US Senators back use of force against IS

Published December 12, 2014
The U.S. Capitol dome and U.S. Senate (R) in Washington. — Reuters/File
The U.S. Capitol dome and U.S. Senate (R) in Washington. — Reuters/File

WASHINGTON: Democrats on a Senate panel on Thursday unanimously supported a new authorisation for military force against Islamic State jihadists without US ground troops, signalling their willingness to tie President Barack Obama’s hands on war policy.

In a party-line vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a three-year authorisation for use of military force that would supercede the open-ended AUMF’s passed in 2001 and 2002 in the aftermath of Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on the United States.

The US-led coalition has already carried out some 1,100 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq since September targeting IS extremists in a bid to defeat the group, which has seized large swathes of territory, executed opponents and imposed harsh Islamic law.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has ultimate power whether to declare war.

There is broad consensus that lawmakers should fully debate the use of military force in Iraq and Syria, but that will occur in 2015 under a Republican-controlled Congress.

Democrats went on record however stressing the need to retain the power on declaring war, and underscoring their opposition to the White House’s open-ended use of 12-year-old authorisations to conduct military action today.

The new AUMF would “envision boots on the ground, they’re just not American boots,” argued Democratic committee chairman Senator Robert Menendez.

He also warned that Congress taking no action would allow the White House to keep acting under earlier war-on-terror authorisation.

“If we wait for an administration — this or any other one — to send us their language for an AUMF and they never do it... they have a veto over the constitutional imperatives and prerogatives to declare war,” he said.

Obama has sent 3,100 US military advisers into the field to help coordinate the battle against IS, and said he was relying on the previous authorisation against the Taliban and other “terrorists” of 2001, and the Iraq invasion authorisation of 2002, to do so. Many US lawmakers contest the legality of such actions.

“This is really in many ways a standoff between the parties... but also with the administration,” Senate Democrat Barbara Boxer acknowledged.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2014

Opinion

Editorial

What now?
20 Sep, 2024

What now?

Govt's actions could turn the reserved seats verdict into a major clash between institutions. It is a risky and unfortunate escalation.
IHK election farce
20 Sep, 2024

IHK election farce

WHILE India will be keen to trumpet the holding of elections in held Kashmir as a return to ‘normalcy’, things...
Donating organs
20 Sep, 2024

Donating organs

CERTAIN philanthropic practices require a more scientific temperament than ours to flourish. Deceased organ donation...
Lingering concerns
19 Sep, 2024

Lingering concerns

Embarrassed after failing to muster numbers during the high-stakes drama that played out all weekend, the govt will need time to regroup.
Pager explosions
Updated 19 Sep, 2024

Pager explosions

This dangerous brinkmanship is likely to drag the region — and the global economy — into a vortex of violence and instability.
Losing to China
19 Sep, 2024

Losing to China

AT a time when they should have stepped up, a sense of complacency seemed to have descended on the Pakistan hockey...