War against Islamic State: 5 questions Obama will have to address

President Obama has asked Congress to grant him authority to use force against the Islamic State. The proposal raised questions among Republicans and Democrats.

|
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
President Obama is flanked by Secretary of State John Kerry (2nd r.) and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (r.) as he delivers a statement from the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington Wednesday on legislation sent to Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State.

President Obama on Wednesday sent draft legislation to Congress seeking lawmakers' authorization for use of military force to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

While the legislation allows the United States to use force against the Islamic State or “associated persons or forces,” it limits that authorization to three years and does not allow US military forces for any “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” The wording is meant to give the president wiggle room for targeted use of troops, such as rescuing a downed pilot, the White House says.

Members of Congress were glad to see the White House finally send them draft legislation (the US started airstrikes against the Islamic State in August). But it was immediately met with a barrage of concerns and questions from both sides of the aisle. 

What are Congress's concerns? Here are five: 

What’s the overall strategy to defeat the Islamic State?

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to sign on the dotted line before knowing the administration’s overall strategy to defeat the Islamic State. What's the military objective? What will victory look like? What’s the responsibility of regional players? 

Humanitarian aid, intelligence, training of regional troops and Syrian rebels, as well as coalition forces all play a role, but how do those things fit together?

“Upcoming congressional hearings will provide the administration an opportunity to lay out their plan to defeat this radical Islamic terrorist threat,” said House majority whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R) of Louisiana in a statement.

Why tie the president’s hands? 

This concerns Republican hawks who worry about restrictions in the draft, such as the three-year time frame or the exclusion of combat troops involved in “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”

“Any authorization for the use of military force [AUMF] must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an AUMF against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard,” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio said in a statement. 

Why allow the president wiggle room? 

Just as hawks worry the president is limiting his options, many Democrats – and some odd-bedfellow libertarian Republicans – want more restrictions. They want to nail down the definition of “enduring” offensive ground combat operations. If the president means the ability to rescue a downed pilot, as the White House suggested, then say so.

What they don’t want is this president, or a future one – since the three-year time limit would apply to the start of the next administration, to deploy 100,000 troops for 18 months and then say that fits the not “enduring” definition because there’s an end date, explained Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

Other concerns include vague language authorizing force against forces or persons “associated” with the Islamic State – as well as the lack of limits on geographic location.

What about Syrian forces and President Bashar al-Assad

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) of South Carolina poses this scenario: What if Mr. Assad’s forces bomb US-trained forces? Can the US strike back? Not according to the White House. “That is fatally flawed,” he says.

More broadly is the question of what to do about Assad himself. Syrian rebels would like the US to take out Assad. But the administration is reluctant to involve itself heavily in a civil war, one that includes many factions – factions that may well keep fighting even without Assad.

What about the 2001 authorization of force?

The draft legislation sent to Congress on Wednesday repeals the authorization for the use of force passed in 2002 for the Iraq invasion, but it keeps in place the 2001 post-9/11 authorization that led to the Afghanistan war.

This concerns Democrats such as Representative Schiff and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

The White House has argued that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations cover its current airstrikes – the 2001 authorization allows it to go after Al Qaeda and affiliates, while the 2002 authorization allowed the invasion of Iraq. It's only asking for fresh authorization because it wants to demonstrate broad bipartisan backing for fighting the Islamic State.

But when the proposed three-year authorization for the Islamic State expires, what’s to prevent a president from falling back on the 2001 authorization to keep on fighting? Doesn't the 2001 authorization pretty much obviate the need for the new draft legislation?

Such Democrats would like to also repeal the 2001 authorization, or at least get a commitment from the administration to do so. According to The Hill newspaper, the White House plans to also sunset the 2001 authorization, but it wants to deal with that separately. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to War against Islamic State: 5 questions Obama will have to address
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2015/0211/War-against-Islamic-State-5-questions-Obama-will-have-to-address
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe