Obama asks fresh war powers, says IS group 'going to lose'

[webfact]

Obama asks fresh war powers, says IS group 'going to lose'
By DAVID ESPO and NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vowing that Islamic State forces are "going to lose," President Barack Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to authorize military action against terrorists who are cutting a swath across the Middle East. Yet he ruled out large-scale U.S. ground combat operations reminiscent of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war," the president said at the White House as he set Congress on a path to its first war-powers vote in 13 years.

Despite his words of reassurance, initial reaction in Congress amounted to bipartisan skepticism, with much of the dissatisfaction centered on his attempt to find a political middle ground with respect to ground forces.

Republicans expressed unhappiness that he had chosen to exclude any long-term commitment of ground forces, while some Democrats voiced dismay that he had opened the door to deployment at all.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also said Obama had ruled out air support for U.S.-trained rebels battling Syrian President Bashar Assad, adding, "That's immoral."

Under Obama's proposal, the use of military force against Islamic State fighters would be authorized for three years, unbounded by national borders. The fight could be extended to any "closely related successor entity" to the Islamic State organization that has overrun parts of Iraq and Syria, imposed a stern form of Sharia law and killed several hostages it has taken, Americans among them.

"Make no mistake. This is a difficult mission," Obama said in seeking action against a group that he said threatens America's own security. He said it will take time to dislodge the terrorists, especially from urban areas. "But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose." ISIL is one acronym for the Islamic State group.

The 2002 congressional authorization that preceded the American-led invasion of Iraq would be repealed under the White House proposal, a step some Republicans were unhappy to see. But a separate authorization that was approved by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would remain in force, to the consternation of some Democrats.

At the heart of the debate, the struggle to define any role for American ground forces is likely to determine the outcome of the administration's request for legislation. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the proposal was intentionally ambiguous on that point to give the president flexibility, although the approach also was an attempt to bridge a deep divide in Congress.

While asking lawmakers to bar long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama said he wants the flexibility for ground combat operations "in other more limited circumstances." Those include rescue missions, intelligence collection and the use of special operations forces in possible military action against Islamic State leaders.

While he proposed legislation to terminate in three years, Obama said, "It is not a timetable. It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period. What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president's term."

Whatever the outcome, Obama's request puts Congress on the path toward a vote that could reverberate unpredictably for years.

A post-9/11 request from then-President George W. Bush for authorization to use military force against Iraq was intensely controversial, and it played a role in Obama's successful campaign for the White House in 2008.

His chief rival for the Democratic nomination, then-New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted in favor of the Bush proposal. Obama, who was not in Congress at the time of the vote, said later he would have opposed it, and he made it an issue in the presidential race.

Clinton, who served four years as Obama's secretary of state and is now a likely candidate for president in 2016, had no immediate reaction to the new White House proposal.

Lawmakers were not as reticent, although outright supporters of the president's plan were relatively scarce.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, expressed doubt it would "give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people."

He said changes are likely before the measure comes to a vote, although one House committee set an initial hearing for Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., like Boehner, said the proposal would receive serious consideration.

Democrats had a different reason to question the president's proposal.

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, issued a statement that refrained from endorsing Obama's request. It said Congress should act judiciously and promptly to pass legislation "narrowly tailored" to the fight against Islamic State fighters. She has said previously she opposes deploying U.S. "boots on the ground."

Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Senate's longest-serving Democrat, cautioned that any legislation must be in a form that avoids "repeating the missteps of the past and that does not result in an open-ended authorization that becomes legal justification for future actions against unknown enemies, in unknown places, at unknown times."

In a letter to lawmakers accompanying the three-page draft legislation, Obama referred to four American hostages who have died in Islamic State custody — at least three of them beheaded. He said the militant group, if left unchecked, "will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland."

Among the four hostages was Kayla Mueller, a 26-year-old humanitarian worker whose death under unknown circumstances was confirmed Tuesday.

