In between Sept. 11 remembrance speeches, lawmakers on Thursday promised quick action on the latest threat to American security: Islamic militants in the Middle East with familiar anti-Western rhetoric and brutal acts of violence.

In a national address Wednesday night, President Obama outlined plans to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist network through increased U.S. military operations, in response to the group's mounting size and strength.

The new effort includes increased airstrikes, more U.S. personnel on the ground, a coalition of regional combat forces and plans to train and equip Syrian separatists. That last aspect will require congressional authorization, and prompted a flurry of meetings on Capitol Hill in response.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expects both chambers of Congress to give Obama that authority by Sept. 19, when the House is expected to adjourn in preparation for the November elections.

But House Republicans spent Thursday debating what legislative vehicle to use for the military action, or whether to approve the idea at all.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, praised Obama's plan as a whole but added: "A speech is not the same thing as a strategy." He called for "an all-out effort to destroy an enemy that has declared a holy war against America and the principles for which we stand," but acknowledged that House members in days to come will need to be convinced of the same urgency.

In a Thursday morning speech prepared before Obama's announcement, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, argued that U.S. combat troops are both necessary and inevitable in the region, despite administration opposition to "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

"American boots will be standing on sand," he said. "They will be shot at. And they will shoot back. There's no other way to do this."

McKeon praised Obama's promise of building both regional and international coalitions but added that doesn't go far enough to "knock ISIL on its back." He would not put a number on the size of the U.S. ground force he would put there, saying he would rely on assessments of military commanders.

However, he added, "I would err on the side of more rather than less."

That approach has been advocated by hawks like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., but it has been a point of concern for lawmakers wary of another open-ended overseas military operation.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, backed Obama's outlined plans but also warned "there can be no blank checks" for extended involvement in the Middle East.

The pending congressional vote will likely be confined only to permission to train and equip rebels, and not the broader question of whether the president has the authority to move ahead with military action in Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday he would draft a new military force authorization for the region in the event of a "prolonged military campaign," but he and other Democratic leaders defended Obama's power to act immediately under 2001 anti-terrorism policies.

But several lawmakers and outside critics have questioned whether that authority extends to the new situation with ISIL, and whether the White House is grabbing power from Congress by not waiting for approval from the legislative branch.

Obama on Wednesday dismissed those concerns but promised to keep congressional leaders closely involved in military discussions, saying a partnership with Congress is critical to "show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger."

Share:
In Other News
Load More