Posted on 02/04/2015 6:13:53 PM PST by jazusamo
The White House is poised to send a formal request to Congress asking for a new authorization to use military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
The request, expected within the next week, would come days after ISIS released a video showing a caged Jordanian pilot being burned alive — a further display of the group’s brutality that one Republican lawmaker described Wednesday as a “game-changer.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he would be “disappointed” if President Obama did not make the request very soon. “I do think it’s forthcoming,” Corker said in a short interview with The Hill. “I would be very surprised — disappointed actually — if it’s not here by the end of next week. And maybe sooner.”
Sending an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to Congress would open a complicated debate for the White House on war policy.
Obama has repeatedly said he will not send combat troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, even as he has increased the number of U.S. military advisers in the country.
But the White House also does not want the military’s hands tied in Iraq, and is likely to oppose any language ruling out the use of ground troops.
Democrats say any AUMF should contain a time limit for the authorization and also ban the use of U.S. ground troops in combat in Iraq and Syria.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said he’d “have trouble supporting” any AUMF that included the option of boots on the ground, and that most House Democrats feel the same way.
“I would bet it’s a significant majority [of Democrats] would not vote for it,” Yarmuth said Wednesday.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) is another critic, saying he’s “very troubled” by the notion of new boots on the ground in the Middle East.
“I’m as outraged as anybody by the atrocities by ISIS — this latest murder is just unconscionable,” he added. “But we need to make sure that whatever response we come up with is one that is effective, and I’m not convinced that another all-out war is the way to go.”
Many Republicans would oppose restrictions and want an AUMF that aligns with a muscular U.S. response to ISIS.
Congressional calls for stronger action against ISIS have typically followed the group’s execution of Western hostages. Since July, the group has beheaded three Americans, two Britons and two people from Japan.
The group is holding an American woman hostage. The administration has not released information on the humanitarian aid worker as part of an effort to protect her.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday there has been progress on developing AUMF language “that could earn bipartisan support.”
“I would anticipate we would have more news on an AUMF relatively soon,” he added.
Republicans on Wednesday said they were eager to debate the White House’s strategy against ISIS. They’ve grown increasingly frustrated with the administration for not sending the AUMF request, and have pointed out that Obama promised to do so at a White House meeting with Capitol Hill leaders on Jan. 13.
“When we met with the president in the White House, he said it would be coming soon. His actions speak much more strongly than his words,” Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), a member of GOP leadership who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday.
Other lawmakers said the killing of the Jordanian pilot would galvanize support for a deal.
“It clarifies what was clear before, which is there’s going to be overwhelming congressional support for this,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), the Democrat most loudly advocating for a new AUMF. “The president is going to find a strong, strong supermajority of members of both houses in both parties who want to do this.”
“I’ll have to see what the president says, but certainly what happened in Jordan and what happened in Japan … has shown that we’re dealing with one of the most heinous groups that we’ve seen, and we need to take action for the protection of humanity,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).
“I’m open to it,” he added, referring to the troops-on-the-ground option.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” the killing of the pilot must be a “game-changer” for Obama.
“Not the degrading of ISIS, not the containing of ISIS, but the destroying and crushing of ISIS has got to be the first and foremost goal,” he said.
The Obama administration has used an AUMF approved just after 9/11 as the legal basis for action against ISIS, even as the president has called for it to be replaced.
Obama has authorized the deployment of 3,100 advisers to Iraq, and could order as many as 1,000 more to the Middle East to train moderate Syrian rebels.
A U.S.-led coalition has also conducted 2,264 strikes in Iraq and Syria, killing more than 6,000 ISIS fighters.
An AUMF would give Congress the opportunity to explicitly approve those efforts, as well as allow lawmakers to debate whether restrictions should be placed on the use of force.
Senate Armed Services Committee members are also calling on the administration to expedite delayed U.S. shipments of military equipment to Jordan — a request that came directly from King Abdullah II, who was visiting the Capitol when the news of the pilot’s death broke.
