Van Hollen on NPR: We Can Defeat ISIL Without Blank Check Authority to Deploy U.S. Combat Forces

Interview

Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen joined NPR's The Diane Rehm Show to discuss the Administration's proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to combat ISIL. A transcript of the interview is below:

DIANE REHM, NPR: I know you've seen the draft resolution from the White House. What's your reaction to the President, to what the President's asking for?

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well Diane, first I'm glad the President has put forward a proposal. It's my view that Congress should have acted on this matter much earlier, back last August and September. I think Congress has been derelict in its duties not acting in this area. And I support the President's ongoing operations in Iraq and Syria against ISIL. I have two significant concerns with the proposal the President has presented today. The first goes to the scope of authority for the use of American combat ground troops. My reading of this proposal: it leaves that very open, it's a very broad grant of authority to the Executive to deploy U.S. ground combat forces. He uses both that language that they may not be engaged in enduring offensive ground combat operations -- that leaves wide open the possibility of real engagement of U.S. combat forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria. And secondly, it leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the executive in the 2001 AUMF, which is the authority that the President is currently claiming for the current operations with respect to ISIL. So those are two concerns. I know many of my of my colleagues share those concerns.

REHM: So how would you change what is simply a draft resolution?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, in two ways. First, I would have the 2001 AUMF sunset at the end of the same three-year period that this specific ISIL authority sunsets, because if you don't do that what we're doing is spending an awful lot of time designing the front door and putting boundaries against around how force can be used against ISIL but leaving entirely open the back door, because that 2001 AUMF is really a blank check to use force by the Executive. And secondly, I would narrow the provisions regarding the use of U.S. ground combat forces. My colleague Congressman Adam Schiff has put forward some proposals that I support. And if you actually read the President's letter of the examples of the kind of combat operations he wants to leave open -- rescuing American pilots, conducting special forces operations against top ISIL leaders -- you could draft a proposal that clearly leaves open that option and that authority without at the same time leaving open the authority for, you know, 50,000 American troops engaged in combat operations for 6 months.

REHM: Would you support any force resolution?

VAN HOLLEN: Well yes, I would support an AUMF that's tailored to the ongoing operations in Iraq and Syria against ISIL. I support the use of American air power against the ISIL targets in both Iraq and Syria. For example, our air power was very instrumental in helping to liberate Kobani in Syria in support of the Syrian Kurds. I support U.S. airpower in support of the Kurdish and Iraqi forces and I support American troops -- a limited number of troops on the ground -- to train and equip both the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. What I am against is this very broad grant of authority for U.S. combat forces, ground forces, being engaged in Iraq and Syria. I worry very much about getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East. I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and we've got to learn the lessons from Iraq.

REHM: How much opposition is there among Democrats to the President's request?

VAN HOLLEN: Well this is the beginning of a process, a beginning of a debate. We will hear testimony from Administration witnesses in both the House and Senate, and I look forward to a debate, because, as I say, I think that we can and should craft a AUMF designed to degrade and defeat ISIL. But I think we can do it without this wide open authority for future deployments of U.S. ground forces into combat. We need to rely on our allies, the Iraqis and the Kurdish forces both in Iraq and Syria and other forces on the ground. Again, I think it would be a mistake to grant this fresh authority to provide for authority for expansive ground operations. The limitation in this bill is really no limitation as currently drafted, and finally, as I said, we need to deal with the 2001 AUMF, because if you don't, you're leaving a blank check authority to the executive on the books.

Source