Congress must remove limitations against the use of U.S. ground forces to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, former generals told the House Armed Services Committee Thursday.
“The ground force constraint has to be absolutely removed,” retired Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff, told the committee.
Both the committee’s chairman and the top Democrat on the panel said ground forces must be used, and that constraints upon them should be lifted.
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said that while he appreciates the Obama administration’s position that the Islamic State must be dealt with long-term through some of the softer aspects of international influence including outreach and political and economic means, the administration’s position “that there’s no military solution to this problem … I know what they mean, I also know that they are wrong. The military has got to be a part of it.”
Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said the current language of the bill authorizing the use of military force needs to be stripped of the vague limitations set by the term “enduring.”
“Going into battle with a lawyer nearby to decide whether a particular action is ‘enduring’ or ‘offensive’ or a ‘ground combat operation’ seems problematic,” Thornberry said.
Even if the limitations on the use of force are changed by Congress, regional sensitivities might affect whether U.S. troops have a combat role. At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing being held as House members discussed the benefits of U.S. ground troops, senators were discussing its potential risks and the feedback they have heard from the king of Jordan and the emir of Qatar.
“King Abdullah was with us about three weeks ago, and he told us … that American ground troops as part of this battle of [the Islamic State] would not be a good idea in his view,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, R-Va. On Wednesday as a part of his U.S visit, “the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim, also said American ground troops is a bad idea, because it would convert the perception of the battle” from the region against the Islamic State to the West against the Islamic State, Kaine said, which would become a propaganda standpoint.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was testifying to the Senate panel, said Jordan’s King Abdullah had raised the same issue.
“I have had similar discussions with the king,” Clapper said. “He is a staunch proponent [that] …. the people in the region have to take this on and have to — have to lead. Any time we [the U.S.] show up some place, then … we’re by definition occupiers. [Abdullah] recognizes … that at some point there will be a need for boots on the ground. But hopefully others and not the U.S., because that engenders its own challenges and issues.”
Lawmakers are weighing several aspects of President Obama’s proposed authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that have split Congress, including what the strategy against the Islamic State is and whether the authorization addresses the strategy, whether the language should include a three-year limit, whether it should be expanded beyond operations against the Islamic State and primarily, whether it should authorize the use of ground forces.
The debate on whether to commit additional U.S. troops to combat the Islamic State may involve complicated operations that would essentially be borderless and could expand to terrorist organizations that are affiliated with the Islamic State. It has generated pushback that the bills language may need to be reined in to not provide blanket authority for the president to deploy the military at will in the future.
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, who commanded forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, advised the committee that that is exactly what they have to do.
“I recommend you craft a document that accepts that the foreseeable future is not foreseeable,” Mattis said.
Mattis added that an authorization that does not allow for the use of ground forces, broadcasts to the Islamic State that “he will not face the fiercest, most skillful and ethical combat force in the world. The Congress should … [recognize the time for half-measures is gone; whether used or not, we should be reluctant to tell the world our heart is not in it by saying we won’t send out ground forces,” Mattis said in a letter released to the committee.
This article was first published at 12:19 p.m. and has since been updated.
