He'll ask Congress for a bill that allows for limited boots on the ground in the fight against the Islamic State. "The White House language prohibits the 'enduring' deployment of U.S. ground forces, but it does not specifically ban limited boots on the ground if the president determines they are necessary, according to a senior administration official and lawmakers who have been briefed on the proposal. The official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the proposal, said the terminology refers to the use of Special Operations forces and other discrete missions." Karen DeYoung and Ed O'Keefe in The Washington Post.
Lawmakers might well turn him down. "The request, which could come in writing as early as Wednesday morning, would open what is expected to be a monthslong debate over presidential war powers and the wisdom of committing to another unpredictable mission in the Middle East while the nation is still struggling with the consequences of two prolonged wars. ... After more than a decade of war and 7,000 American military lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama will face doubts not only from Democrats who want stricter limitations set on where he can send troops and how long his authority will last, but also from Republicans, who are dubious of the administration’s strategy for defeating the Islamic State extremist group." Jeremy W. Peters in The New York Times.
On the issue of ground troops, Obama has a compromise that satisfies neither side. "A White House sales pitch for its proposed use-of-force language ran into skepticism Tuesday from Senate Democrats, who want tighter limits on Obama’s ability to send ground troops into combat and a repeal of Congress’ original 2001 approval of the war on terror. But making those changes could provoke trouble with hawkish Republicans, some of whom want no restrictions on the president’s ability to deploy troops against the Islamic State." Burgess Everett and Jeremy Herb at Politico.
Republicans are worried that the president isn't going far enough. "If enacted, the president's AUMF could effectively constrain the next president from waging a ground war against the Islamic State group until at least 2018. ... The president's proposed AUMF would sunset in three years and would not give the president the unilateral authority to extend the authorization. That means the next president would have to come back to Congress for a new authorization in 2018, if the fight against Islamic State fighters lasts that long." Josh Rogin for Bloomberg View.
Democrats worry the authority they'd grant the president would be too broad, without a clear goal."'No one wants to get involved once again in a protracted war where we're fighting someone else's civil war,' said Rep. Xavier Becerra, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. 'We want to make sure that we have an exit strategy, and we know what we're doing to try to make sure that the good guys come out ahead. In this case, it's a very complicated fight.'" Alex Brown and Rachel Roubein in National Journal.
The request from the White House follows Obama's confirmation that Kayla Jean Mueller, a young American activist and a captive of the Islamic State, is dead. "On Tuesday U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed that Mueller had indeed been killed, promising to 'find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible.' ... Mueller was someone who seems to have always been drawn to helping the weak; always indignant about the unjust. ... After graduating from Northern Arizona University in 2009 – after just two and a half years – she set out into the world, traveling and volunteering in northern India and then in Israel and the Palestinian territories. She apparently spent the hot months of August and September of 2010 volunteering for the International Solidarity Movement, the pro-Palestinian activist group." Danna Harman in Haaretz.
Meanwhile, the administration is now considering keeping troops in Afghanistan for a longer period."The Obama administration is considering slowing its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan for the second time, according to U.S. officials, a sign of the significant security challenges that remain despite an end to the U.S. and NATO combat mission there. Under the still-evolving plans, Army Gen. John F. Campbell, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, could be given greater latitude to determine the pace of the drawdown in 2015 as foreign forces scramble to ensure Afghan troops are capable of battling Taliban insurgents on their own, the officials said." Missy Ryan in The Washington Post.
What's the case for a new authorization now? "One of the defining features of the war that the U.S. has been waging since Sept. 11 is that the tactics, location and identity of the terrorist enemy are constantly shifting. Only the threat remains constant. To respond to it, the U.S. needs to give the commander in chief the necessary authority -- and its legislature needs to exercise the necessary oversight." Bloomberg View.
No comments:
Post a Comment