Since the first U.S. combat death in the fight against the Islamic State last month, the administration and its critics have been at odds about whether U.S. troops are back in combat, and how combat is even defined.
The White House has stressed that, while U.S. forces are in dangerous places, they are not in a combat mission that will put them on the front lines. Critics, however, say that every inch of Iraq and Syria is a war zone where U.S. forces face danger.
The distinction has political overtones. If the administration says the U.S. is on a combat mission in Syria and Iraq, President Obama would appear to be restarting a war he promised to end.
But critics say there’s no getting around it.
“There are places where combat is more prevalent, but the wide use of [improvised explosive devices], suicide vests, and snipers, there’s no place in Syria or Iraq that is not dead center in a combat zone,” said Chris Harmer, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War. “It’s a distinction without a difference at this point. Anybody who goes to Syria in an American uniform is going to be a high-value target for a lot of different terrorist organization.”
The reality of the dangers facing U.S. troops is more complex than either side claims, due to the new age of conflicts where enemies blend into society rather than facing off on traditional battlefields.
It is now “very, very difficult” to define the frontlines of battle, said P.J. Crowley, a professor at George Washington University and a former assistant secretary for public affairs at the State Department.
“The nature of modern conflict does not fit neatly into these kinds of categories, categories that have a lot more to do with fighting standing armies representing states than fighting non-state actors that can blend easily into a civilian population,” Crowley said.
This type of fighting sees people who are not traditionally in combat roles, such as truck drivers tasked with carrying supplies, get ambushed and face violence, Harmer said. Because they see the situation first hand, they know they are in combat regardless of the “double speak” in Washington, he said.
“To the troops it makes no difference at all. They’re probably vaguely irritated by the verbal semantics, but anyone on the ground in Syria or Iraq knows they are in combat,” he said.
Cully Stimson, a national security analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said troops are also likely deploying with all equipment needed to protect themselves in a combat situation, since U.S. service members always have the right to defend themselves and allies if threatened.
“When you’re sending special operators to Syria you’re not sending them there to fix light bulbs,” Stimson said. “You’re sending them there because they have a unique skill set and they’re hardened warriors.”
But even following the announcement that 50 U.S. special operators would deploy the Syria, the administration has stood by the notion that U.S. troops will largely stay away from areas where they’d face major danger. Still, officials have said U.S. forces could participate in more raids as intelligence and conditions allow.
“They’re not going to be out fighting side-by-side with forces inside Syria,” Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, said Monday. “They’re intended to be a force multiplier that will allow for those on the front lines of the fight against ISIL … to hopefully have better results in the fight to take back territory,” he said, using the U.S. government’s preferred acronym for the Islamic State.
War authority
The deployment of the special operators to advise Syrian forces does not require a new authorization for the use of military force under the administration’s legal understanding of past war authorities, analysts said.
Putting additional American lives in danger, however, is reinvigorating calls on Capitol Hill for lawmakers to fulfill their obligation and vote on an Islamic State-specific authorization for the use of military force.
The administration is operating under previous authorizations from 2001 and 2002 that allow for operations against al Qaeda and in Iraq, respectively. Some legal analysts and critics in Congress have said using these authorizations to fight a terrorist group that didn’t even exist when the authorizations were passed stretches it to its legal limit and maybe beyond. But sending ground troops doesn’t require a new authorization under the White House’s understanding of its authorities, experts said.
“It goes to wherever the enemy which falls under the AUMF,” Stimson said. “So the administration doesn’t need any additional legal authority to send combat troops or trainers or advisers to any country to take on [the Islamic State].”
But some lawmakers say putting American troops in Syria crosses a line which Congress should address by voting on an Islamic State-specific war authorization. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who has been pushing for lawmakers to stop shirking their responsibility for more than a year, said members of Congress owe the service members putting their lives in danger a vote.
“We are now one year, two months, and 23 days into an unauthorized and executive war. It is time for Congress to do its most solemn job — to debate and declare war,” Kaine said in a statement last week.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, requested the administration brief lawmakers on its strategy in Syria next week to determine if additional authorities are needed, an aide in Corker’s office said.
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said this week that it’s unclear if Congress has the votes to pass a war authorization and that he doesn’t know what would happen if lawmakers officially voted against the war while troops were engaged in missions overseas.
The administration sent a proposed authorization to Capitol Hill this year, but Congress never took it up for a vote. Many Democrats felt it was too open-ended while Republicans largely thought the president was needlessly limiting his options in the campaign.
