OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Doubts grow over ISIS war vote

THE TOPLINE: The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday cast doubt on whether Congress will pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“Unfortunately, I am skeptical that Congress will find the will to overcome our internal divisions, both between parties and internal to them, to authorize this action,” said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) at a committee hearing on an AUMF. 

{mosads}The chairman of the committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) also predicted that getting an AUMF passed would be “hard” for members of both parties. 

“Make no mistake, this is a hard vote, especially for Republicans, because there are considerable doubts about whether the president believes in this mission, will stick with this mission, based on his past behavior,” according to Thornberry.

Obama sent Congress a draft resolution earlier this month, asking lawmakers to approve a new resolution of force against ISIS. It’s the first time lawmakers have been asked to approve a new resolution of force since the controversial 2002 Iraq War vote.

The proposal prohibits Obama from the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” language that is seen as intentionally vague in an attempt to win over liberal critics concerned about an open-ended mission and conservative lawmakers who don’t want to restrict possible military action against the terror group.

Thornberry also said the restriction on “enduring offensive ground combat operations” would require a lawyer for troops to know what they could or couldn’t do. 

“Going into battle with a lawyer nearby to decide whether a particular action is ‘enduring’ or ‘offensive’ or a ‘ground combat operation’ seems problematic,” Thornberry said in prepared remarks.

Experts who testified at the hearing agreed that the AUMF proposal is problematic. 

Robert M. Chesney, University of Texas associate dean and professor, said “enduring offensive ground combat operations” was a “grossly indeterminate phrase on its face and must be dropped.” 

“The language will inevitably cast a shadow over commanders’ operational decisions,” he added. “Commanders should not be left to guess where the boundaries lie.” 

Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution senior fellow, said the force proposal was “a flawed document” and has no meaningful restrictions. 

“The proposed authorization leaves untouched the 2001 AUMF, which the administration construes quite broadly,” Wittes said. 

“The president would have all the authority he has today … and, in addition to that, he would be granted three years of even broader authority,” he said.

 

AUTHORIZATION TURF FIGHT? The White House’s proposed authorization for the use of military force was referred to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations panels to be hashed out, but the Armed Services Committees say they want a voice too. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) has reportedly said his panel would have to weigh in on an the measure if the Foreign Relations Committee includes language on troop movements or levels, or imposes geographic limitations.

Thornberry said he had spoken with House parliamentarians about the resolution, and there is “precedent” for “sequential referral or some sort of referral action depending on how specific it is limiting troops because that’s obviously in our jurisdiction.” But he said later, “I don’t expect that’s going to happen.” 

Thornberry said both panels would hold hearings on an authorization, as well as speak with leadership about how to handle the resolution, but “nothing will proceed without some kind of rough consensus.”

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told The Hill that the committee should be involved in the debate, but probably not until after they are done with the annual defense policy bill. 

Thornberry’s committee is set to hold a hearing next Tuesday to hear from outside legal and military experts on the president’s proposal. U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Lloyd Austin and Christine Wormuth, under secretary of defense for policy, will appear before the panel to discuss the AUMF.

 

AFGHAN DRAWDOWN ON HOLD? Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani requested that U.S. troop levels remain “flat” through the end of the year, according to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas).

Ghani made the request while meeting with members of a bipartisan congressional delegation at the Munich Security Conference in Germany earlier this month.

“His request with us is leave it flat for the rest of the year,” Thornberry said during a roundtable discussion with reporters. “He said that will give us the best chance of being able to further develop and be able to defend ourselves.”

Thornberry made his comments on the same day James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a report that concluded the Taliban is set to gain territory this year in Afghanistan.

The group is “increasingly aggressive” and poised to “take territory in outlying areas and steadily reassert influence over significant portions of the Pashtun countryside, positioning itself for greater territorial gains in 2015,” the document states.

The developments come as the Obama administration weighs slowing its withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

New Defense Secretary Ashton Carter made a surprise visit to Afghanistan last weekend and indicated that the White House is strongly considering slowing down its withdrawal timetable

“Our priority now is to make sure this progress sticks,” Carter said at a press conference with Ghani. “We are discussing and rethinking the details of the counterterrorism mission and how the environment has changed here with respect to terrorism, since we first laid out our plans.” 

The Afghan president is slated to visit the White House next month and the drawdown will likely be the main topic.

 

MEDAL OF HONOR FOR ‘AMERICAN SNIPER’? Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) introduced a bill requesting the president to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Chris Kyle, the late Navy SEAL whose service in Iraq was depicted in the blockbuster film “American Sniper.”

“Chris gave the ultimate sacrifice and served his nation with distinction and bravery while saving countless American lives,” Williams said in a statement.

“There is no doubt that this true American hero is worthy of our nation’s highest military honor. While the Medal of Honor will not bring back a husband, father, son and a model Texan, we owe Chris Kyle and his family a great deal of gratitude for his relentless devotion to his country,” he added.

Kyle was killed at a shooting range on Feb. 2, 2013. He was credited with the most sniper kills in U.S. military history. His best-selling autobiography, based on his four tours of duty in Iraq, formed the basis of the hit film.

Earlier this week, a jury in Texas found ex-Marine Eddie Ray Routh guilty of murdering Kyle and his friend, Chad Littlefield.

Routh’s defense team argued that he was insane and didn’t know the killings were wrong at the time.

  

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: 

— Bill would end military’s use of live animals for medical training

— Ernst salutes military at CPAC

— Korea poses ‘serious‘ nuclear threat, US says

— Armed Services panel to press military chief on Mosul offensive

— McCain calls Lindsey Graham his ‘illegitimate son’

 

Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@digital-stage.thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@digital-stage.thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @thehill, @kristina_wong, @martinmatishak