House and Senate lawmakers dodged a vote on a broad military authorization for President Obama to go after Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, guaranteeing a heated debate over the issue when Congress returns after the November election.
Democrats have already pledged to oppose the use of U.S. combat troops to fight the expansion of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in the Middle East, despite U.S. military advisers warning that U.S. ground troops may be needed to fight.
“I think the generals should note that there is no appetite in the public for combat troops on the ground,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said.
But Republicans say Obama should not rule it out.
“Certainly we will not reoccupy Iraq, but some special operations forces may be necessary to supplement our airpower and augment the capabilities of moderate indigenous forces we want to see ascendant when the smoke clears,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy wrote in a USA Today op-ed on Friday.
Congressional leaders in both chambers said they are willing to consider a bill authorizing the use of military force to defeat the Islamic State. But they remain vague on whether an authorization measure will come up in the “lame duck” session that begins the week after the Nov. 4 election.
They’ll likely have to take some action by the end of the year.
The measure Congress passed last week, giving Obama the authority to arm and train Syrian moderate rebels to fight the Islamic State, expires on Dec.11, despite Obama and his military advisers conceding that the mission is expected to take much longer.
At issue is whether Obama has the legal power to call for bombing in Iraq and Syria. Congress granted authority for the use of military force to pursue terrorists in the days following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and again in 2002, at the start of the war in Iraq.
But many lawmakers in both parties agree that the latest round of military action requires new authority from Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a new authorization for military force could be included in a defense department measure the Senate will take up before the end of the year.
Reid wouldn’t promise more than that, despite his top deputy, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., calling such a debate “long overdue.”
The Senate bill, in fact, does not include broader authorization.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 includes a provision giving Obama the power “to provide equipment, training, supplies, and defense services to assist vetted members of the Syrian opposition.”
In other words, it extends what Congress passed last week, but nothing further.
In the House, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he’d likely wait for Obama to request “broader use of military force” to deal with the Islamic State.
The question of whether to grant authority for military force divides both parties, a reflection of split public sentiment.
While polls show that Americans want Obama to take aggressive action against the Islamic State, few favor sending U.S. ground troops into the region.
Dozens of congressional Democrats won seats in the 2006 and 2008 election by pledging to bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. military involvement became increasingly unpopular.