In the past, Obama has cited congressional authorizations from 2001 and 2002 to justify his decision to deploy more than 2,700 U.S. troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces and conduct airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.

Obama said coalition airstrikes were disrupting terrorist supply lines, destroying their tanks, their barracks, their training grounds and the oil and gas facilities that support their operations.
___

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Erica Werner and Laurie Kellman contributed to this story.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-12

[Seastallion]

It is indeed a tough call either way.

On the one hand, ISIS has to be eradicated and that can't be done with airstrikes alone.

On the other hand, we don't want to see Americans in body bags, or a repeat of the abysmal cowboy reckless collateral damage they inflicted in Iraq.

[NeverSure]

Collateral damage often comes from airstrikes. OTOH I hate to see boots on the ground. I wish ISIS would go away but it won't unless obliterated.

I would go after them with all four feet but then I'm glad I don't have to make the call.

[biggles45]

Let the oil rich, muslim arab states take care of the problem. The Locals won't thank you, just blame you for trying to help as the always do.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Let the oil rich, muslim arab states take care of the problem. The Locals won't thank you, just blame you for trying to help as the always do.

I agree 100% there is more than enough manpower and oil money in that region to let the Muslim countries deal with this on their own. The US sticking their nose into that region even more will just provide more reasons for these religious zealots to focus their hatred on the west thus making it even easier to recruit more crazies into their cause.

If the US never went into Iraq and destabilized that region, this would not even be an issue right now. Does anyone in Iraq feel like they are better off now?

Their excuse was 9/11 and WMD's but we now know that was all a lie.

take the money you would have put into the war and use that to track the foreign fighters joining IS. Make sure they can never go back home.

Any money left over you can put to education and healthcare.

[sunshine51]

The problem with letting the oil rich Arab nations take care of IS

or anyone else like them, is they won't take care of the problem.

Some rank outsider (infidel) has to do it...such as the US or NATO

or the Russians etc. This begats huge problems and usually

gives birth to more hatred of "the West" by Muslim nations.

I only hope that Obama has his military advisors working on

not only an attack/defeat IS plan but also a timely withdrawal

plan when IS is "defeated" so this proposed War Powers Act

reinstatement doesn't end up like Afghanistan or Iraq.

That said how does one go about identification of IS beligerants?

This will be a daunting task...akin to performing a humanitarian

mine clearance operation where one must ID, locate & remove

100% of all mines laid...not just 99.5%. Or much less in a battlefield

mine clearance operation when a path through the minefield wide

enough to manouver troops & equipment is acceptable until the

battle is over.

Yes...a tough nut to crack this is going to be.

[richardathuahin]

Oh whoopie. Another US war to lose on the way. When will they learn that interference breeds more contempt and more hatred and killings?

Stay away and let the region implode is the best option IMO. Keep the west out and let the Ruskies and Chinese make a sacrifice instead.

[yankee99]

Let the oil rich, muslim arab states take care of the problem. The Locals won't thank you, just blame you for trying to help as the always do.

Jordan seems to be leading the way :}

[RT555]

i can't wait for Hillary Clinton to take office over this Spineless Coward Obama......Saudia Arabia, Iran, should be 2 craters seen from the moon.

[Credo]

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

Oh whoopie. Another US war to lose on the way. When will they learn that interference breeds more contempt and more hatred and killings?

Stay away and let the region implode is the best option IMO. Keep the west out and let the Ruskies and Chinese make a sacrifice instead.

Let the oil rich, muslim arab states take care of the problem. The Locals won't thank you, just blame you for trying to help as the always do.

Jordan seems to be leading the way :}

The problem can't be taken care of by Arab states alone. The attacks are also occurring in Western Countries.

Jordan is a good starting point, but remember that Jordan only wanted to extract it's pound of flesh for the killed pilot. The underlying feeling of many Jordanians is that they should stay out of this and that it is the alliance with the US that caused the problem in the first place.

[Scott]

A post with remarks inside the quote tags has been removed.

[canuckamuck]

Right now the top brass is in the war room working out the precise formula to almost win a war against ISIS and then a protracted quagmire of about 10 years. Shouldn't take long, the formula has been perfect the last two tries.

[tw25rw]

I don't think it would be that protracted. There aren't that many of them, it just seems like there are because they are fighting relatively weak opponents and quickly capture large areas of (mostly) empty territory. They are also making a lot more enemies than friends. Local people aren't going to voluntarily assist them like they did the anti US insurgents. The biggest problem will be tracking down survivors that try to melt back into society in their own countries.

Annihilation is the best policy where IS and then Boko Haram are concerned. Take no prisoners, give no quarter. Just kill them on the spot.

[Dumbastheycome]

" unbounded by national borders". Is that like" global licence" to ?

[Dumbastheycome]

"an open ended authorization that becomes legal justification for future actions against unknown enemies , in unknown places, at unknown times."

If this occurs, there is no safe place at the dictate of ?????????

[rgs2001uk]

The problem with letting the oil rich Arab nations take care of IS

or anyone else like them, is they won't take care of the problem.

Some rank outsider (infidel) has to do it...such as the US or NATO

or the Russians etc. This begats huge problems and usually

gives birth to more hatred of "the West" by Muslim nations.

I only hope that Obama has his military advisors working on

not only an attack/defeat IS plan but also a timely withdrawal

plan when IS is "defeated" so this proposed War Powers Act

reinstatement doesn't end up like Afghanistan or Iraq.

That said how does one go about identification of IS beligerants?

This will be a daunting task...akin to performing a humanitarian

mine clearance operation where one must ID, locate & remove

100% of all mines laid...not just 99.5%. Or much less in a battlefield

mine clearance operation when a path through the minefield wide

enough to manouver troops & equipment is acceptable until the

battle is over.

Yes...a tough nut to crack this is going to be.

The problem with letting the oil rich Arab nations take care of IS

or anyone else like them, is they won't take care of the problem.

What exactly is the problem?

Its not so long ago the West was asking for the overthrow of Assad, its not so long ago the Marsh Arabs in Iraq were shat on after they were encouraged to revolt and stand up to Saddam.

No need for boots on the ground, they are already there, let the Saudis, Bahrainis and Kuwaitis get their troops on the ground to protect their autocratic theocracies.

Is the problem maybe that our puppets will be replaced by their puppets?

How the West must be yearning for the good old days when we had these muppet dictators in our back pockets.

Good old Saddam, Ghaddafi and Mubbarak knew the rules and everything was hunky dory.

This shyt can be traced back to protecting the Wahhabist regime in Saudi.

Why in 1990 Saddam stopped at the border I will never know, he could have been in Riyadh 6 hours later.

If OBL was American he would be lauded on here as a "patriot"

The stench of camel shyt and hyprocisy is overpowering at times.

[rotary]

Is this the same Obama who sit on his hands and closed his mouth while ISIS got started? Jimmy Carter loves that fact Obama boosted his legacy.

[arjunadawn]

"an open ended authorization that becomes legal justification for future actions against unknown enemies , in unknown places, at unknown times."

If this occurs, there is no safe place at the dictate of ?????????

Are we really this blind? Granting this "man" war powers is the most dangerous things American could do TO the world. This use of force is no more than a backdoor to disabling his political opponents from opposing his insidious transfer of power to a nascent caliphate. There is absolutely nothing in the Obama legacy which demonstrates the maturity and resolve to represent America and the West in the manner he suggests he will/has. Obama has not failed at every single thing he has touched; Obama has been successful in every single jihadi related meddling undertaken. Dissembling, lying, word splitting, and strong-arming define this president. Do not trust this executive.

Before his term expires America will increasingly stand shocked, aghast, at what [they] have created, and what is being done in "their name." Do not give this man war powers. This is not a slippery slope. This is a precipice atop an abyss.