February 11, 2015 4:35 pm
Obama asks Congress to back war on Isis
Geoff Dyer in Washington
In a statement at the White House, Mr Obama said the resolution was designed to give the “flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances”. He would consider using US forces in Iraq or Syria if, for instance, the US received information about a meeting of Isis leaders.
But he insisted that the US was not getting “dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East”. The resolution was “not the authorisation of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq”.
However, the risk is that the White House’s proposal could backfire because it satisfies neither Republicans who want a more aggressive strategy against Isis, nor Democrats who are deeply wary about a new open-ended commitment to a war against Islamist terrorism.
Even some of the members of Congress who are strong supporters of the military operation against Isis fear that the new resolution could become bogged down in partisan political fighting that will damage US credibility.
“I worry about that a lot,” said John McCain, the Arizona Republican who now chairs the Senate armed services committee.
In a bid to address the different concerns in Congress, the administration has written a resolution text that is at once broad and narrow.
Although operations against Isis so far have taken place only in Iraq and Syria, the resolution places no geographic limits on the fight against either Isis or what it calls “associated persons or forces” — a phrase that has been used in the past to justify counter-terrorism operations against a range of different groups.
However, at the same time the resolution calls on the next president to return to Congress in three years’ time to either justify or change the military campaign and bars the US military from conducting what it calls “enduring offensive ground combat operations”.
As the debate starts to kick off in Congress, the most controversial issue will be the potential use of US ground troops in the conflict. There has already been some tension on the subject between the president, who has repeatedly pledged to avoid sending ground troops, and the Pentagon, which wants some US military personnel to be present during any ground offensive to retake towns in northern Iraq.
Senior Republicans — some of whom have openly called for US troops to PLAY a more direct role in the anti-Isis campaign — immediately accused the president on Wednesday of tying the military’s hands behind its back.
“If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorisation, not one that limits our options,” said House speaker John Boehner. The president’s request did not give military commanders “the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people”.
“Rather than expanding his legal authority to go after ISIL, the president seems determined to ask Congress to further restrict the authority of the US military to confront this threat,” said Kevin McCarthy, the house majority leader.
However, a number of Democrats — who are mostly deeply opposed to the return of US ground troops to Iraq — said that there needed to be more specific restrictions on what the US military could do.
If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorisation, not one that limits our options
- John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives
Tim Kaine, a Democratic senator for Virginia, said that the phrase adopted by the administration about “enduring” ground operations was too “vague and ill-defined” and could still be used to justify the extensive involvement of US forces.
A proposal he introduced last year says that US forces can be used in the battle against Isis only in specific circumstances, such as search and rescue operations, providing information for air strikes and special operations forces.
Some Democrats also fear that the resolution could permit the launch of new military operations against Jihadist groups in other countries, such as Libya or even Nigeria, without ever having to consult Congress.
The new Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) retires a previous 2002 measure approved by Congress which authorised the Iraq invasion, but it leaves in place a separate 2001 resolution which backed the campaign against al-Qaeda.
Although the Obama administration wants the political seal of approval of a new resolution, it insists that the 2001 resolution — which also included language about “associated forces” — gives it the legal backing to launch the military campaign against Isis.
However, Mr Kaine said that there was “high scepticism” in Congress that the earlier authorisations could be used to support the anti-Isis operations.
In the letter to Congress, Mr. Obama justified the authorization on the premise that the Islamic State could at some point endanger the United States. “If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” he wrote.
While he repeated his contention that “existing statutes provide me with the authority I need,” he said he wanted to work with Congress to obtain bipartisan support. “I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our nation’s SECURITY than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.”
The president’s proposal was sent to Congress shortly after confirmation of the death of Kayla Mueller, 26, an American held by the Islamic State. The draft legislation specifically mentioned her and three other Americans who were held hostage and then killed by the Islamic State — James Foley, Steven J. Sotloff and Peter Kassig — in clauses justifying the need for military action.
If approved, the proposal would be the first time Congress has authorized a president’s use of force since lawmakers voted in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Mr. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 but has sent a limited number back as part of his campaign against the Islamic State. His proposed legislation would repeal the 2002 authorization but leave in place separate legislation passed in 2001 allowing force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Mr. Obama, who plans to make a statement at the White House at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday to discuss the matter, repeated in his letter his desire to work with Congress to “REFINE and ultimately repeal” the 2001 measure and distinguished his limited mission from the wars waged by his predecessor.
