POTUS sent a war request to fight ISIL to Congress

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232425-obama-asks-congress-to-approve-war-against-isis

President Obama on Wednesday sent Congress draft legislation authorizing the use of military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), warning that if the terror group was left unchecked, it would “pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.”

The proposed legislation limits Obama from the use of “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” deliberately vague language intended to win over those on the left wary of mission creep and those on the right who don’t want to limit possible military action against ISIS.

“The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces,” Obama said in a letter transmitted to Congress along with the legislative action.

The president is expected to deliver a statement about the draft legislation at 3:30 p.m. from the White House.

The legislation would also authorize the use of U.S. forces for intelligence gathering operations, missions to enable airstrikes or in situations where military personnel can help advise and assist coalition forces.

The White House bill limits the use of military force against ISIS to three years, unless Congress reauthorizes the resolution. And the legislation would also repeal the 2002 legislation authorizing the use of military force against Iraq — although not broader 2001 legislation enabling the use of force against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

“I remain committed to working with Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF,” Obama said.

Obama would also be required to provide Congress an update on specific military actions taken against the terror network.

The White House cast support for the legislation as an important symbolic gesture of unity in combatting ISIS, noting the “horrific acts of violence” — including killings of American captives — undertaken by the group.

“I can think of no better way for Congress to join me in supporting our nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL,” Obama said, using an alternative abbreviation to describe the terror group.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) pledged to “quickly begin to hold rigorous hearings where the administration will have an opportunity to provide Congress and the American people greater clarity on the U.S. strategy to address ISIS.”

“Voting to authorize the use of military force is one of the most important actions Congress can take, and while there will be differences, it is my hope that we will fulfill our constitutional responsibility, and in a bipartisan way, pass an authorization that allows us to confront this serious threat,” Corker said.

Obama may face the most difficulty in convincing members of his own party — especially in the House — to back the measure. Many Democrats are expected to want tougher language ruling out the use of ground troops.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said he would carefully review the AUMF proposal, but said he has "two serious concerns" about the draft.

"First, it provides overly-broad, fresh authority for the deployment of U.S. ground forces in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, and any other countries in which ISIL or its affiliates may be operating," he said.

"Second, it leaves in place indefinitely the blank check authority granted to the Executive in the 2001 AUMF," he added. "It makes little sense to place reasonable boundaries on the Executive's war powers against ISIL while leaving them unchecked elsewhere.

"In the weeks ahead, I look forward to working with the White House and my colleagues in Congress to pass an AUMF that provides the authority necessary to degrade and defeat ISIL without dragging the United States into another unnecessary ground war in the Middle East."

Send Rangers!

Wasn't this the guy who pulled out of Iraq and now wants to go back? Phone Post 3.0

sewich - Wasn't this the guy who pulled out of Iraq and now wants to go back? Phone Post 3.0


I dont like Obama but that decision was made before he got into office

Destroy all Muslims! I'd rather be proven wrong about this than to find out later I was right! Phone Post 3.0

So is this a back door to Iran?

acid_flashback - Destroy all Muslims! I'd rather be proven wrong about this than to find out later I was right! Phone Post 3.0
That a word for word Nazi quote? I think it is. Phone Post 3.0

mudflaps - So if he tries to fight ISIS, republicans get mad because he already got us out of Iraq. If he doesn't fight them republicans will call him weak. If he waits, they say he's not brave enough to act quickly, if he acts quickly, they say he's not considering all options.

Welcome to the game of politics :-)

mudflaps - So if he tries to fight ISIS, republicans get mad because he already got us out of Iraq. If he doesn't fight them republicans will call him weak. If he waits, they say he's not brave enough to act quickly, if he acts quickly, they say he's not considering all options.


He didn't "get us out of Iraq".  That deadline was determined during the Bush admiinistration in the U.S.-Iraq agreement.

mudflaps - 
Soup and Beer - 
mudflaps - So if he tries to fight ISIS, republicans get mad because he already got us out of Iraq. If he doesn't fight them republicans will call him weak. If he waits, they say he's not brave enough to act quickly, if he acts quickly, they say he's not considering all options.


He didn't "get us out of Iraq".  That deadline was determined during the Bush admiinistration in the U.S.-Iraq agreement.


and those deadlines are routinely ignored


Without looking it up, IIRC all actions by U.S. military could be subject to the local law and their justice system after the deadline.  It wasn't just a case of a random date to get out.

Perhaps Saudi Arabia's new ruler requests we put more pressure on ISIS? Or are they happy with their (ISIS) ability to destabilize the region further?

mudflaps - Will this allow for ground troops? If so, how many?

There are already ground troops in Iraq playing a supporting role. This would authorize the US to expand that number and take a more active approach in the fight against ISIL on the ground. No numbers have been made publicly available (for obvious reasons).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-10/obama-s-islamic-state-war-authorization-limits-u-s-ground-forces

Somewhere in the world, there are a handful of people nearly pissing themselves with anticipation. If Congress says yes, which they will, they're going to be swimming in cash for a long, long time.

mudflaps - 
Soup and Beer - 
mudflaps - 
Soup and Beer - 
mudflaps - So if he tries to fight ISIS, republicans get mad because he already got us out of Iraq. If he doesn't fight them republicans will call him weak. If he waits, they say he's not brave enough to act quickly, if he acts quickly, they say he's not considering all options.


He didn't "get us out of Iraq".  That deadline was determined during the Bush admiinistration in the U.S.-Iraq agreement.


and those deadlines are routinely ignored


Without looking it up, IIRC all actions by U.S. military could be subject to the local law and their justice system after the deadline.  It wasn't just a case of a random date to get out.


Come on, congress is currently debating approval for a war that is already happening. Why would anyone give a shit about a "deadline?"


I'm neither defending nor condemning policy.  I'm just stating what the past and current administrations actions were based on regarding withdrawal.  This information is openly available on the net.