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

Narcotic darkness
08 May, 2024

Narcotic darkness

WE have plenty of smoke with fire. Citizens, particularly parents, caught in Pakistan’s grave drug problem are on...
Saudi delegation
08 May, 2024

Saudi delegation

PLANS to bring Saudi investment to Pakistan have clearly been put on the fast track. Over the past month, Prime...
Reserved seats
Updated 08 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The truth is that the entire process — from polls, announcement of results, formation of assemblies and elections to the Senate — has been mishandled.
Impending slaughter
Updated 07 May, 2024

Impending slaughter

Seven months into the slaughter, there are no signs of hope.
Wheat investigation
07 May, 2024

Wheat investigation

THE Shehbaz Sharif government is in a sort of Catch-22 situation regarding the alleged wheat import scandal. It is...
Naila’s feat
07 May, 2024

Naila’s feat

IN an inspirational message from the base camp of Nepal’s Mount Makalu, Pakistani mountaineer Naila Kiani stressed...