Armed Services chief: War powers a ‘hard vote’ for both parties

The head of the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday predicted that a vote on an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against Islamic militants would be “hard” for members of both parties.

“It is as serious a vote as a member of Congress takes, to authorize the use of military force, and I think it’s even true when we’ve been using military force for six months,” Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) told The Hill.

“It’s still a big deal. I don’t think we’re going to rush it,” he said, adding that members have a responsibility to weigh in on national security matters “even if it’s a hard vote.”

“And 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.

At the same time “there is real view that this is a serious threat that we can’t just stick our head in the sand about,” he said. “That puts tension on us.”

Thornberry said Democrats are also under pressure because most want to support President Obama, “but some of them seem to want to have more restrictions on the military action.”

“Both sides have these tensions going on,” he told The Hill.

Obama sent Congress a draft resolution earlier this month, asking lawmakers to approve a new resolution of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (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.

The resolution was referred to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations panels.

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

Speaking to reporters earlier Thursday, 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.”

“I don’t expect that’s going to happen,” he later told The Hill.

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

He said there was no specific timeframe for hammering out and passing a force resolution.

Thornberry’s committee is set to hold a hearing on Thursday to hear from outside legal and military experts on the president’s proposal. Next week 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.