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel urged Congress to pass the authorization, while warning that lawmakers should avoid undue restraints on Mr. Obama’s ability to carry out the Islamic State mission while they debate.
“The president’s draft language reflects important input from Congress, and would give our personnel the support and flexibility needed in our military operations against ISIL,” Mr. Hagel said, using another name for Islamic State. “We want Congress’s full, bipartisan support in this fight because the country is stronger when both parties and both branches of government stand and work together.”
Republicans said the onus was on Mr. Obama to make the case for the authorization, both with Congress and the broader country.
“He should explain why he is seeking to tie his own hands by limiting authority that he’s already claimed,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Joe Crowley (D., N.Y.) said there was healthy skepticism to the plan during a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Wednesday morning.
Mr. Obama asserted that the resolution reflects his “core objective to destroy ISIL.” Republicans have questioned whether his strategy is aimed at destroying or containing the group.
Mr. Obama cited the deaths of four American citizens— James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig and Kayla Mueller —while in the hands of Islamic State militants to emphasize the group’s threat to the U.S. Messrs. Foley, Sotloff and Kassig were all executed on video by the group, while U.S. officials confirmed Ms. Mueller’s death this week.
Write to Carol E. Lee at carol.lee@wsj.com and Michael R. Crittenden at michael.crittenden@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment