Originally published Monday, September 8, 2014 at 9:43 PM
WASHINGTON -
As President Obama prepares an offensive strategy against Islamic extremists, some on Capitol Hill are downplaying expectations of sweeping new military actions in Iraq or Syria.
For lawmakers, the tough politics of war may limit how much support the White House will receive in Congress as the president addresses the nation Wednesday.
The understanding on Capitol Hill is that the administration will not launch a military offensive that would require new congressional authorization.
More likely, the administration will continue the aerial military strikes under way on key strongholds in Iraq and could begin similar bombing in Syria, some on the Hill believe.
Congressional leaders are to meet with the president for a briefing at the White House on Tuesday afternoon.
While members of Congress are eager to debate the White House's strategy against the group Islamic State, most are loathe to put their names to a vote - especially weeks before a very tight midterm election that will determine which party controls Congress.
After conversations over the past week, 'the White House is aware there really is no appetite for a vote,' said one senior congressional aide, who was not authorized to discuss the deliberations.
White House officials have indicated the administration has no plans to formally ask for their approval.
'It's important in the mind of the president for Congress to be a partner in these decisions,' said White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday. 'But ultimately, it is the responsibility of the commander-in-chief to make the kinds of decisions related to our military that rests on the shoulders of the president.'
A majority of Americans favor additional airstrikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, though 61 percent oppose placing U.S. troops on the ground to fight the terrorist group, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Monday.
Nearly three out of four voters said Obama should ask Congress for the authority to use additional military force and 82 percent said Congress should approve that request.
Bolder action in Syria would be welcome by Republican defense hawks, and some moderate-leaning Democrats, including Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, the home state of the slain journalist Steven Sotloff, who was held captive by the group.
'We're going to have to deal with them, not only in Iraq, where we are now, but elsewhere,' Nelson said Monday in the Senate. 'As the president has already indicated, this is going to be a long-term kind of operation.'
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been noncommittal on Nelson's legislation that would give Obama congressional authority to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria.
'Senator Nelson, I think, is expressing the frustration of some Democrats that we haven't seen a plan yet,' McConnell said last week on Fox Business.
House Speaker John Boehner said that president has the authority to conduct airstrikes in Iraq but it's 'questionable' whether he can expand to Syria. White House officials have indicated the president hasn't made that decision and doesn't plan to announce a dramatic expansion of the mission in his address to the nation Wednesday.
A Republican aide in the House predicted that a broad authorization would split the body, exposing fractures within the Republican caucus, as members debate how long a mission, how much money to approve and how to limit the scope, among other issues.
That's a debate leaders want to avoid just weeks before the midterm elections, though it may be inevitable.
Last week, Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, who's known for being hawkish on national security, unveiled plans to introduce legislation authorizing the use of military force against international terrorist groups, including the Islamic State.
Rep. Justin Amash, a tea partyer from Michigan, tweeted the bill with commentary: 'Umm, no.'
'Here's the dilemma: What if he comes over here and you can't pass it?' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. 'That'd be a disaster. And what if you put so many conditions on it that it makes any military operation ineffective? That's what I worry about.'
A coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans would likely block such a vote, and those in difficult re-election battles would prefer not to be boxed into a complicated foreign-policy issue before the election.
But some are still pushing Obama to seek congressional approval.
'The Constitution is clear: It is the Congress and Congress only that has the constitutional authority to declare war,' said tea party Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called it 'inconsistent' for the president to pursue action without legislative support.
On the Democratic side, leaders are wary of voting for anything broad out of fears of mission creep.
Even those that insist the president should ask for authorization acknowledge it would be nearly impossible to get something through Congress.
'You would have a deep divide between people who were worried that it would be too much of a blank check, too broad of authority, and others who might worry that it would constrain the president,' Rep. Adam Smith, D-Bellevue, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, said on ABC's 'This Week,' Sunday.
'Getting the exact language through Congress would be extraordinarily difficult.'
Obama, on 'Meet the Press' Sunday, set out a vague goal of getting 'buy in' for the mission from Congress.
Some on Capitol Hill expect Obama to renew a request from earlier this year that lawmakers approve $500 million to provide military training and equipment to pro-Western Syrian rebels.
A vote to provide funds to rebels could be easier than a use-of-force vote, which is politically loaded after similar authorizations led to long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote on funding, say some aides, could serve politically as the congressional stamp of approval for the White House operation.
A protracted battle is far from what many Americans say they want. Even if the president decides to seek congressional approval for a robust military campaign, it is not clear that reluctant lawmakers would give it.
Even funding an extended military campaign may be a tough sell for Congress. An estimated $5 billion for overseas operations, including counterterrorism, is being included in an annual must-pass defense bill.
But it remains uncertain whether Congress would approve those funds - or a portion of them - during the short two-week session.
Includes material from Bloomberg News
Posted by Unknown on Monday, September 8, 2014 - Rating: 4.5
0 comments "Lawmakers hesitant on Obama plan against Islamic State"
Post a Comment