WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic votes will be needed to pass an Islamic State authorization and party members already are expressing concerns about a White House draft.

The Obama administration sent a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to Capitol Hill on Wednesday that would place limits on US ground forces and limit US operations to three years. Because it will take 60 votes to pass the Senate, where some GOP opposition is likely, at least a handful of Democratic votes would be necessary on the floor.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., in a statement, said he has "serious concerns about the breadth and ambiguity of this proposal."

The White House's draft legislation "does not authorize the use of the United States armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." In an accompanying letter to lawmakers, President Barack Obama states his AUMF "would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Leahy and other Senate Democrats reacted almost immediately.

"The executive branch's reliance on the 2001 AUMF to justify such things as indefinite detentions and drone strikes far from Afghanistan has taught that Congress must carefully limit any authority it grants a president to engage in war," Leahy said.

To Democrats, the wording of any force-authorizing measure that Congress eventually approves should avoid what they see as mistakes made in the days and weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. That's when Congress passed a broadly worded AUMF still being used to justify American military operations in a number of countries and against a number of groups.

"We have a responsibility to take action against [Islamic State] terrorists who are responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent men, women and children, including American citizens," Leahy said. "But we must do so in a way that avoids repeating the missteps of the past, and that does not result in an open-ended authorization that becomes legal justification for future actions against unknown enemies, in unknown places at unknown times."

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, also said he is alarmed by the "breadth and vagueness of the US ground troop language" in the White House's AUMF.

Kaine, in his own statement, said he "will seek to clarify it." He expects Congress will amend Obama's proposal in coming months.

"As the Foreign Relations Committee prepares to take up this draft authorization, I look forward to a robust debate," Kaine said, "along with amendments and votes, that will inform the American public about our mission and further refine this authorization to ensure that the U.S. is vigorously assisting nations willing to battle their own terrorist threat rather than carrying the unsustainable burden of policing a region that won't police itself."

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., also a Foreign Relations Committee member, called the Obama AUMF "a starting point."

"As part of this debate, Congress needs to assure that we learn from the mistakes of our previous engagements in Iraq. American combat troops alone will not defeat [Islamic State]," Murphy said. "Limited [US] military power is an essential part of a counter-[Islamic State] strategy, but only to give space for the local political and economic reform that will ultimately stamp out this terrorist threat."

Murphy wants any AUMF that might eventually pass both chambers to "make it crystal clear that US combat troops cannot be sent back into the Middle East as part of this conflict."

"I worry that the vague limitations on ground troops in today's draft may turn out to be no limitations at all," Murphy said, in one of the strongest reactions from Senate Democrats.

House Democrats have less leverage, but some of their votes could be required to reach 218 if enough far right-wing GOP members oppose the measure. Many tea party Republicans think the US should mostly avoid new armed conflicts.

For the latest national security news from Capitol Hill, go to CongressWatch

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., believes the version submitted by the White House "must be narrowed further."

Schiff said he has "concerns over the lack of a geographic limitation and a broad definition of associated forces which will also be the subject of debate." He also wants any AUMF passed this year to sunset the post-9/11 measure.

And House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said one part of Obama's measure "needs close congressional scrutiny": its proposed limits on US ground troops.

"This section must provide appropriate flexibility to the president, while making the point that we are not well-served by deploying large numbers of US military ground forces to Iraq or Syria," Smith said.

"We must also closely scrutinize the section that defines 'associated persons or forces'," he added. "As we saw with the 2001 AUMF, the authority granted in this section can be stretched over time and it is our obligation to ensure that it is appropriately tailored to address the threat."

email: jbennett@defensenews.com

Twitter:@bennettjohnt

Share:
More In Congress