WASHINGTON – White House officials “are not really ready” to craft an authorization measure for the Islamic State conflict, says a key senator.
Poised to take the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gavel in January, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would be the Republican senator charged with negotiating an authorization for the use of military force with the White House. But Corker is signalling it might be a while before lawmakers have a chance to take up a new AUMF.
“They’re not really ready,” Corker told reporters, referring to the White House. “I think everyone understands they’re not really fully baked on what they want to do both outcomes-wise and inputs-wise. … There’s so much that they still need to decide upon.”
One of those issues is whether any draft measure sent to Capitol Hill is narrowly focused on ongoing strikes in Iraq and Syria against the violent Sunni group or a total rewrite of the post-9/11 AUMF, the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman said.
“There’s so much that they still need to decide upon,” added Corker, who said he had just been on the phone with the White House.
Lawmakers from both parties have been calling for a force-authorization measure for several months. President Obama acquiesced to those demands, at least rhetorically, on Nov. 5, saying he wanted lawmakers to debate and vote on a new measure.
Republican lawmakers countered by saying Obama should craft and submit a draft to Congress. From there, negotiations among lawmakers and with the White House would begin.
So far, the administration has yet to send up any measure.
“Although the president has the authority to address the threat from [the Islamic State], he has said that we are strongest as a nation when the executive branch and Congress work together on matters involving the use of US military force,” White House spokeswoman Berndette Meehan said Friday. “The administration is therefore engaging with the Congress on a new AUMF.
“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’,” she said. “We will continue to engage with the Congress on the elements of an AUMF to ensure that they are appropriately tailored, 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.”
On Wednesday, Tony Blinken, a senior White House national security official, was unable to tell Corker’s panel when an AUMF might arrive on the Hill.
The administration “would welcome” an AUMF for the strikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, Blinken said. Next, he said the administration would take one “if we can get” one. Blinken finished by saying administration officials “will absolutely engage” interested lawmakers about a new force-authorization measure.
That means any congressional debate and vote will occur when the 114th Congress is seated in January.
“I actually think the first of the year is a much better time,” Corker said. “It gives them an opportunity to really think through.”
There was talk from some lawmakers and administration officials prior to the Nov. 4 midterm elections about voting on a measure before voters went to the polls.
“Most of what happened before the election was mostly optics to make it look like something was happening, more than it was,” Corker said.
The senator Corker would follow, sitting Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said Wednesday lawmakers should not rush.
“Let’s not, however, make the 9/11 mistake of rushing into an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, that has become the overriding authorization for the last 13 years, has been used for indefinite duration and has been used from South Asia to the Persian Gulf to Africa and Southeast Asia,” Menendez said.
“The fact is we need to ensure that whatever authorization for the use of military force we consider is comprehensive and appropriate in scope and duration to meet the threat and sustain the fight,” he said.
“It is our responsibility to answer three fundamental questions,” Menendez said. “What will it ultimately take to degrade and destroy [the Islamic State], how does this fight end, and what end state do we seek in the region?”
