This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Obama Asks Congress to Authorize Three-Year ISIS Fight
Obama’s Dual View of War Power Seeks Limits and Leeway
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — President Obama formally asked Congress on Wednesday to authorize a three-year military campaign against the Islamic State that would avoid a large-scale invasion and occupation. The offensive could include limited ground operations to hunt down enemy leaders or rescue American personnel from the Sunni militants.
WASHINGTON — In seeking authorization for his six-month-old military campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group, President Obama on Wednesday did something that few if any of his predecessors have done: He asked Congress to restrict the ability of the commander in chief to wage war against an overseas enemy.
A proposal sent by the White House to Capitol Hill on Wednesday would formally give the president the power to continue the airstrikes he has been conducting since last fall against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, as well as “associated persons or forces.” The measure would set limits that were never imposed during the wars of the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq by expiring in three years and withholding permission for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”
The proposed legislation Mr. Obama sent to Capitol Hill would impose a three-year limit on American action that has been conducted largely from the air and, while allowing Special Operations commandos and other limited missions, would rule out sustained, large-scale ground combat. It would also finally repeal the expansive 2002 congressional measure that authorized President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.
“I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war or by remaining on a perpetual war footing,” Mr. Obama said in a televised statement in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Wednesday afternoon. He added that the three-year time frame was not a timetable announcing how long the mission would last. “What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president’s term.”
But even as Mr. Obama proposed some handcuffs on his power, he left behind the key to those shackles should he or his successor decide they are too confining. While his draft resolution would rescind the 2002 authority, it would leave in place a separate measure passed by Congress in 2001 authorizing the president to conduct a global war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. With that still the law of the land, Mr. Obama and the next president would retain wide latitude to order military operations in the name of fighting terrorism.
But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal and in his televised comments, Mr. Obama, who has said there would be no boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, envisioned limited ground combat operations “such as rescue operations” or the use of “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.”
It was that essential contradiction in Mr. Obama’s proposal that shaped the contours of the emerging debate in Congress. On one side, Republicans said on Wednesday that the president had outlined too many limits on the war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. On the other side, some liberal Democrats said that the residual power of the 2001 measure and the language of Mr. Obama’s own proposal were so elastic as to leave the president virtually unfettered.
He also said the legislation would allow the use of ground forces for intelligence gathering, target spotting and planning assistance to ground troops of allies like Iraq.
That essential contradiction at the heart of the president’s proposal captured the one that has characterized Mr. Obama’s own six-year management of the Situation Room. He has repeatedly aspired to end the nation’s “perpetual war footing,” as he terms it, and curb the president’s power to use force — even as he availed himself of the authority he inherited from Mr. Bush and then expanded it.
“If we had actionable intelligence about ISIL leaders and our partners didn’t have the capacity to get there, I would be prepared to order our special forces to take action because I will not allow these terrorist to have a safe haven,” Mr. Obama said in his statement.
“In a way, that’s been the story of his presidency,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who, as a top lawyer in Mr. Bush’s Justice Department, was at the heart of the last administration’s debates about presidential power. “He’s been talking during his entire presidency about wanting to restrain himself. But in practice, he’s been expanding his power.”
In the letter to Congress, Mr. Obama justified the authorization on the premise that the Islamic State could at some point endanger the United States. “If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” he wrote.
Mr. Obama’s effort to define boundaries to war power, even with escape hatches, turns presidential history on its head. Presidents typically resist congressional encroachment and assert the broadest possible interpretation of their ability to order the military into combat.
While he repeated his contention that “existing statutes provide me with the authority I need,” he said he wanted to work with Congress to obtain bipartisan support. “I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.”
Harry S. Truman sent troops into bloody battles in Korea without asking Congress to declare war. Lyndon B. Johnson proposed no time limits in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution during Vietnam. Bill Clinton waged the Kosovo war without congressional authorization. The measures authorizing the two wars in Iraq fought by George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were notably broad. Presidents of both parties have refused to acknowledge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act of 1973, a post-Vietnam attempt by Congress to rein in presidential authority.
The president’s proposal was sent to Congress shortly after confirmation of the death of Kayla Mueller, 26, an American held by the Islamic State. The draft legislation specifically mentioned her and three other Americans who were held hostage and then killed by the Islamic State — James Foley, Steven J. Sotloff and Peter Kassig — in clauses justifying the need for military action.
Even under Mr. Obama, the United States military has carried out more than 1,900 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State over the last six months without an explicit new act of Congress. In a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday, Mr. Obama repeated that he believes he has the authority under current law to conduct such a campaign. But he said the mission would be better off with a show of bipartisan support and emphasized the differences between what he now seeks from Congress and what his predecessors have.
