As Obama Makes Case, Congress Is Divided on Campaign Against Militants
|
Version 0 of 1. WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday will begin laying out his case for an expanded military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria when he faces congressional leaders who are averse to taking an election-year stand but are being pushed by lawmakers who want a say in matters of war. Mr. Obama’s meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders on Tuesday in the Oval Office will be the first of several between White House officials and lawmakers as the administration tries to persuade Congress to embrace the president’s plan to halt the momentum of the Sunni militant group known as ISIS. A year after opposition in Congress thwarted plans for missile strikes in Syria, the White House is again putting the issue of military force in the Middle East before a skeptical Congress and a war-weary public. Mr. Obama has not indicated yet whether he will seek congressional authorization, though he said Saturday he would like “buy-in” for a broader campaign, which the White House so far has not defined. Democratic leaders in the Senate and Republican leaders in the House want to avoid a public vote to authorize force, fearing the unknown political consequences eight weeks before the midterm elections on Nov. 4. “A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.” Other lawmakers, especially some Democrats, are arguing that as long as the president keeps the operation limited to airstrikes, he does not need to get congressional approval. “Do I think the president has the right to use airstrikes in the way he’s using it right now?” said Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who votes with Democrats. “Yeah, I do. But I am very strongly opposed to the use of ground troops. And before ground troops are used, there most certainly has to be a vote.” Even some senators close to Mr. Obama are awaiting his rationale. “I want to hear the president’s explanation of what he’s doing and his justification for it,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat. Other Senate Democrats, like Tim Kaine of Virginia and Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, are pushing for a vote before the president goes further. Various resolutions authorizing force under different circumstances and parameters are being circulated by members of both parties. Liberal Democrats forced a vote in the House in July that put lawmakers on record as supporting a public debate on military action in Iraq. Lawmakers in both parties are united in what Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, called a “collective revulsion” with ISIS and its brutality. But many say their stance on Mr. Obama’s plan will depend on the details: How long will a campaign take? What contribution will coalition partners make, especially from the region? Will the campaign extend into Syria from the current airstrikes in Iraq, and how will military force be followed up with political pluralism? “I’m not committing to vote for any authorization or declaration of war until I see a real strategy,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican from Pennsylvania, a moderate, expressing the concerns of many in his party who say they are not sure they trust the Obama administration to craft a successful plan. “I’m willing to be supportive of a plan, but not just any plan.” White House lawyers are reviewing legal options to authorize a campaign, including an application of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which empowered President George W. Bush, and later Mr. Obama, to carry out military action against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. But against ISIS, the president has invoked his authority as commander in chief and notified Congress of specific airstrikes under the War Powers Resolution. In his latest letter on Monday, the seventh since the threat from ISIS emerged in June, he wrote, “I appreciate the support of Congress in this action” — support that he has not formally received. Some legal experts have noted that sending repeated letters under the War Powers Resolution has the effect of resetting the clock, since under the law, the president has 60 days, after each letter, to terminate the military action or obtain the approval of Congress. “There are a variety of ways for them to demonstrate their support or opposition to this policy, and that can range from everything from an interview or, you know, a piece of legislation that they vote on and a range of things in between,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said he would oppose the use of ground troops or a “prolonged, direct, open-ended military involvement.” “The response of the American public will hinge on how compelling and persuasive president is in presenting his case,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “This is a real test and opportunity for leadership.” Mr. Obama has been on this path before. A year ago this month, in one of the more embarrassing episodes of his presidency, bipartisan opposition to airstrikes in Syria forced the president to withdraw his request for authorization to strike the Assad government. Lawmakers say they see a campaign against ISIS differently. The civil war in Syria at that time was seen as contained within that country’s border. By spilling out of Syria and taking large areas of Iraq, ISIS has proved it respects no borders, and with its beheading of two American journalists, the group has shown it will make good on its threats, Mr. Kingston said. But some lawmakers in both parties will team with conservatives who do not want to support Mr. Obama on anything to oppose or limit any authorization of force, Mr. Kingston said. Hawks in the Republican Party will team with pro-Israel lawmakers and humanitarian interventionists in support. “I think it will be split right down the middle,” he said. But voices on the left and right are not likely to be silent. Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, already forced the issue with a resolution in July calling for congressional debate if military action in Iraq intensified. “I understand politics. I’ve been in this business for a long time,” he said Monday. “But sometimes there are issues that trump politics.” |