White House asking authorization for military to fight IS

[webfact]

White House asking authorization for military to fight IS
By DAVID ESPO and NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House circulated a proposal Tuesday to authorize the Pentagon to fight Islamic State terrorists without an "enduring offensive combat" role, an ambiguous phrase designed to satisfy lawmakers with widely varying views on the need for U.S. ground operations.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J, describing the proposal to reporters, said President Barack Obama would seek an authorization for the use of force that would expire after three years. It would end the approval for operations in Iraq that Congress passed in 2002.

Menendez spoke after he and other Democratic senators met privately with top White House aides, on the eve of an anticipated formal request for legislation from the president.

"Hopefully there will not be a significant delay in Congress acting," said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

The meetings unfolded against a fresh reminder of the threat posed by terrorists who occupy large areas of Syria and Iraq — the confirmed death of a 26-year-old American aid worker who had been held hostage by the group.

Obama pledged to bring anyone responsible for Kayla Mueller's captivity and death to justice "no matter how long it takes."

Of immediate concern was a legislative struggle — the search for a compromise that could satisfy Democrats who oppose the use of American ground forces in the fight against IS, and Republicans who favor at least leaving the possibility open.

Menendez, in describing the White House's opaque formulation, said it remained subject to modification. "That's where the rub will be" as the White House tries to win approval for the legislation, he said.

One influential Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said it was "bizarre" for Obama to be asking lawmakers to limit his own power as commander in chief.

A senior Democrat, Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, said she has significant questions about the president's proposal. "I don't know what the word 'enduring' means. I am very apprehensive about a vague, foggy word," she said.

Menendez also said it was not yet clear if the proposal would cancel a 2001 authorization for the use of force that Congress approved shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Republicans control both houses of Congress, and presidents generally court bipartisan support for legislation of the type Obama now seeks.

Several other lawmakers who were briefed in earlier meetings, said the president would likely seek legislation targeted exclusively against the fighters seeking establishment of an Islamic state, wherever they are and whatever name they use.

Public sentiment indicates general support for the airstrikes that have been underway for months, but less for the use of American ground troops on the heels of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In an AP-GfK poll taken in late January and early February, 58 percent of those surveyed said they favor U.S. involvement in airstrikes, which Obama ordered months ago. Only 31 percent backed deployment of U.S. troops on the ground.

Apart from the midday meeting with Democrats in the Capitol attended by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, some Republicans expressed concern with other elements of the administration's emerging proposal.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said administration officials had told him it would not provide for the protection of U.S.-trained Syrian rebel troops on the ground in the event of an air attack by Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar Assad.

"It's an unsound military strategy. I think it's immoral if the authorization doesn't allow for us to counter Assad's air power," he said.

There was little evident dispute in Congress that new legislation was needed, both to replace outdated authorization and also to underscore a bipartisan desire to defeat the terrorists seeking an Islamic state. The group has seized territory in Syria and Iraq, imposed a violent form of Sharia law and beheaded several hostages from the United States and other Western countries. Last week, it distributed a horrifying videotape showing the killing-by-burning of a Jordanian pilot.

Mueller's death was the latest event to produce calls for retaliation.

Among members of Obama's party, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said during the day that some rank-and-file lawmakers want to set geographic limits and restrict the types of forces that can be used.

"They want some time limit so we can reconsider at some point in time, whether it's 24 months, 36 months, 48 months," he said at a news conference.

Republicans praised Obama's willingness to seek legislation, up to a point.

"This president, you know, is prone to unilateral action. But when it comes to national security matters, and particularly now fighting this barbaric threat — not only the region but to our own security — I think it's important to come to Congress and get bipartisan support," said John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-ranking Republican leader.

Many Republicans have said they prefer legislation that at least permits the use of ground troops if Obama decides they may be necessary. Some, including McCain, have gone further, saying ground troops are needed if the Islamic State fighters are to be defeated.

Obama so far has relied on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after 9/11. He said last year he had the legal authority necessary to deploy more than 2,700 U.S. troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces and conduct ongoing airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.
___

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman and Alan Fram contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-11

[tw25rw]

Isn't this just more of the 'war on terror' that was declared in 2001? Where IS/Al Qaeda/Boko Haram etc are concerned, there shouldn't be any question of the need for total war against them.

