Congress still quiet as new Iraq mission ramps up

Navy Times — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:20:13 -0500

From: Navy Times

Congress appears to be in no hurry to weigh in on the U.S. fight against the Islamic State group, even as military operations ramp up in the Middle East.

President Obama has asked lawmakers to pass a new authorization of military force for missions in Iraq and Syria by the end of the year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R- Ky., publicly pushed his colleagues earlier this month to take up the issue as soon as possible.

But with only a few days left in the 2014 legislative session, no credible plan for a new force authorization has emerged, and most lawmakers seem resigned to the idea of not addressing the question until sometime next year.

By then, the military will be more than five months into the training and airstrikes campaign. The operation's cost already is approaching $1 billion — not even including a $5.6 billion contingency fund request from the White House — and whose U.S. troops totals will swell to about 3,000 in coming weeks.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., called the lack of action on a new war authorization "an abdication of congressional responsibility" and an embarrassment for lawmakers.

He has been among the leading voices pushing for a new vote, arguing that the existing authorization used by Obama to justify the start of the campaign is outdated. But there is little consensus on that point, or who should take the lead on writing a new force authorization.

Several lawmakers — including Kaine — have offered drafts. During a Nov. 13 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the topic, Republicans questioned why the White House hasn't offered its preferred language, coupling that with wider criticisms about the lack of a coherent strategy in the region.

"Until you get words on paper, it's kind of hard to make progress," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the incoming committee chairman.

Other Senate Republicans and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have publicly backed delaying any such moves until the new Congress is seated. Boehner has said that decision should not be made by "members who are on their way out the door."

Numerous Democrats have argued that the longer U.S. operations last in the region without a formal authorization, the more worrisome the precedent becomes. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he worries the unchecked military action creates "a greater danger that the country gets sucked into one conflict after another."

He has pushed not only for clearer guidelines for the Islamic State group campaign but for sunset dates on past and future military authorizations, to prevent this type of uncertainty in the future.

Obama has insisted that some action is needed as soon as possible on the authorization issue, to show "clear and unified support" for the military mission. But in the absence of a congressional authorization vote, the administration and Pentagon officials have vowed that the fight will go on.

Earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama is committed to "do what is necessary to take action against ISIL, to degrade their capabilities, to build up our efforts on the Iraqi side of the border, to get them out of these safe havens."

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2014/11/24/no-military-auth/70008908/

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 1:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:21:47 -0500

Mission Creep?

I think so. This mission is not likely to get smaller with the incoming Congress in January. My biggest concern is the level of involvement our Military gets to.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Nov 24 at 2014 1:38 PM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:38:59 -0500

As I predicted, there were no (significant) "Boots-On-The-Ground" until after the mid-term elections.

Is there going to be an increase in US military involvement in Iraq?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Are both the Democrats and the Republicans going to support this increase?

See above.

Are all the 2016 Presidential Candidates going to be saying that they will limit/reduce the US military involvement in Iraq?

See above.

Will the successful 2016 Presidential Candidate call for "national unity" and "support for our troops" who have "gone into danger" and are "risking their lives" in order to "protect freedom and democracy" as they increase the US military presence in Iraq?

See above.

Will both the Republicans and the Democrats continue to play petty political games that place unnecessary risks on American troops in order that the politicians can "score points" and increase their chances of election/re-election in 2016?

See above.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Nov 24 at 2014 1:50 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:50:01 -0500

A few thoughts:
- Declaration of war is a congressional responsibility as per the US Constitution.
- Congress has not formally declared war since December 8, 1941.
- The failure to declare war (or not to declare war) since WWII is both an organizational failure to fulfill Constitutional responsibilities as well as an individual act of cowardice with the below caveats.
- "Policing actions", "authorizations of military force" and other euphymisms can be a measured step short of declaring war but these are now the "go to" actions for Congress. One time is a data point. At least five times and counting since WWII is a trend that should not be ignored.
- A decision not to make a decision is a valid decision (contrary to the ongoing dialogue on the separate issue of immigration and POTUS executive order).
- Politicians used to decide national security issues based upon what was good for the US National Security. Sadly that is no longer the case. National security issues are now decided by politics (see Hillary Clinton statements in presidential election cycle of 2008).
- The US and our allies won the Cold War because Democrats and Republicans agreed upon two basic issues: 1. Communism was bad and 2. At the end of the day, it was going to be us or them going down.
- The US and our allies are losing GWOT/OCO because Democrats and Republicans do not agree upon two basic issues: 1. Radical Islam is bad and 2. At the end of the day, it is going to be either us or them going down.

Response by SGT Javier Silva made Nov 24 at 2014 2:59 PM

SGT Javier Silva — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:59:50 -0500

So honestly, how many of you think that the regulations will "lax" again?

Response by PO1 John Y. made Nov 24 at 2014 4:24 PM

PO1 John Y. — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:24:41 -0500

It's time to let the middle east just implode in on itself...

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2014 4:28 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:28:58 -0500

Well, we still have the same authorizations, right?

Response by SGT James Hastings made Nov 24 at 2014 6:31 PM

SGT James Hastings — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:31:33 -0500

It is amazing that Congress, unlike the Board of Directors of any major company, don't really have to attend meetings; don't have to vote on bills, but still get paid the same as those who are there most of the time. If a company was run with the same standards as Congress I doubt they could be profitable. I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind.