By
In formally asking Congress to authorize a three-year military campaign against the Islamic State, President Obama has carefully worded his request to soothe worried Democrats who do not want another big war. At the same time, he is assuring Republican hawks that the American military will do what it takes to defeat the Sunni militant group.
Hence the measure prohibits “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” So, no ground troops to fight the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else?
Maybe not.
“The 10th Mountain Division could get through that loophole,” joked Roger Zakheim, a former general counsel for the House Armed Services Committee’s Republican leadership. But, then, so too could certain parts of the 82nd Airborne.
A ban against “enduring offensive ground combat operations” is simply a ban on a large army of occupation for an extended period of time, like what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is essentially the yardstick that President Obama is using. But there is no prohibition against Special Operations forces conducting counterterrorism strikes inside Iraq or Syria.
Nor is there a prohibition against Joint Terminal Attack Controllers, or JTAC teams, directing combat aircraft and other offensive operations from positions close to the fighting. Or Marines going in to rescue hostages. Or clear out buildings. Or even retaking a town.
In fact, a ban on enduring offensive combat operations does not even bar the Army’s Third Infantry Division from rolling into Iraq on the president’s order, as long as they do not stay long.
Very few people who know Mr. Obama believe that he has any intention of sending an infantry division into Iraq, Syria or anywhere else that the Islamic State may decide to declare a caliphate; the president has said at every opportunity that he will not send in ground combat troops. He agreed only reluctantly to begin airstrikes against the Islamic State in August and has since then said repeatedly that the people of Iraq, Syria and surrounding countries should supply ground forces for action against the militants.
If the military proposal is approved, it would be the first time that Congress has authorized a president’s use of force since lawmakers voted in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.
Mr. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq in 2011 but has sent a limited number back as part of his efforts to stop the Islamic State’s advances. The proposed legislation would repeal the 2002 authorization while at the same time leaving in place separate legislation that passed in 2001 authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Within the Democratic Party, there is little appetite for another extended war.
But that is where the difference with the Republicans, and indeed, the Pentagon, comes in. Many Republican leaders in Congress say that the fight against the Islamic State should override any American squeamishness about ground troops. And at the Pentagon, some officials argue that American military forces can carry out any mission they are asked to do — if politicians do not tie their hands behind their backs.
Mr. Obama is trying to thread the needle. At the moment, military experts believe the current wording does so.
“I read what the president wrote in the authorization,” said Lt. Gen. David Barno, a former Afghanistan war commander who is now at American University’s School of International Service. “I think it’s very flexible. He’s not saying he’s going to send tens of thousands of troops in, but he’s reserving the right to use military forces in ground combat operations.”
Under the wording of the president’s request, General Barno said, the United States could respond to a number of combat situations that would require ground forces.
But the big gift to Democrats is Mr. Obama’s decision to limit the authorization to three years. “That is the truest constraint in this language,” Mr. Zakheim said. “If you’re a Democrat, that’s the money — the three-year sunset.”
That limit means the authorization will last only while Mr. Obama is in office, but the next commander in chief will have to negotiate new language with the next Congress.
Democrats who are annoyed about the legal loopholes in the language can also rest assured that in three years, the authorization will expire.
No comments:
Post a Comment