ISIL will lose, Obama says, as he seeks more war power

From: Army Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama took a confident stand against the Islamic State on Wednesday as he asked Congress for a resolution authorizing the continued campaign against the terrorist group.

"Make no mistake, this is a difficult mission. And it will remain difficult for some time. It's going to take time to dislodge these terrorists," Obama said. "But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose."

Obama addressed the nation from the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where he stood in front of a painting of Teddy Roosevelt during the Spanish-American War. "Know this: Our coalition is strong, our cause is just and our mission will succeed," he said.

Though Obama said the resolution he sent to Congress would give him the power he needs, the White House said it actually would place more limits on the president's military campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, than authorizations already in place.

The draft resolution would not authorize "enduring offensive ground combat operations," and it would place a three-year time limit on operations before the resolution would have to be renewed.

"It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq," Obama said. "As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That's not in our national security interest, and it's not necessary for us to defeat ISIL."

Military leaders were satisfied with the language in the proposed authorization but would have preferred a measure that had no restrictions on the kinds of troops that can deploy, what they can do and how long they can stay, according to a senior Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about it. The authorization is important to troops, the official said, because it shows public support for their mission.

The three-year limit, Obama said, "is not a timetable." Rather, it would allow the next Congress and the next president to "revisit the issue."

Even as he asked Congress to pass the authorization Wednesday, he said, "Existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions," raising the question of whether the congressional debate is primarily a legal or political exercise.

The resolution — called an authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF — would repeal a 2002 measure that authorized the invasion of Iraq. It would leave intact a 2001 authorization that Obama says gives him authority to conduct a worldwide war on terrorists, including the Islamic State.

The 2001 resolution "can be read broadly to authorize military actions against terrorists for decades to come," said Louis Fisher, a scholar at the Constitution Project and an expert on war powers. Unless it's repealed, the draft resolution contains "very loose language" that adds to the ambiguity about the president's war powers, he said.

Any resolution that does not clarify war powers would give Obama and his successors unfettered authority to conduct war, Fisher said. "Any president who reads his authority in that sweeping fashion is cause for concern, even if previous presidents made similar claims," he said.

This isn't the right time for Congress to take back the president's power to fight terrorism, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

"Eventually we want to be in a scenario where we're not on a permanent war footing," he said. "But there's no question ... the threat that we face from al-Qaeda is one that we take very seriously and one ... to which the president and his national security team devote significant attention."

The resolution would not limit military operations to Iraq and Syria or prohibit defensive ground operations.

"We don't want anybody in ISIL to be left with the impression that if they move to some neighboring country that they will be essentially in a safe haven and not within the range of United States capability," Earnest said. "We certainly wouldn't want anything in the AUMF to be construed by anybody as a limitation on the ability of American men and women to protect themselves."

Obama said the resolution would give him "flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances."

"For example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn't have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our special forces to take action, because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven," he said.

Obama said his proposal was the work of his secretaries of Defense and State — both of whom echoed the White House position that the resolution's purpose is not to tie the president's hands but to show support.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said previous resolutions "provide legal authority for our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Syria," but passage of the new resolution "would provide an important signal of support."

Secretary of State John Kerry said the new resolution "will provide a clear and powerful signal to the American people, to our allies and to our enemies."

Kerry, Hagel and Vice President Biden accompanied Obama during his announcement.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided Obama and Hagel with his "best military advice" for the proposed authorization as it was drafted, according to Dempsey's spokesman, Air Force Col. Ed Thomas.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/11/obama-islmic-state-war-resolution/23242553/