[hawker9000]

Hmmm. 'Wonder how well this is going to go over with the liberal base (you know, the one that elected and then re-elected him for moving troops in the opposite direction)...

[arjunadawn]

No. I dont feel better that this president has now officially sought a declaration of... of what? Not war. This president has not sought authorization for a number of acts which are clearly outside of the statutory authority of the War Powers Act, or even direct constitutional authority. Seeking authority to battle IS all over planet earth while not being able to define publicly what IS is (although the world knows), and scrubbing the US lexicon of all traces of "islamic" and "muslim," is a recipe for unrestrained power; the utter slippery slope of total war. Not only does this president trip over himself to defend Islam from its muslim adherents (while Islam itself declares little in its defense) this president bastardized christians and seeks to silence outrage as if somehow people born today are born with a corruption of blood from 1,000 years ago, and therefore have no right to bitch.

This president as recently as yesterday refused to acknowledge IS were muslim/islamic terrorists. He noted how those murdering the American woman would be held criminally accountable. Really? Are we so ignorant that we will give this saboteur cover for status (jus ad belum) while he further enables, under the congressional cover for action (fighting bad guys), the very goals of those who seek to destroy the US and the west?

How on earth could a congressional authorization for worldwide war upon IS have any utility unless its purpose was a stalking horse to another end? You cannot war upon that which you cannot define. This president has until now waged war in such a manner, without authority, that solely calls into question his motivations alone. His policies to date stand in unique isolation from any current joint resolution- whether it is Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Libya, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan this president has waged war upon all the first tier enemies of IS and AQ; having handed these two vast swathes of power and land he now seeks to war upon them? Cui bono? Stretching a Authorization of Use of Military force from 2001, and inventing new authorities, this president has laid the entire foundation for regional war, but not in a manner friendly to the US. Now he throws back the curtain, revealing the diabolism he has wrought himself, and seeks a new global authority to war to cure those ills, of his own hand? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Advisers; Special Forces; Search and Rescue... has there ever been a story like this in US history? Why would one suppose the slippery slope would end elsewhere?

[pattayasnowman]

"Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain!" became a rallying cry for action, which came with the Spanish-American War later that year.

Hearst : "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Once again the public is being manipulated into war. This time the pretext its not 9/11 or WMD but to counter the nasty terrorist.

Whoever is behind these barbaric acts I am sure it is not as simple, not as "black and white " ,as we are being lead to believe.

US foreign policy , regardlest of the goverment of the day, is the control of the Middle East and its remaining Oil reserves.

Failing to form a coalition with its Lap Dog UK government, It was denied the opportunity to invade Syria a couple of years ago to topple Assad.

This is the plan B - the 'backdoor' invasion on the pretext of countering terrorism.

Who created IS, who financed (Finacies) , who supplied all the advanced US weaponry to these 'terrorist" ????

Who is really behind the the radical sectarian TV channels, both Sunni and Shia, which are broadcasting religious views and fueling hate across the Mid-East.

Divide and Conquer - not a new approach but effective and perhaps the policy of the US and its Allies.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hmmm. 'Wonder how well this is going to go over with the liberal base (you know, the one that elected and then re-elected him for moving troops in the opposite direction)...

He is moving troops in the opposite direction - instead of South to Afghanistan they are moving North to Iraq.

[hawker9000]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hmmm. 'Wonder how well this is going to go over with the liberal base (you know, the one that elected and then re-elected him for moving troops in the opposite direction)...

He is moving troops in the opposite direction - instead of South to Afghanistan they are moving North to Iraq.

The direction I was referring to of course was back to the U.S.! As of July (the most recent figure I could readily find, but I didn't search exhaustively), there were only 750 troops in Iraq. There may be a few more now, but the troops withdrawn from Afghanistan have certainly not simply been moving to Iraq. Maybe they should have been though... It's obvious to me that the precipitous (and unadvised) withdrawal from Iraq was a huge mistake in the first place, and one for which we might yet have to pay a heavy price.