Sen. Lindsey Graham wants Congress to give President Barack Obama unequivocal authority to fight Islamic State militants. Yet Sen. Ted Cruz says lawmakers should be wary of handing the commander in chief a “blanket authorization” to wage war.
Sen. Marco Rubio is open to sending ground troops into the region if that’s what it takes to win. But Sen. Rand Paul says he’s “not eager” to send troops back to the Middle East, and he’s demanding that Congress set a one-year timeline for a war authorization to expire.
As Congress prepares to dive into its most politically charged debate in years over war and peace, the four Republican senators considering 2016 presidential bids are staking out diverging positions on how much power to give Obama — a fight that is bound to drive the argument on which candidate would best defend the U.S. from threats abroad. The GOP presidential field consists of roughly two dozen potential candidates, but these are the only four who can help shape the proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force and will have to vote on it.
If they vote yes and the war campaign goes poorly, they could own the consequences, as Hillary Clinton did after backing the Iraq War authorization in 2002. If they oppose it, they could be castigated as weak on defense at a time when military and political leaders are calling for partisan posturing to be put aside — much like the congressional Democrats who saw their presidential hopes dented after voting against the 1991 Gulf War.
“I think it’s going to show divisions,” Graham said, “between those who understand what it takes to contain the threat and defeat the threat versus those who are just stumbling around trying to find a political sweet spot.”
Foreign policy has already become a political flash point for 2016. Rubio argues that his Senate experience sets him apart from governors who have little background on foreign affairs. Graham, who serves in the Air Force Reserve, would heavily promote his hawkish national security views and his calls for an assertive U.S. presence in the world. Cruz, a likely candidate, is positioning himself between the neoconservative and isolationist wings of the party, while Paul has long sought a less aggressive American role overseas.
In interviews with POLITICO, all four senators laid out their views on the AUMF, showcasing the divide that is about to become more pronounced on the campaign trail.
Paul is clearly aiming for younger and war-weary primary voters eager to see the next president exercise restraint before sending troops into harm’s way.
“I’m not for declaring a worldwide war where I can send troops anywhere anytime,” said Paul, the libertarian former congressman’s son, who won his first foray into public office in 2010. “I’m not for sending 100,000 troops back to the Middle East.”
Last fall, Paul offered an AUMF proposal that would have declared war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with some caveats. It would rescind existing war authorities for Afghanistan and Iraq approved after the Sept. 11 attacks; it would limit the use of ground forces to intelligence-gathering, attacks on high-value targets and situations where U.S. citizens face an imminent threat; and it would expire one year after enactment.
“I’m willing to give my opinion about what I believe; the question is whether or not it resonates,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said when asked how his views would play with GOP primary voters. “But I think, frankly, that there are many in the Republican Party who are not eager to send ground forces back into the Middle East.”
Graham, a South Carolina Republican, shot back.
“The idea that you would declare war for one year and not use any ground troops probably is not going to be taught at West Point,” said Graham, who was elected to his seat in 2002.
While Paul calls the 2003 invasion of Iraq “a mistake” that spawned chaos in the region, Graham, a staunch supporter of the war effort, said the Kentuckian “just doesn’t get radical Islam.”
“The isolationist, libertarian wing of the party really believes we brought this upon ourselves,” said Graham, who has been back to Afghanistan four times over the past two years for Air Force Reserve duty. “The fact of the matter is: This is a religious war.”
On the AUMF, Graham said he’s opposed to setting conditions because he’s not “into restricting our ability to defeat ISIL.”
“I don’t want to restrict the commander in chief’s options,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “You can’t have 535 commanders in chief.”
Rubio, a Florida Republican elected in 2010, has foreign policy views that more closely align with Graham’s. And he’ll have the first chance to square off with Paul, since both men serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will get the initial crack in shaping the use-of-force resolution.
While Paul’s proposal last year limited the scope of the fight to ISIL, Rubio said the language should be broader because the U.S. faces a “rapidly evolving conflict” in which the militant organization could “quickly morph into something different over a period of time, as we’ve already seen happen.”
“We shouldn’t be dictating in legislation: You can do this but you can’t do that, you can go here but you can’t go there,” Rubio said of an AUMF. “I think it should be broad enough to allow him latitude on choosing the tactics, the method, the timing, etc. — that’s not just President Obama, it’s future commanders in chief.”
Asked about sending ground troops into the region, Rubio said, “I’m open to doing whatever it takes to defeat them.” He added that the president must make a “a cost-benefit analysis” to determine whether U.S. troops would fight alongside Iraqi forces or if they would face threats from militias backed by Iran.
“Ultimately, I think we need to do what we can within the realm of the responsible to defeat them,” he said.
With their perches on the Foreign Relations Committee, both Paul and Rubio have had a series of high-profile and bitter splits, including over Cuba policy, foreign aid to Egypt and arming moderate Syrian rebels. Yet the two were on the same page in 2013 when they both voted against a resolution authorizing force against Syrian President Bashar Assad, while Graham strongly supported a bombing campaign against the Assad regime.
Cruz, a Texan who was elected in 2012, is more known for his stands against Obamacare and immigration than foreign policy. Yet he serves on the Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Pentagon, and has tried to push a national security policy in between the Graham and Paul wings of the party.
In an interview, Cruz said the effort against ISIL “has been unfocused” and that the administration needs to seek congressional approval immediately. But when asked if there should be limits on an AUMF, Cruz said: “We need to see what specifically the administration asks for, and what they are purporting to do with the authorization. I don’t think an amorphous and blanket authorization for military force with no time limits is a sensible approach.”
While Cruz’s main argument for the nomination is that he’s been a leader in the fight to derail the president’s agenda, agitating leaders in both parties, both Rubio and Graham seem ready to pull the national security card if they mount bids for the White House.
While just 43 years old and a first-term senator, Rubio has dived into foreign affairs, taking nine official trips around the world, heading everywhere from Afghanistan and Pakistan in January 2011 to Japan, the Philippines and South Korea in January 2014.
While governors could make good commanders in chief, Rubio said, senators have the inherent advantage of being grounded in national security issues that are central to being president.
“My point is there are advantages to being a governor,” Rubio said. “It’s also important to understand the predominant issue before the federal government is national security and national defense.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the party’s 2008 presidential nominee and Graham’s closest friend in the Senate, said that once national security concerns begin to get heightened attention, his South Carolina colleague will rise in the polls should he mount a presidential campaign.
“As things get worse, Lindsey Graham will gain more prominence,” McCain said.
Asked what set Graham apart from Rubio, McCain said flatly: “Vast experience."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-2016-islamic-state-aumf-114975.html
