Overnight Defense: ISIS measure a hard sell for officials

THE TOPLINE: Administration officials struggled on Wednesday to make the case for President Obama's proposed authorization for the use of military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with lawmakers from both parties skeptical about the proposal. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said passing a war measure against ISIS will be an uphill battle. "We don't know of a single Democrat in Congress, in the United States Senate, anyway, that supports that authorization for the use of military force," he said. Obama's proposal would last for three years, repeal the 2002 authorization for the Iraq War, but leave in place the 2001 authorization the administration is using now to justify the war against ISIS. It would not have any geographic limitation, apply to both ISIS and "associated" forces, but ban "enduring offensive ground combat operations." The "enduring" language has Republicans arguing the proposal would restrict military commanders and Democrats saying it is too broad and could lead to another massive engagement in the Middle East. "What I think Democrats are not willing to do, is to give this or any other president an open-ended authorization for war. A blank check," said committee Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). Carter told lawmakers that the words "enduring offensive ground combat operations" meant it did "not authorize the kind of a campaign that we conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan." He also explained that "associated" forces to ISIS would mean groups who "associate or fight alongside" ISIS "if they also have the intent of threatening Americans." Kerry said that the measure would allow rescue operations, targeted operations against ISIS leadership, intelligence collection and sharing. "But the whole purpose here is to kind of have a concept that's well understood, that is extremely limited, but not so limiting that our military can't do what it needs to do in some situations to protect America's interests or American personnel," Kerry said. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the definitions "puzzling." "There's been an awful lot of loose statements here," he said. But at least one Republican senator expressed support for the language. "We all recognize that we may have to endure some degree of ambiguity in the language," said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "And as we know in this body, we never get everything we want." KERRY SLAMS IRAN LETTER: The war of words over Senate Republicans' open letter to Iran continued on Wednesday, with Secretary of State John Kerry calling it "irresponsible" and "flat wrong." Kerry said his reaction was "utter disbelief" to the letter, which warned Iran that any agreement it reaches with U.S. and international negotiators could be voided once President Obama leaves office. "No one is questioning anybody's right to dissent," Kerry said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "But to write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation, particularly the leaders they have criticized others for even engaging with ... is quite stunning." Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the letter's author, wrote an op-ed in USA Todaythat the letter was a response to the Obama administration actions, accusing the White House of seeking to bypass Congress. "That is why this week, I, along with 46 of my fellow senators, wrote Iranian leaders to inform them of the role Congress plays in approving their agreement. Our goal is simple: to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Cotton wrote. "Regrettably, it appears the deal President Obama is negotiating with Iran will not be a good one. In fact, if reports are correct, it will be a bad one that will ultimately allow Iran to continue its nuclear program and ultimately develop a nuclear weapon," he added. The controversy is also playing out in the 2016 presidential race. Former Secretary of State Clinton blasted potential GOP contenders who have signed the open letter in a tweet Wednesday. "GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership. No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on," Clinton said on Twitter. But one of the signatories, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), immediately fired back, tweeting, "No one who allows Iran to become a nuclear power should consider running." A number of potential 2016 GOP contenders signed the letter initially, including Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). ARMY SEES DARK FUTURE UNDER CUTS: The looming budget cuts are the "enemy at home" and could lead to a "dark and dangerous future" for the service by fiscal year 2019, Army Secretary John McHugh told the Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee on Wednesday. He predicted the Army would have to cut end strength, the number of troops, to "unconscionable" levels. The Army plans to cut the active-duty force to 490,000 by the end of this fiscal year, and shrinking defense budgets will force more reductions to around 450,000 by 2017. If sequestration returns in fiscal 2016, the Army could be brought down to 420,000 active-duty soldiers, with tens of thousands of cuts slated for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve as well, according to McHugh. He implored lawmakers to pass President Obama's proposed $126.5 billion budget for the branch, which is roughly $6 billion over sequester levels. "We need the president's budget," he said. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno noted that only 33 percent of the service's brigades meet readiness requirements, when it should be around 70 percent. He said additional troop level cuts could have a significant impact on the Army's ability to conduct combat operations, especially if the conflict lasts longer than six to twelve months. "Frankly, if we get into a conflict, they last longer than that," Odierno told the panel. BASE-CLOSURE PLAN FACES UPHILL CLIMB: Senators from both parties on a key Senate subpanel expressed deep reservations about the Defense Department's latest proposal for a round of military base closures to begin in 2017. "I come with a dislike for the [Base Realignment and Closure] process to begin with, so this is going to be a case of convincing me that it's the right thing to do," said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told Pentagon officials during a Senate Armed Services Readiness and Management Support subcommittee hearing. "My going in position is: I'm opposed to BRAC," said subcommittee Chairwoman Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), She pointed to the last base-closure round that occurred in 2005 that ended up costing the Pentagon over $35 billion to achieve roughly $4 billion in annual savings. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said lawmakers are "skeptical about our bases being hollowed out." John Conger, acting assistant secretary of Defense for installations, admitted that the 2005 process was "expensive" but that most of the criteria that drove the last round was based on transforming the military's footprint, not cost-savings. Officials from the Army and Air Force told the panel their services have roughly 20 and 30 percent excess capacity, respectively. Conger said the Pentagon doesn't have a list of sites it would close "in the hopper" and that such determinations would be made by the services themselves, targeting installations with the "lowest military value." Ayotte said BRAC was "created as a cop out" to get lawmakers out of making hard decisions about the future of military bases. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:  -- Kerry: No 'grand bargain' with Iran over ISIS -- Rand Paul: Kurds would fight ISIS 'like hell' if promised a country -- US to Vietnam: Stop aiding Russian bombers -- Senate Budget chair: Budget blueprint can't adjust sequester caps itself -- Pentagon: Anti ISIS-forces retake 'key terrain' in Syria Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @thehill, @kristina_wong, @martinmatishak