Republicans have criticized the president’s strategy against ISIS as weak, and some have called for the deployment of as many as 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria.
Jordan and other countries impacted by ISIS “will look to us for leadership but we haven’t seen the kind of leadership we need,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), an Intelligence Committee member who had planned to sit down with the Jordanian king Wednesday before his meeting was nixed.
“Maybe this will be a precipitating event over at the White House,” he said.
Mike Lillis contributed to this story.
Scary thing is, you’re probably right.
We didn’t spend “decades” building the Iraqi army as a buffer to the Soviets, Iraq was a Soviet client state right through to the dissolving of the USSR and then it resumed as a client of Russia, France and Milosevic.
We didn’t have access to the Iraqi army until after the invasion of March 2003.
...Which is why when we invaded, the weapons left behind by Saddam’s forces were Soviet, French, and lest I forget, Chinese.
We’ve supported the Kurds in Iraq against Saddam Hussein since Nixon’s time and their forces never were “dissolved.”
War powers should only be granted if Obama steps down. He’s the reason for all the trouble over there. Why should we trust him to fix it?
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) is another critic, saying he’s “very troubled” by the notion of new boots on the ground in the Middle East.
“I’m as outraged as anybody by the atrocities by ISIS — this latest murder is just unconscionable,” he added. “But we need to make sure that whatever response we come up with is one that is effective, and I’m not convinced that another all-out war is the way to go.”
Another all out war? The last time we fought an all out war was WW2.
A U.S.-led coalition has also conducted 2,264 strikes in Iraq and Syria, killing more than 6,000 ISIS fighters.
So, we only kill 3 ISIS terrorists per strike. That's pathetic, but typical of how libs want to fight a war.
Obammahead is asking for this power so that he can attack Israel at will by saying they are too aggressive in defending themselves against HIS muzzie brothers.
The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes (R-CA), was on Megyn last night. Good interview and informative re ISIS IMHO. One of the things he brought up is that we’ve been very slow in getting weapons and supplies to the Kurds - - I remember hearing and/or reading months ago that we were going to expedite those.
video here: http://www.foxnews.com/shows/the-kelly-file.html
There was another guest (don’t recall which one, but I think it may have been Lt. Gen McInerney) on Megyn last night talking about the number of sorties being flown and compared the number today (IIRC it was 7 or 70)with the number in the 2 previous Iraq wars, which was almost or over 1,000 per day.
The White House is poised to send a formal request to Congress asking for a new authorization to use military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.Always a good idea to wait until Zero has to BEG for it. Fail!
He will NEVER deploy troops, or make *any* meaningful campaign against ISIS, any more than he's made against Assad, against al-Qaeda, FOR the Kurds, against Boko Haram ("Nigeria is violating human rights!"), FOR Falun Gong...
"Do You REALLY Think I'd Fall For That?!?"
A U.S.-led coalition has also conducted 2,264 strikes in Iraq and Syria, killing more than 6,000 ISIS fighters.
I figured if I scrolled down, someone would have posted this before me, but it bears repeating.
Roughly 2 1/3 killed per strike (undefined term), at what cost for each one?
I’m still not convinced that man’s direct oversight of drone missions was not to ensure the least important possible target was selected.
2 2/3....
oops
find the memory hole on that last figure - say, did you know that unemployment is down?
Yes, we seem to be using the tactic of going after cockroaches with .22 shotshells...
Sure give Obama War Powers, and turn him loose on Mesopotamia, and you will see Libya in Rubble x 100.
Its that last thing Congress should do is give this Obama imbecile War Power.He will use it to attack US allies.
I don’t think this is good. What ever Obama does will be half assed and I can never be convinced that he doesn’t link our plans and strategies through his Muslim Brotherhood White House Czars.
I totally agree. He sympathizes with the MB, Islamic rebels and CAIR here in the U.S. and none are our friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
