White House: 'We Look Forward' to Working with GOP on Limitless War Authorization
Republicans leadership told to expect language from Obama administration that would provide new authorization for war in Iraq and Syria
A Tuesday meeting between President Obama and top lawmakers, including the Republican leadership who now control both chambers of Congress, was used to discuss plans for passing a war authorization bill that would give congressional blessing to the U.S. war in Iraq and Syria that began in the summer of 2014.
According to lawmakers who left the meeting, language for an 'authorization for use of military force' (or AUMF) against Islamic State (or ISIL) militants who operate and control territory on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border could be sent to Congress within weeks.
As Politico notes, the topic of "authorizing the continuing air war against ISIL emerged as a rare area of cooperation in a year that has so far featured several veto threats."
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who now chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated progress and said language from the administration could come soon.
"I'm hopeful [the White House will] send something over in the next few weeks," Corker said. "Hopeful."
After the meeting, a White House statement said President Obama is "committed to working with members of both parties on text for an AUMF that Congress can pass to show the world America stands united against ISIL." An administation official told reporters, "we look forward to sharing a draft with Congress that reflects their bipartisan input."
Critics of Obama's war in the region have repeatedly rejected claims by the administration that AUMF's left over from the Bush-era are still valid for the current military operations.
As the Huffington Post reports:
It's been five months since the U.S began bombing Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. In that time, the U.S. has spent more than $1 billion, participated in more than 1,700 air strikes, authorized roughly 3,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and lost three U.S. soldiers. All of this has gone on without new war authorization.
Obama maintains he doesn't need new authority to bomb the Islamic State, citing a sweeping AUMF from 2001 as his legal justification, but has said he welcomes it anyway. Lawmakers in both parties disagree he has that authority. Some in Congress have grown tired of waiting for the White House to send draft language and have pushed for Congress to move its own AUMF, but others are wary of advancing a war bill without sign-off from the White House. Typically, the White House begins the war authorization process.
It remains to be seen what the White House's language will include, but the best indication of their position came from testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry during a Senate committee hearing in December. In those remarks, Kerry said the White House wanted an expansive, essentially limitless, authorization--one without geographic or time constraints. In addition, Kerry indicated the Pentagon did not want restrictions placed on its ability to send additional ground forces, including "combat troops," if they felt such forces were needed.
"We do not think an AUMF should include a geographic limitation," Kerry said at the time. And added, "we would not want an AUMF to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against ISIL in those locations if necessary. In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq or Syria."
Commenting at Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz remarked on the likely warm reception the White House AUMF would receive in both the House and Senate. "With hawks dominated most of the committees in the new Senate," he wrote, "it seems like the passage of any authorization vote should be fairly easy, so long as the wording is vague enough to leave open the prospect for escalation."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A Tuesday meeting between President Obama and top lawmakers, including the Republican leadership who now control both chambers of Congress, was used to discuss plans for passing a war authorization bill that would give congressional blessing to the U.S. war in Iraq and Syria that began in the summer of 2014.
According to lawmakers who left the meeting, language for an 'authorization for use of military force' (or AUMF) against Islamic State (or ISIL) militants who operate and control territory on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border could be sent to Congress within weeks.
As Politico notes, the topic of "authorizing the continuing air war against ISIL emerged as a rare area of cooperation in a year that has so far featured several veto threats."
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who now chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated progress and said language from the administration could come soon.
"I'm hopeful [the White House will] send something over in the next few weeks," Corker said. "Hopeful."
After the meeting, a White House statement said President Obama is "committed to working with members of both parties on text for an AUMF that Congress can pass to show the world America stands united against ISIL." An administation official told reporters, "we look forward to sharing a draft with Congress that reflects their bipartisan input."
Critics of Obama's war in the region have repeatedly rejected claims by the administration that AUMF's left over from the Bush-era are still valid for the current military operations.
