http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-poised-to-approve-obamas-iraq-syria-military-strategy-amid-skepticism/2014/09/17/c2494df2-3e85-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html
President Barack Obama speaks at U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla. (Skip O'rourke/AP)
By Ed O'Keefe and Paul Kane September 17 at 5:08 PM
The House on Wednesday approved President Obama’s plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels to counter the growing threat of the Islamic State terrorist organization even though lawmakers in both parties remain deeply skeptical about its chances for success.
The Senate is expected to give the plan final approval Thursday.
Despite sweeping bipartisan agreement on the vote, dozens of lawmakers have picked away at aspects of the president’s emerging plan in recent days from the floor of the House and Senate and in interviews.
Democrats are concerned that without clearly defined parameters passed by Congress in the coming months, new U.S. military operations in the Middle East could fester for several years with no clear strategy or definition of success.
Republicans have worried that Obama's plans so far are too limited. One top GOP leader suggested Congress could go as far as giving the president blanket military authority, even if Obama doesn’t want it, when Congress holds a much broader debate after the November elections about the fight against Islamic terrorists.
Obama on Wednesday repeated his promise not to send combat forces into the military campaign against the Islamic State, telling troops in a speech at MacDill Air Force Base outside Tampa that he will “not commit you fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
Despite the concerns, the House voted 273-156 Wednesday to insert an amendment that authorizes Obama’s plans into a broader short-term spending bill passed shortly after that will keep the federal government operating through mid-December. The yes votes included 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats, while 85 Democrats and 71 Republicans voted against the amendment.
In more than six hours of debate, spread over two days, very few House lawmakers stepped forward to give a full-throated endorsement of the Obama plan. Every ideological corner of the House found reason to doubt the mission, and those doubts now portend what could be a very difficult debate in November and December over a broader use-of-force resolution. It will likely take weeks and weeks of negotiation to find a majority in both chambers to support a new war resolution, with some Democrats eyeing tighter constraints on military engagement and some Republicans trying to expand the battlefield.
Notably, more members of Obama’s party than Republicans voted against authorization.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, said he voted against authorization because he was opposed to supporting any group not focused primarily on defeating the Islamic State. Obama and administration officials have said that some aide may go to the Syrian Free Army, a group focused on defeating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“To the extent that Assad remains the primary force in Syria fighting ISIS, weakening Assad [by arming the Syrian moderate rebels] may have the unintended consequence of strengthening ISIS,” Van Hollen said.
Even several military veterans and active duty service members serving in Congress voted against the authorization on Wednesday. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a Marine who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, said the authority “does nothing” to destroy the Islamic State. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a captain in the Hawaii National Guard who served in Iraq, called Obama’s strategy “unrealistic” and worried “it will take way too long” to work.
But some of the earliest opponents of entering Iraq in 2003 found themselves voting yes while offering little assurance of military success. “It’s the best choice of worse options,” said Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), a retiring lawmaker who voted against authorizing the Iraq war 12 years ago. “It’s because there are no better alternatives and I don’t think it’s responsible to do nothing.”
Moran said some lawmakers would see it as a “free vote” to oppose the military action rather than bear any culpability should the mission go awry. He said the only hope now was to hit the Islamic State with airstrikes and some ground attacks from U.S.-trained rebels in the hope of stopping their advance through Iraq, which if successful would lead to full-scale war.
“If it lays siege to Baghdad, we have to put boots on the ground,” he said.
Some of Obama’s closest congressional allies also expressed deep doubts. “I have hesitations and concerns about the blank check we gave George Bush,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who has worked closely with Obama to raise money for House candidates.
Israel suipported the authorization Wednesday, but said many Democrats would push for language in the fall to place constraints on how far the mission could go to anything resembling Iraq in 2005 and 2006, when the deadliest fighting took place.
“The one thing I know is that ISIL is a fundamental threat and it needs to be addressed,” he said, using a common acronym for the Islamic State.
Amid skepticism about Obama’s early planning, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said that most Republicans are ready to “revisit the broader question” of U.S. military action in the Middle East. In an interview with The Washington Post this week, Scalise said that the idea of drafting a new authorization for military action “has come up a lot,” including “if more should be done, should it be authorized by Congress even if the president isn’t asking for it?”
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-N.D.) said she would welcome a broader debate. She voted for authorization Wednesday, but said in an interview beforehand that “I’m not convinced this is the silver bullet, I think this is going to be a longer, more drawn out process.”
GOP leaders were boosted Wednesday morning when the Club for Growth, an influential conservative group, decided not to include the vote on the government funding bill on its scorecard for GOP lawmakers. The group informed House lawmakers in a memo that while it remains opposed to the underlying spending plans, it doesn’t take positions on legislation “driven by foreign policy.”
The broader retreat by many conservative groups reluctant to make a major stand on the government funding vote — a year after they cheered on an impasse that led to a partial government shutdown — reflected the muddled nature of Wednesday’s floor activities.
After the Club’s announcement, House GOP leaders sought to bolster support by making select calls to several members. So did House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her lieutenants, though their efforts were “soft touches,” or informal outreach, according to aides.
Senior White House staffers and Obama were credited for engaging House Republicans, especially Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader McCarthy (R-Calif.), with his direct calls to them seen as an expression of good faith, according to aides in both parties.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is expected to hold a vote on the spending measure Thursday. But he will not earn unified support from Democrats.
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) said Wednesday that he opposes granting Obama expanded authorities after being unconvinced that new military operations will succeed. He said he came to his decision after consulting military and foreign policy experts and attending briefings with top national security officials.
“But most importantly I studied our history,” he said. “We have been at war in that part of that world for the past 13 years. If money and military might could have made a difference, it would have by now.”
Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, co-authored the first bill to help train and arm the rebels in Syria, but said Wednesday that he is unsure how the new legislation would work. Pro-western rebels Corker originally envisioned training are still mostly focused on fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, not Islamic State forces.
“There’s a major disconnect,” Corker said, smacking his head for emphasis.
Still, Corker plans to support the limited operation in anticipation of a broader debate in later this year. “They don’t have a plan, they don’t have a strategy,” Corker said of the Obama White House, adding, “They’re doing it to eek by the mid-term elections.”
In anticipation of a bigger debate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) unveiled proposed language for a measure granting Obama the authority to conduct further military action in Iraq and Syria. His measure would repeal the current congressional authorization for military force in Iraq; prohibit the deployment of U.S. combat forces in Iraq and Syria; and expire after one year. Most importantly, Kaine said, his proposal would define the types of “associated forces” that the U.S. could partner with in the region, including Iraqi and Kurdish military forces.
“If they won’t participate and carry the ground campaign, there’s no amount of U.S. or western troops that will enable this mission to be successful,” he said.
Robert Costa, Sebastian Payne and Wesley Lowery contributed to this report.