If approved, the proposal would be the first time Congress has authorized a president’s use of force since lawmakers voted in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Mr. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 but has sent a limited number back as part of his campaign against the Islamic State. His proposed legislation would repeal the 2002 authorization but leave in place separate legislation passed in 2001 allowing force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
“It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq,” Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House. While he has sent 2,600 American troops back to Iraq in a support role, he said, “I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.” He added: “I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war, or by remaining on a perpetual war footing.” At the same time, he left himself some room to refine his past pledge against putting “boots on the ground.” The proposed measure would rule out “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal, Mr. Obama envisioned the possibility of limited ground action “such as rescue operations” or the use of “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” He also said the legislation would allow the use of ground forces for intelligence gathering, spotting ground targets for airstrikes and planning assistance to ground troops of allies like the Iraqi government.
Mr. Obama, who plans to make a statement at the White House at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday to discuss the matter, repeated in his letter his desire to work with Congress to “refine and ultimately repeal” the 2001 measure and distinguished his limited mission from the wars waged by his predecessor.
“If we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn’t have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our special forces to take action, because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven,” Mr. Obama said in his remarks.
“My administration’s draft A.U.M.F.,” or Authorization for Use of Military Force, “would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he wrote. “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”
Lawmakers and lawyers said the phrase “enduring offensive ground combat operations” was vague enough to allow many possible actions, as was the stated target of the Islamic State and “associated persons or forces.” In a sense, what Mr. Obama was proposing was a statement of intent along with a promise of restraint that he or his successor might be able to work around legally but that would be politically problematic to ignore.
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he welcomed Mr. Obama’s decision to seek the involvement of Congress in the military campaign. “It also will be important that the president exert leadership, lay out a clear strategy for confronting the threat posed by ISIS, and do the hard work of making the case to the American people why this fight is necessary and one we must win,” he said in a statement.
“What they’re saying is some ground operations are O.K., some boots on the ground are O.K., some offensive is O.K., some combat is O.K., and it can even go on for a bit,” said John Bellinger, the top State Department lawyer under the younger Mr. Bush. “But they don’t want Afghanistan. They don’t want Iraq. They don’t want occupation. They don’t want an invasion.”
Mr. Corker said hearings would be scheduled to consider the matter and repeated his support for passage of a force measure. “Voting to authorize the use of military force is one of the most important actions Congress can take,” he said, “and while there will be differences, it is my hope that we will fulfill our constitutional responsibility, and in a bipartisan way, pass an authorization that allows us to confront this serious threat.”
That left Mr. Obama criticized by the right and the left, underscoring the difficulties he will face finding a consensus on a measure that can pass.
But the contours of the debate to come were already clear on Wednesday. While some Republicans were concerned that Mr. Obama’s proposal was too constricting, setting the stage for an ineffectual effort, some Democrats quickly expressed concern that the measure would still give the president the power to go too far.
“I don’t feel this is a constraining document as written,” Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters. “It’s I think quite carte blanche in terms of geography, types of forces, etc. And therefore, I think we’re going to have to have a lot of work on that.”
Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said Congress should not limit options. “If we’re going to authorize the use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that we’re in,” he said at a news conference. “I’m not sure that’s a strategy that’s been outlined to accomplish the mission the president says he wants to accomplish.”
Republicans disagreed, saying the measure was not only too limited in its authority but also limited in its conception of what will be required to beat the Islamic State, and it therefore signaled a lack of commitment by Mr. Obama.
Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, said Mr. Obama needed to make clear to the American public that he was genuinely committed to victory. “If the president wants to engage in a halfhearted P.R. effort, to go through the motions to give the appearance that we’re fighting when we’re not doing what is necessary to win, then we should not engage,” he said.
“If the president wants to engage in a halfhearted P.R. effort, to go through the motions to give the appearance that we’re fighting when we’re not doing what is necessary to win,” said Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, “then we should not engage.”
On the other hand, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he worried that the president’s proposal set no geographic limits to the military campaign and that the definition of associated forces was too elastic. Moreover, he argued that unless it repealed the 2001 measure authorizing force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates or set a timetable for its expiration, the three-year limit on Mr. Obama’s measure was effectively meaningless because the next president could continue the war by claiming the authority of the earlier legislation.
“Additionally,” Mr. Schiff said, “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.”
Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed those concerns. “If Congress grants any new authority for the use of military force, the authority must be significantly more limited than the authority the administration has proposed,” he said.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the majority leader in the upper chamber, offered a cautious, noncommittal response to the president’s request and said the Republican conference would meet later Wednesday for a discussion to be led by Mr. Corker and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
“Individual senators and committees of jurisdiction will review it carefully and they’ll listen closely to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy for defeating ISIL,” Mr. McConnell said.
