Congressional Republicans said they would support parts of President Obama‘s plan to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but they remained skeptical of the proposal to arm Syrian rebels.
With polls showing many Americans concerned about the threat posed by the Islamic State, members of both parties are anxious to take action in Syria.
But several House Republicans said Wednesday evening that they need more details about the plan to give more weapons to Syrian rebels, which they feared could result in U.S. weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists.
“He has finally begun to make the case the nation has needed him to make for quite some time: that destroying this terrorist threat requires decisive action and must be the highest priority for the United States and other nations of the free world,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. “A speech is not the same thing as a strategy, however. While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act.”
Obama could also have trouble on his left flank. Democrats, like the president, have not been eager to expand the scope of military operations in the Middle East in response to ISIS. A liberal advocacy group made clear that they aren’t likely to give Obama much political wiggle room, and that could affect Democratic votes, particularly less than 60 days before the midterm elections.
“We are deeply troubled by President Obama’s announcement tonight of an expanding military intervention into Iraq and Syria. While we, like all Americans, share in the outrage over the violence of ISIS militants, an open-ended escalation of US military force is not the answer,” Win Without War spokesman Stephen Miles said. “The U.S. should not be rushing back to another endless war in the Middle East.”
Most members agree with Obama that U.S. ground troops should not be deployed to Iraq or Syria as a part of the strategy to fight ISIS. That position is certainly popular with most Americans and is likely to be applauded.
The president reiterated that he doesn’t need congressional approval to act militarily in the Middle East against ISIS. But he is asking the Republican House and the Democratic Senate to approve his plan to provide arms and training to the rebels that have been fighting Syrian strongman Bashar Assad in that country’s civil war. Obama has previously dismissed this approach as unworkable.
Obama has asked House Republican leaders to include this proposal in the continuing resolution budget bill that needs to clear Congress by Sept. 30 to avoid a government shutdown.
As of Wednesday evening before Obama spoke, only House Republican leaders and key committee chairman were aware of the specifics of Obama’s Syria strategy. Most rank-and-file members had only been briefed on the concepts, and it was clear they needed more information to make a decision.
“I’m a little uncomfortable with a bill just arming the rebels,” Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with the Washington Examiner before Obama’s speech.
“I guess there will be air strikes by us and then sort of asking them to clean up on the ground. If they truly are a threat to us and our homeland and we have a national security interest, then we need to go in and fix that interest,” Rooney added. “If he can make the argument that he can do that with the Syrian rebels, I would be shocked.”
Iraq appears to have an army capable of collaborating with U.S. air power to degrade ISIS there, many Republicans worry that the Syrian rebels won’t be able to get the job done on the ground. And if they are defeated by ISIS forces, the weapons provided to them could end up in the terrorists’ arsenal. The president also is facing a question of his resolve.
Particularly among Republicans, there is uncertainty about whether a president who has prided himself on ending wars and declared the war on terror over is committed to dedicating the final two years of his administration to a military engagement in the Middle East. Obama isn’t running again, but members of Congress who vote to support his policy might have to answer for it in 2016 or beyond.
“We have heard tough talk before from the president, and I hope this time he takes decisive actions to match his words,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said.
