Home
Obama, Republicans, Iraq divided over battling ISIS
Following the statements from different U.S. officials about a ground operation and Obama’s call for military operations against ISIS, Iraqi FM said Baghdad has not asked the U.S. to send ground forces.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said yesterday Baghdad has not requested foreign ground forces to battle Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) militants after U.S. President Barack Obama called for military operations that stop short of a full-scale invasion. In Sydney, the Iraqi minister said ground forces were not part of his government's plan. "We have never asked for a ground forces contribution," he said through an interpreter after meetings with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. "We have established a set of guidelines," for the international coalition, al-Jafaari told a press conference. This was to provide air support for Iraqi forces, training and intelligence, he stressed." The message that Iraq has submitted to the United Nations Security Council never included a request for ground forces to enter Iraqi territory to conduct such operations."However he added: "We are at the beginning of a major war and the situation could be changing." The minister noted that Iraqi armed forces were advancing against ISIS and had no shortage of troops. "There is no doubt that the Iraqi armed forces need aerial support, in addition to intelligence information," he said. "No country has regular armies or ground troops present in Iraq except for providing training and counseling," he added.
Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to authorize military action against the ISIS militants who are cutting a swath across the Middle East, vowing their forces "are going to lose." Yet he ruled out large-scale U.S. ground combat operations reminiscent of Iraq and Afghanistan. "I am convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war," the president said at the White House as he set Congress on a path to its first war-powers vote in 13 years. Despite his words of reassurance, initial reaction in Congress amounted to bipartisan skepticism, with much of the dissatisfaction centered on his attempt to find a political middle ground with respect to ground forces. Republicans expressed unhappiness that he had chosen to exclude any long-term commitment of ground forces, while some Democrats voiced dismay that he had opened the door to deployment at all. Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, also said Obama had ruled out air support for U.S.-trained rebels battling Syrian President Bashar Assad, adding, "That's immoral." "I have deep concerns about aspects of this proposed authorization, including limitations placed on the constitutional authority of the commander-in-chief, the failure to articulate an objective for the use of military force, and a narrow definition of strategy that seeks to separate the fight against ISIS from the underlying conflict in Syria," the senior senator said in a statement.
Under Obama's proposal, the use of military force against ISIS militants would be authorized for three years, unbounded by national borders. The fight could be extended to any "closely related successor entity" to the ISIS organization that has overrun parts of Iraq and Syria, imposed a stern form of Sharia law and killed several hostages it has taken, Americans among them. "Make no mistake. This is a difficult mission," Obama said in seeking action against a group that he said threatens America's own security. He said it will take time to dislodge the militants, especially from urban areas. "But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIS is on the defensive, and ISIS is going to lose."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the draft's language was left "intentionally" vague to provide the American president flexibility to address the complex fight against ISIS. "The underlying point here that the administration is making is that we're not going to commit to a large-scale invasion," said Ken Gude, a senior fellow with the national security team at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. House Speaker John Boehner said the request does not sufficiently "give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people."
As lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Congress wrangle over their version of the authorization bill, they must be mindful that not only does any legislation ultimately require the American president's consent, but it will also have to win out in the court of public opinion. Just 41 percent of Americans would support sending ground troops to combat ISIS if airstrikes alone could not stop its militants, according to a Brookings Institution poll conducted last November. Among Republicans, 53 percent supported sending ground forces, while only 36 percent of Democrats favored the idea.
The 2002 congressional authorization that preceded the American-led invasion of Iraq would be repealed under the White House proposal, a step some Republicans were unhappy to see. But a separate authorization that was approved by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would remain in force, to the consternation of some Democrats. A post-Sept. 11 request from then-President George W. Bush for authorization to use military force against Iraq was intensely controversial, and it played a role in Obama's successful campaign for the White House in 2008.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Following the statements from different U.S. officials about a ground operation and Obama’s call for military operations against ISIS, Iraqi FM said Baghdad has not asked the U.S. to send ground forces.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said yesterday Baghdad has not requested foreign ground forces to battle Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) militants after U.S. President Barack Obama called for military operations that stop short of a full-scale invasion. In Sydney, the Iraqi minister said ground forces were not part of his government's plan. "We have never asked for a ground forces contribution," he said through an interpreter after meetings with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. "We have established a set of guidelines," for the international coalition, al-Jafaari told a press conference. This was to provide air support for Iraqi forces, training and intelligence, he stressed." The message that Iraq has submitted to the United Nations Security Council never included a request for ground forces to enter Iraqi territory to conduct such operations."However he added: "We are at the beginning of a major war and the situation could be changing." The minister noted that Iraqi armed forces were advancing against ISIS and had no shortage of troops. "There is no doubt that the Iraqi armed forces need aerial support, in addition to intelligence information," he said. "No country has regular armies or ground troops present in Iraq except for providing training and counseling," he added.
Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to authorize military action against the ISIS militants who are cutting a swath across the Middle East, vowing their forces "are going to lose." Yet he ruled out large-scale U.S. ground combat operations reminiscent of Iraq and Afghanistan. "I am convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war," the president said at the White House as he set Congress on a path to its first war-powers vote in 13 years. Despite his words of reassurance, initial reaction in Congress amounted to bipartisan skepticism, with much of the dissatisfaction centered on his attempt to find a political middle ground with respect to ground forces. Republicans expressed unhappiness that he had chosen to exclude any long-term commitment of ground forces, while some Democrats voiced dismay that he had opened the door to deployment at all. Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, also said Obama had ruled out air support for U.S.-trained rebels battling Syrian President Bashar Assad, adding, "That's immoral." "I have deep concerns about aspects of this proposed authorization, including limitations placed on the constitutional authority of the commander-in-chief, the failure to articulate an objective for the use of military force, and a narrow definition of strategy that seeks to separate the fight against ISIS from the underlying conflict in Syria," the senior senator said in a statement.
Under Obama's proposal, the use of military force against ISIS militants would be authorized for three years, unbounded by national borders. The fight could be extended to any "closely related successor entity" to the ISIS organization that has overrun parts of Iraq and Syria, imposed a stern form of Sharia law and killed several hostages it has taken, Americans among them. "Make no mistake. This is a difficult mission," Obama said in seeking action against a group that he said threatens America's own security. He said it will take time to dislodge the militants, especially from urban areas. "But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIS is on the defensive, and ISIS is going to lose."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the draft's language was left "intentionally" vague to provide the American president flexibility to address the complex fight against ISIS. "The underlying point here that the administration is making is that we're not going to commit to a large-scale invasion," said Ken Gude, a senior fellow with the national security team at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. House Speaker John Boehner said the request does not sufficiently "give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people."
As lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Congress wrangle over their version of the authorization bill, they must be mindful that not only does any legislation ultimately require the American president's consent, but it will also have to win out in the court of public opinion. Just 41 percent of Americans would support sending ground troops to combat ISIS if airstrikes alone could not stop its militants, according to a Brookings Institution poll conducted last November. Among Republicans, 53 percent supported sending ground forces, while only 36 percent of Democrats favored the idea.
The 2002 congressional authorization that preceded the American-led invasion of Iraq would be repealed under the White House proposal, a step some Republicans were unhappy to see. But a separate authorization that was approved by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would remain in force, to the consternation of some Democrats. A post-Sept. 11 request from then-President George W. Bush for authorization to use military force against Iraq was intensely controversial, and it played a role in Obama's successful campaign for the White House in 2008.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