As the Huffington Post reports:
It's been five months since the U.S began bombing Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. In that time, the U.S. has spent more than $1 billion, participated in more than 1,700 air strikes, authorized roughly 3,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and lost three U.S. soldiers. All of this has gone on without new war authorization.
Obama maintains he doesn't need new authority to bomb the Islamic State, citing a sweeping AUMF from 2001 as his legal justification, but has said he welcomes it anyway. Lawmakers in both parties disagree he has that authority. Some in Congress have grown tired of waiting for the White House to send draft language and have pushed for Congress to move its own AUMF, but others are wary of advancing a war bill without sign-off from the White House. Typically, the White House begins the war authorization process.
It remains to be seen what the White House's language will include, but the best indication of their position came from testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry during a Senate committee hearing in December. In those remarks, Kerry said the White House wanted an expansive, essentially limitless, authorization--one without geographic or time constraints. In addition, Kerry indicated the Pentagon did not want restrictions placed on its ability to send additional ground forces, including "combat troops," if they felt such forces were needed.
"We do not think an AUMF should include a geographic limitation," Kerry said at the time. And added, "we would not want an AUMF to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against ISIL in those locations if necessary. In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq or Syria."
Commenting at Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz remarked on the likely warm reception the White House AUMF would receive in both the House and Senate. "With hawks dominated most of the committees in the new Senate," he wrote, "it seems like the passage of any authorization vote should be fairly easy, so long as the wording is vague enough to leave open the prospect for escalation."
A Tuesday meeting between President Obama and top lawmakers, including the Republican leadership who now control both chambers of Congress, was used to discuss plans for passing a war authorization bill that would give congressional blessing to the U.S. war in Iraq and Syria that began in the summer of 2014.
According to lawmakers who left the meeting, language for an 'authorization for use of military force' (or AUMF) against Islamic State (or ISIL) militants who operate and control territory on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border could be sent to Congress within weeks.
As Politico notes, the topic of "authorizing the continuing air war against ISIL emerged as a rare area of cooperation in a year that has so far featured several veto threats."
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who now chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, indicated progress and said language from the administration could come soon.
"I'm hopeful [the White House will] send something over in the next few weeks," Corker said. "Hopeful."
After the meeting, a White House statement said President Obama is "committed to working with members of both parties on text for an AUMF that Congress can pass to show the world America stands united against ISIL." An administation official told reporters, "we look forward to sharing a draft with Congress that reflects their bipartisan input."
Critics of Obama's war in the region have repeatedly rejected claims by the administration that AUMF's left over from the Bush-era are still valid for the current military operations.
As the Huffington Post reports:
It's been five months since the U.S began bombing Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. In that time, the U.S. has spent more than $1 billion, participated in more than 1,700 air strikes, authorized roughly 3,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and lost three U.S. soldiers. All of this has gone on without new war authorization.
Obama maintains he doesn't need new authority to bomb the Islamic State, citing a sweeping AUMF from 2001 as his legal justification, but has said he welcomes it anyway. Lawmakers in both parties disagree he has that authority. Some in Congress have grown tired of waiting for the White House to send draft language and have pushed for Congress to move its own AUMF, but others are wary of advancing a war bill without sign-off from the White House. Typically, the White House begins the war authorization process.
It remains to be seen what the White House's language will include, but the best indication of their position came from testimony by Secretary of State John Kerry during a Senate committee hearing in December. In those remarks, Kerry said the White House wanted an expansive, essentially limitless, authorization--one without geographic or time constraints. In addition, Kerry indicated the Pentagon did not want restrictions placed on its ability to send additional ground forces, including "combat troops," if they felt such forces were needed.
"We do not think an AUMF should include a geographic limitation," Kerry said at the time. And added, "we would not want an AUMF to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against ISIL in those locations if necessary. In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq or Syria."
Commenting at Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz remarked on the likely warm reception the White House AUMF would receive in both the House and Senate. "With hawks dominated most of the committees in the new Senate," he wrote, "it seems like the passage of any authorization vote should be fairly easy, so long as the wording is vague enough to leave open the prospect for escalation."