The Oklahoman: President Obama asks Congress for authority to attack Islamic State

The Oklahoman - Chris Casteel

President Barack Obama on Wednesday asked Congress for official permission to use military force against the Islamic State, but some Democrats called the president’s proposal too broad and Republicans complained of its limitations.

Six months after the United States military began conducting air strikes against the brutal Islamic organization that has occupied land in Iraq and Syria, the president requested a three-year authorization specific to the conflict.

The administration has been operating under the 2001 resolution authorizing force against al-Qaida and the 2002 resolution that allowed the invasion of Iraq.

The president’s proposed language would not allow the use of U.S. forces “in enduring offensive ground combat operations.”

Obama — accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — made brief remarks at the White House about his request, which Congress may begin debating late this month.

Obama said coalition forces had conducted more than 2,000 air strikes against Islamic State targets since September, destroying leaders, equipment and fighting positions.

“ISIL is on the defensive, and it is going to lose,” the president said, using another name for the group, which is also sometimes referred to as ISIS.

Use of ground forces
Obama said his request reflects the core objective to destroy the organization through airstrikes and training other countries’ ground troops. And he said that, under certain circumstances, U.S. ground troops might be used for a limited objective.

But he said he was convinced the United States should not get dragged into another prolonged ground war.

“That’s not in our national security interest, and it’s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL,” he said. “Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL — and that’s what they’re doing.”

He said the three-year limit he sought was not a timetable.

“It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period,” he said. “What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president’s term.”

Inhofe, Cole react
Sen. Jim Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and frequent critic of the president, said Obama’s request was ambiguous about what operations would be allowed.

“I want commanders to get it done,” Inhofe said. “All reasonable military options should be on the table. I believe ‘use of all necessary and appropriate force’ would have been a better message.”

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, whose district includes Tinker Air Force Base and Fort Sill, has long been calling for a new authorization for force and said the president’s proposal was long overdue. He said he hoped Congress could provide clear guidance for U.S. armed services.

Cole, who sits on the House panel that allocates money to the Defense Department, said he was concerned the administration “will try to ‘nickel and dime’ this critical mission.

“The president must understand that destroying ISIL calls for unwavering, sustained use of overwhelming force. With such a dangerous enemy at hand, we cannot afford to hesitate or fail to consider all the possible military assets.”

Democrats wary
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, did not embrace the president’s proposal in saying that she looked forward to bipartisan debate.

“Congress should act judiciously and promptly to craft and pass an (authorization) narrowly tailored to the war against ISIS,” she said.

Veteran Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, said the executive branch had relied on the 2001 resolution to justify indefinite detentions and drone strikes “far from Afghanistan.”

Leahy said, “We have a responsibility to take action against ISIL terrorists who are responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, including American citizens. But we must do so in a way 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.”

Online: The Oklahoman