WASHINGTON — A senior House Republican on Thursday said Democratic opposition is mostly to blame for thestalling ofa White House war-authorization measure.
Since President Barack Obama in February sent lawmakers an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to legally authorize the Islamic State conflict, Republicans and Democrats have voiced opposition. The former says the draft authorization would handcuff the president and military; the latter says it would not prevent another massive American ground operation in the Middle East.
That standoff led GOP House Speaker Rep. John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California to recently declare the president’s proposal dead in the lower chamber.
Complete coverage of the 2016 budget
Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a deputy GOP whip and Boehner ally, on Thursday called crafting a new AUMF for the violent Sunni group “a difficult issue for any member.”
But he told C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” that it is even “more so for Democrats.”
“There is a lot of Democratic opposition, which is pretty unusual,” Cole said. “The president is essentially a war president without a war party.
“A lot of his folks will not vote for anything,” Cole said. “There are others you have to so finely nuance the resolution, things like, we don’t have an enduring ground mission — what does that mean?”
Cole was referring to perhaps the five most contentious words in the White House’s draft AUMF. The Obama administration’s measure would prohibit US forces from engaging in “enduring offensive ground combat operations” — but no one on Capitol Hill seems to know what that means.
Administration witnesses have yet to assuage Democrats, who believe the phrase is too open-ended, or Republicans, who view it as too limiting.
His blame-putting was not limited to rank-and-file members of Obama’s party. He also said House Democratic leaders and Senate Republicans opposed the very idea of the White House crafting a new AUMF and then lawmakers altering it in committee and on the House and Senate floor.
However, Cole did acknowledge there are “problems” on among GOP members, as well.
“On the Republican side, there are two problems,” he said. “There is a basic … distrust of the president.
“Number two, they want a resolution. I know the speaker believes what the White House proposed is weaker than what he has now. It is fine not to send in ground troops,” Cole said. “We would hope we could complete the mission without doing that. When you are ruling options off the table and you are going to war, most of our members think this is a mistake.”
The White House’s proposal also would expire in three years, meaning Congress would have to re-authorize the Islamic State conflict in 2018. That provision, however, also is a sticking point.
“A lot of our members,” Cole said, “don’t like the idea of re-authorization.”
Notably, however, Cole gave a tepid endorsement of the White House’s AUMF — if that’s all that could make it to the House floor.
“I would prefer a much stronger authorization,” he said, “but I would support the president’s recommended authorization if I couldn’t get something stronger.
“If we are going to exercise military power on this scale … our adversaries ought to know we are united,” Cole said, “and that the president has [our] support.”
On Tuesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a leading AUMF advocate, told reporters that senators on that panel soon will revive efforts to craft an authorization for the Islamic State conflict.
The committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, said shortly after that he would entertain such conversations, but would bring a measure to a vote only if he believes it could pass both chambers.
“What I don’t want to do is send a message to our allies or our enemies that somehow the nation is divided over ISIS,” Corker said sternly. “Because we’re not.”
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter:@bennettjohnt
