Barbara Boxer: Why I'm Not Giving Obama War Powers

Three months ago when Democrats were in control of the Senate, I voted in the Foreign Relations Committee for an AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) which authorized the President to continue working with a broad coalition to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL.

Unfortunately, that sensible AUMF never got a vote in the full Senate.

President Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another ground war.

This is the commitment the President made last June when he said, "I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again." He made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, "Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group."

That is why I was so surprised by the Administration's draft AUMF which would allow this Administration and the next one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no "enduring offensive ground combat operations.

At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing - and no one has defined the meaning of "enduring." At worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.

Even worse, some of my Republicans colleagues are now pressing to pass an AUMF with virtually no restrictions at all. Some of these same lawmakers have argued that the only way to defeat ISIL is to have American troops on the ground fighting against ISIL wherever they go.