Copyright 2015 Bloomberg.
NJMU6P6K511B

(Updates with Gergen comment in 13th paragraph, McCain comment in 28th paragraph, Rubio in 38th paragraph.)

(Bloomberg) — Lawmakers of both political parties say Congress is likely to authorize further U.S. military action against Islamic State, yet the political maneuvering is certain to be contentious and drawn-out. As Congress begins its broadest debate on the use of military power in more than a decade, Republicans and Democrats are pulling the proposal President Barack Obama submitted Wednesday in opposite directions. “It’s going to be a hard needle to thread, it really is,” said South Dakota Senator John Thune, the chamber’s third- ranking Republican. However, Thune predicted Congress would ultimately pass an authorization. “The president will probably lose a lot of people on the left; there are probably some Republicans who don’t think it goes far enough,” Thune said. “But in the end, I think everybody realizes it’s important enough that the Congress be heard on that.”Obama’s fellow Democrats say they’re concerned that the proposal could grant the president too much authority to put U.S. ground forces in harm’s way for too long. On the other side, some Republicans say limits on Obama’s authority to commit ground forces might tie the president’s hands too much. Islamic State is on the defensive and “is going to lose,” Obama said in a statement at the White House.

Ground Forces

“The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces” and is limited to a three-year period, Obama said. “I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war or by remaining on a perpetual war footing.” In the Senate, which Republicans control 54-46, support from at least six Democrats will be needed to pass the measure. Complicating matters, changes sought by Democrats to further restrict the president might jeopardize Republican support. “We have not really taken a task like this on in a long, long time,” said Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat. “It’s not easy.” The same dynamic is at play in the Republican-led House, where members of each party have raised similar objections and Democratic votes probably will be needed to pass the measure. Among the Democrats seeking changes to the authorization proposal is Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, who predicted Wednesday that Congress would pass some version of Obama’s plan.

‘Counter’ Threat

“My gut tells me he is going to succeed because there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in both houses that ISIL is a threat, and the United States needs to take that significant step of military action to counter the threat,” Kaine said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. ISIL is another term for Islamic State. David Gergen, an adviser to Republican and Democratic presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, said that while he has no direct knowledge of the administration’s lobbying efforts, “My working assumption is that the White House is fairly confident that they have the votes or will get the votes.” “It would be rash to send it up there without knowledge that you have a strong chance of success,” Gergen said.
Obama’s request to Congress said Islamic State has committed “despicable acts of violence” and that the extremist group would threaten the U.S. if not confronted. In the House, members of both parties see a difficult road to passage that would require significant fine-tuning and a meshing of Republican and Democratic votes. Members say there’s no informal vote count and no consensus yet on what language could pass Congress.

Vote Combination

“Absolutely, this will take some combination of Republican and Democratic votes,” said Representative Charlie Dent, of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of a group of House Republican centrists. Speaker John Boehner probably will have to rely on some Democratic votes to get anything through, said Representative Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat. The proposed three-page resolution would prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” In a letter accompanying the text, Obama told lawmakers that the authorization would provide flexibility to conduct combat ground operations in limited circumstances, such as rescuing personnel, collecting intelligence to support airstrikes or using special operations forces to target Islamic State leadership.

White House

Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, said that while the White House draft is the result of “hours of conversations” with lawmakers, the administration won’t be surprised if lawmakers decide to make changes. Language on ground forces is at the center of concerns raised by Obama’s own party.“This allows us to get sucked deeper and deeper into another major war,” said Democratic Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. “What is the long-term plan, and what does a bar to ‘enduring ground combat operations’ really mean?” Seeking to assure wary Democrats, Obama said in his letter that “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct” ground combat operations. Republicans, meanwhile, have said the plan may not give Obama enough flexibility.

‘Weaken’ Authority

“The president’s proposal will weaken the authority of the president to defeat ISIS by limiting, not expanding, our ability to roll back and destroy the violent Islamic extremists that threaten our nation,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican. “I will not give consent to a measure that ties the hands of our military commanders or takes options off the table,” McCaul said. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain of Arizona said he has “deep concerns” about the president’s proposal, in part because it doesn’t address Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s “responsibility for this growing terrorist threat.” Some Republicans took a more isolationist position.
“I want to see a very defined mission and game plan,” said Representative Ted Yoho, a Tea Party-backed Republican from Florida. A further sticking point is the authorization’s geographic scope, which Democrats say should be limited, while Republicans are calling to give Obama a wide berth.

Geographic Limits

The draft proposal doesn’t include geographic limits and grants Obama the discretion to use armed forces as he “determines to be necessary against Islamic State” or “associated persons or forces.” Administration officials and some lawmakers say such flexibility is necessary because Islamic State is attracting recruits in Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere beyond Iraq and Syria.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said his panel will begin hearings later this month. “It’s in our hands now and we have the opportunity to make changes,” Corker said in an interview. The debate over war powers probably will spill into them 2016 presidential campaign, much as the Iraq war became an issue in the 2008 race. Several Republicans considering running for president are in the Senate and would have to vote on the authorization, including Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas.

Rubio’s Preference

Rubio, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday he preferred a broad authorization that doesn’t include time constraints or “legalistic political definitions about ground forces.”
“I think we should authorize the president to destroy ISIL,” he said, adding that it should be left to Obama and future presidents “to do what it takes to defeat them.” Obama campaigned for office vowing to cease the open-ended warfare that grew out of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and led to the invasion of Iraq. The draft he sent to Congress would repeal the 2002 resolution that authorized the Iraq war. A separate 2001 authorization to fight al-Qaeda, which Obama has cited as the legal underpinnings for the campaign against Islamic State, would remain in place for now. Obama said while the draft doesn’t address the 2001 resolution, he wants to work with Congress “to refine and ultimately repeal” that authorization.
The resolution blames Islamic State for the deaths of five Americans held hostage, including aid worker Kayla Mueller, whose death was confirmed by the U.S. Tuesday. The U.S. began a bombing campaign against Islamic State on Aug. 8. The U.S. and other coalition members have conducted 1,298 air strikes in Iraq and another 1,055 in Syria through Monday at an average cost of $8.4 million a day, according to Commander Bill Urban, the budget spokesman for the Pentagon.
–With assistance from Billy House, Mike Dorning, Margaret Talev, James Rowley, Peter Cook and Kathleen Miller in Washington.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kathleen Hunter in Washington at khunter9@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jodi Schneider at jschneider50@bloomberg.net Laurie Asseo