Congressional work on a new authorization of U.S. military forces in Iraq is finally underway, and supporters are still confident that the debate has critical significance even as fighting in the Middle East carries on without them.
But that relevance assumes lawmakers eventually will pass something related to President Obama's authorization request, even though no clear timeline or blueprint for a plan has emerged.
Already, about 2,600 U.S. troops have deployed to Iraq in the fight against the Islamic State group, part of a coalition of 60 countries providing logistics and air support to that country's armed forces.
That work has been building for more than six months, even without any explicit congressional authorization for those troops to be there. White House officials have maintained they don't need new legal authorization for the military intervention, but would benefit from the unified front that congressional authorization would provide.
"(One) important thing to me is that the [Authorization for Use of Military Force] that emerges from this discussion be something that is widely supported, so that our people, who are conducting that fight, see a country united behind them," Defense Secretary Ash Carter told House appropriators on Wednesday. "That's terribly important."
But that unity hasn't emerged yet.
In debate with military officials over the last few weeks, conservative lawmakers have expressed concern that the White House's draft authorization places too-strict limits on military options by dismissing the possibility of sending U.S. ground forces into Iraq.
Those on the other side quibble with the lack of clear definitions of "enduring" operations in the region, fearing another open-ended war.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. — a leading voice for congressional action on the issue — called the recent Hill debates productive and said he is confident Congress won't take months to come to some consensus.
"We're not going to be that long," he said. "We're going to be taking it up fairly soon."
Christopher Chivvis, associate director of Rand's International Security and Defense Policy Center, called a lengthy debate about U.S. military limits for intervention a healthy exercise for Congress — although he noted that the debate ideally should have begun months ago, before any U.S. forces were embedded in the fight.
"Still, in the end, it's better to have lawmakers take some time to debate this than for them not to act on it at all," Chivvis said. "There are politics involved now … but having Congress approve [a new authorization] gives the military's actions more authority and legitimacy."
In coming weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to issue its own revisions to the White House's AUMF request. It comes at the same time the committee is discussing Iran sanctions and aid to Ukraine, all issues that could easily become mired in political infighting before any compromise is found.
Meanwhile, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin III, chief of U.S. Central Command, told the House Armed Services Committee this week that progress in the fight against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has been positive, even without congressional approval.
"I am confident, absolutely confident, that we can defeat ISIL, and I base that upon the progress that we have made to date," Austin said. "I am very confident that going forward we will get this done. We will defeat ISIL."
Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.
