Obama says he has authority for militant campaign

The White House said the president told lawmakers he still would welcome action from Congress that “would aid the overall effort and demonstrate to the world that the United States is united in defeating the threat from ISIL.” That could take the form of specific authorization to fund counterterrorism efforts, as well as to train and equip more moderate elements of the opposition to the Bashar Assad government in Syria.

The president’s broader strategy to confront the Islamic State militants may also include more wide-ranging airstrikes against targets in Iraq and possibly in Syria. Obama has also sought military and political commitments from nation in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere.

“The president believes this is a high national security priority,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

For Obama, a sustained U.S. intervention in the Middle East is at odds with the vision he had for the region when he ran for president on a pledge to end the war in Iraq, from which he withdrew American fighting forces nearly three years ago. The timing of his announcement tonight is all the more striking, with hid address to the nation scheduled just hours before anniversary commemorations of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that drew the U.S. into war in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq.

Even before Obama’s meeting with Senate and House leaders, some lawmakers had suggested a congressional vote on the president’s plans was unlikely before the midterm elections in November.

“As a practical matter, I don’t really see the time that it would take to really get this out and have a full debate and discuss all the issues,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Obama should seek congressional approval for whatever he has decided to do.

“I think it is to his advantage and the country’s advantage to have Congress buy into that,” McConnell said before joining other Republican and Democratic leaders in the Oval Office for a Tuesday afternoon meeting with Obama that lasted just over an hour.

None of the leaders spoke to reporters as they left the White House. However, an aide to House Speaker John Boehner said he expressed support for efforts to increase the effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces and for equipping the Syrian opposition. Boehner also said he would support the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Iraq in a training and advisory role and to “assist with lethal targeting” of Islamic State leadership, according to the aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Beyond authorizing military force, Congress could show its support for a broader mission by authorizing two initiatives Obama outlined earlier this year: $5 billion to fund counterterrorism missions and $500 million for arming and training Western-backed Syrian rebels.

The U.S. is already launching airstrikes against Islamic State targets inside Iraq, a mission undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi government and without formal authorization from Congress. But Obama has said the scope of the mission is limited to strikes that help protect American interests in the region and prevent humanitarian crises.

U.S. officials say Obama is expected to loosen those limitations and open a broader counterterrorism campaign against the militants in Iraq. And following the group’s shocking beheading of two American journalists in Syria, Obama began more seriously considering extending strikes into its strongholds in Syria.

People who have spoken with Obama in recent days said it appeared likely he would take that step. At a private dinner Monday night with foreign policy experts, Obama emphasized the importance of viewing the Islamic State as one organization, not two groups separated by a border.

However, Obama has continued to rule out sending U.S. troops into ground combat operations in the Middle East.

(STORY CAN END HERE)

Extending airstrikes into Syria would raise legal and geopolitical issues that Obama has long sought to avoid, particularly without formal congressional authorization.

Unlike in Iraq, Obama would not be acting at the invitation of a host government. However, some international law experts say airstrikes could be justified as a matter of self-defense if Obama argues the Islamic State poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies from inside Syria, whose government is unwilling or unable to stop it.

Another possibility: Although the U.S. has said it will not coordinate with Syrian President Assad, whose removal Obama advocates, Assad’s government could give back-channel consent to American strikes. The U.S. has a similar arrangement with the Pakistani military for U.S. drone strikes there, even though Pakistani officials publicly condemn the American actions.

Thank you for reading the Dayton Daily News and for supporting local journalism. Subscribers: log in for access to your daily ePaper and premium newsletters.

Thank you for supporting in-depth local journalism with your subscription to the Dayton Daily News. Get more news when you want it with email newsletters just for subscribers. Sign up here.

X