“My administration’s draft A.U.M.F.,” or Authorization for Use of Military Force, “would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he wrote. “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he welcomed Mr. Obama’s decision to seek the involvement of Congress in the military campaign. “It also will be important that the president exert leadership, lay out a clear strategy for confronting the threat posed by ISIS, and do the hard work of making the case to the American people why this fight is necessary and one we must WIN,” he said in a statement.
Mr. Corker said hearings would be scheduled to consider the matter and repeated his support for passage of a force measure. “Voting to authorize the use of military force is one of the most important actions Congress can take,” he said, “and while there will be differences, it is my hope that we will fulfill our constitutional responsibility, and in a bipartisan way, pass an authorization that allows us to confront this serious threat.”
But the contours of the debate to come were already clear on Wednesday. While some Republicans were concerned that Mr. Obama’s proposal was too constricting, setting the stage for an ineffectual effort, some Democrats quickly expressed concern that the measure would still give the president the power to go too far.
Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said Congress should not limit options. “If we’re going to authorize the use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to WIN the fight that we’re in,” he said at a news conference. “I’m not sure that’s a strategy that’s been outlined to accomplish the mission the president says he wants to accomplish.”
Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, said Mr. Obama needed to make clear to the American public that he was genuinely committed to victory. “If the president wants to engage in a halfhearted P.R. effort, to go through the motions to give the appearance that we’re fighting when we’re not doing what is necessary to WIN, then we should not engage,” he said.
On the other hand, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he worried that the president’s proposal set no geographic limits to the military campaign and that the definition of associated forces was too elastic. Moreover, he argued that unless it repealed the 2001 measure authorizing force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates or set a timetable for its expiration, the three-year limit on Mr. Obama’s measure was effectively meaningless because the next president could CONTINUE the war by claiming the authority of the earlier legislation.
“Additionally,” Mr. Schiff said, “a new authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the president coming to Congress to make the case for one.”
Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed those concerns. “If Congress grants any new authority for the use of military force, the authority must be significantly more limited than the authority the administration has proposed,” he said.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the majority leader in the upper chamber, offered a cautious, noncommittal response to the president’s request and said the Republican conference would meet later Wednesday for a discussion to be led by Mr. Corker and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
“Individual senators and committees of jurisdiction will review it carefully and they’ll listen closely to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy for defeating ISIL,” Mr. McConnell said.
Source :FT
Obama asks Congress to back war on Isis
Geoff Dyer in Washington
In a statement at the White House, Mr Obama said the resolution was designed to give the “flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances”. He would consider using US forces in Iraq or Syria if, for instance, the US received information about a meeting of Isis leaders.
But he insisted that the US was not getting “dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East”. The resolution was “not the authorisation of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq”.
However, the risk is that the White House’s proposal could backfire because it satisfies neither Republicans who want a more aggressive strategy against Isis, nor Democrats who are deeply wary about a new open-ended commitment to a war against Islamist terrorism.
Even some of the members of Congress who are strong supporters of the military operation against Isis fear that the new resolution could become bogged down in partisan political fighting that will damage US credibility.
“I worry about that a lot,” said John McCain, the Arizona Republican who now chairs the Senate armed services committee.
In a bid to address the different concerns in Congress, the administration has written a resolution text that is at once broad and narrow.
Although operations against Isis so far have taken place only in Iraq and Syria, the resolution places no geographic limits on the fight against either Isis or what it calls “associated persons or forces” — a phrase that has been used in the past to justify counter-terrorism operations against a range of different groups.
However, at the same time the resolution calls on the next president to return to Congress in three years’ time to either justify or change the military campaign and bars the US military from conducting what it calls “enduring offensive ground combat operations”.
As the debate starts to kick off in Congress, the most controversial issue will be the potential use of US ground troops in the conflict. There has already been some tension on the subject between the president, who has repeatedly pledged to avoid sending ground troops, and the Pentagon, which wants some US military personnel to be present during any ground offensive to retake towns in northern Iraq.
Senior Republicans — some of whom have openly called for US troops to PLAY a more direct role in the anti-Isis campaign — immediately accused the president on Wednesday of tying the military’s hands behind its back.
“If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorisation, not one that limits our options,” said House speaker John Boehner. The president’s request did not give military commanders “the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people”.
“Rather than expanding his legal authority to go after ISIL, the president seems determined to ask Congress to further restrict the authority of the US military to confront this threat,” said Kevin McCarthy, the house majority leader.
However, a number of Democrats — who are mostly deeply opposed to the return of US ground troops to Iraq — said that there needed to be more specific restrictions on what the US military could do.
If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorisation, not one that limits our options
- John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives
Tim Kaine, a Democratic senator for Virginia, said that the phrase adopted by the administration about “enduring” ground operations was too “vague and ill-defined” and could still be used to justify the extensive involvement of US forces.
A proposal he introduced last year says that US forces can be used in the battle against Isis only in specific circumstances, such as search and rescue operations, providing information for air strikes and special operations forces.
Some Democrats also fear that the resolution could permit the launch of new military operations against Jihadist groups in other countries, such as Libya or even Nigeria, without ever having to consult Congress.
The new Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) retires a previous 2002 measure approved by Congress which authorised the Iraq invasion, but it leaves in place a separate 2001 resolution which backed the campaign against al-Qaeda.
Although the Obama administration wants the political seal of approval of a new resolution, it insists that the 2001 resolution — which also included language about “associated forces” — gives it the legal backing to launch the military campaign against Isis.
However, Mr Kaine said that there was “high scepticism” in Congress that the earlier authorisations could be used to support the anti-Isis operations.
In the letter to Congress, Mr. Obama justified the authorization on the premise that the Islamic State could at some point endanger the United States. “If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” he wrote.
While he repeated his contention that “existing statutes provide me with the authority I need,” he said he wanted to work with Congress to obtain bipartisan support. “I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our nation’s SECURITY than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.”
The president’s proposal was sent to Congress shortly after confirmation of the death of Kayla Mueller, 26, an American held by the Islamic State. The draft legislation specifically mentioned her and three other Americans who were held hostage and then killed by the Islamic State — James Foley, Steven J. Sotloff and Peter Kassig — in clauses justifying the need for military action.
If approved, the proposal would be the first time Congress has authorized a president’s use of force since lawmakers voted in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Mr. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 but has sent a limited number back as part of his campaign against the Islamic State. His proposed legislation would repeal the 2002 authorization but leave in place separate legislation passed in 2001 allowing force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Mr. Obama, who plans to make a statement at the White House at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday to discuss the matter, repeated in his letter his desire to work with Congress to “REFINE and ultimately repeal” the 2001 measure and distinguished his limited mission from the wars waged by his predecessor.
“My administration’s draft A.U.M.F.,” or Authorization for Use of Military Force, “would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he wrote. “Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he welcomed Mr. Obama’s decision to seek the involvement of Congress in the military campaign. “It also will be important that the president exert leadership, lay out a clear strategy for confronting the threat posed by ISIS, and do the hard work of making the case to the American people why this fight is necessary and one we must WIN,” he said in a statement.
Mr. Corker said hearings would be scheduled to consider the matter and repeated his support for passage of a force measure. “Voting to authorize the use of military force is one of the most important actions Congress can take,” he said, “and while there will be differences, it is my hope that we will fulfill our constitutional responsibility, and in a bipartisan way, pass an authorization that allows us to confront this serious threat.”
But the contours of the debate to come were already clear on Wednesday. While some Republicans were concerned that Mr. Obama’s proposal was too constricting, setting the stage for an ineffectual effort, some Democrats quickly expressed concern that the measure would still give the president the power to go too far.
Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said Congress should not limit options. “If we’re going to authorize the use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to WIN the fight that we’re in,” he said at a news conference. “I’m not sure that’s a strategy that’s been outlined to accomplish the mission the president says he wants to accomplish.”
Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, said Mr. Obama needed to make clear to the American public that he was genuinely committed to victory. “If the president wants to engage in a halfhearted P.R. effort, to go through the motions to give the appearance that we’re fighting when we’re not doing what is necessary to WIN, then we should not engage,” he said.
On the other hand, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he worried that the president’s proposal set no geographic limits to the military campaign and that the definition of associated forces was too elastic. Moreover, he argued that unless it repealed the 2001 measure authorizing force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates or set a timetable for its expiration, the three-year limit on Mr. Obama’s measure was effectively meaningless because the next president could CONTINUE the war by claiming the authority of the earlier legislation.
“Additionally,” Mr. Schiff said, “a new authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the president coming to Congress to make the case for one.”
Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed those concerns. “If Congress grants any new authority for the use of military force, the authority must be significantly more limited than the authority the administration has proposed,” he said.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the majority leader in the upper chamber, offered a cautious, noncommittal response to the president’s request and said the Republican conference would meet later Wednesday for a discussion to be led by Mr. Corker and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
“Individual senators and committees of jurisdiction will review it carefully and they’ll listen closely to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy for defeating ISIL,” Mr. McConnell said.
Source :FT
No comments:
Post a Comment