WASHINGTON -- A new resolution from leaders on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to authorize the use of military force overseas is accelerating a debate that Congress has been reluctant to have but that is taking on new urgency after President Donald Trump's strikes on Syria.
The bipartisan measure from Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., would repeal the broad authorizations Congress approved in 2001 and 2002 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, replacing them with new authority to go after specific "nonstate terrorist groups." A growing number of critics say Congress should no longer be using the resolutions that are more than a decade old as legal underpinnings for the fight against extremist groups such as the Islamic State militant group.
The new resolution would not provide congressional authorization for the airstrikes Trump ordered, with coalition forces, in response to an suspected chemical-weapons attack against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said Tuesday that Trump already has existing authority for limited strikes in Syria and the GOP leader panned the bipartisan Senate effort, declining to commit to a House vote.
Ryan said his criteria for supporting a new authorization for military force resolution is, "Can an [authorization] make it into law and does it tie the hands of our military behind their backs?"
Congress has so far given lopsided backing for the Syria mission. Many lawmakers are supportive of strikes that send a message to the Syrian regime that such attacks will not go unanswered.
"It was time to act," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Monday in support of the Syria mission.
Others say even the limited response is beyond the president's commander-in-chief authority because the U.S. was not facing a direct security risk.
Mostly, lawmakers have insisted that the Trump administration cannot engage in prolonged or repeated incursions without consulting Congress on its broader strategy.
"President Trump's action still raises the constitutional question of his authority to unilaterally attack another nation without congressional authorization," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "It is time for Congress and the American people to engage in a national debate about that authorization to use military force in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen."
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said, "No President of the United States, no matter party or political ideology, has the authority to unilaterally start a war."
But it is not at all clear the new authorization resolution unveiled Monday, which is expected to focus on military action against nonstate actors like the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban rather than specific countries, would find enough support to pass the House or Senate.
It has a built-in process for Congress to review the authorization every four years. But because Congress has shown such difficulty tackling war-related votes, skeptics said they worry it would just end up stretching on for years, like earlier authorizations, if Congress failed to act.
A Section on 04/18/2018