Congressional Republicans appear willing to OK President Obama’s request to support rebels fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but say they’re frustrated he’s not seeking Capitol Hill approval for a broader plan.
After briefings with Pentagon and administration officials regarding the president strategy to combat ISIS terrorists in Syria, many Republicans said they fear the White House plan is too limited.
“We need to have a declaration of war, and if we’re going to defeat this enemy it needs to be all in,” said Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz. “This strategy isn’t enough — it’s too thin.”
Salmon said that while he recognizes Americans are “war weary,” ISIS must be stopped immediately because it poses a greater threat than “anything that we’ve seen in a long long time.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., also pressed the president for a bolder strategy.
“The President wants to use a light footprint now in hopes that he doesn’t need a heavy footprint later,” he said. “This approach was not terribly successful in Libya, which has fallen into chaos. It has short-term benefits, though. It will be cheaper in blood and treasure — for now.”
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., accused Obama of recklessly ignoring security issues in the Middle East.
“It is clear in my judgment that this president has stood by with a golf club in his hand and watched the blood-bought gains of those who secured Iraq before evaporate, and I believe that he owes a profound apology to George Bush and every man and woman from the United States who died in Iraq securing those gains,” Franks said.
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration would’ve been wise to seek broader authorization in Syria “on the front end instead of having over time 535 Monday morning quarterbacks,” referring to the number of House and Senate members.
“They’ve chosen to go a different route,” he said.
Still, most other Republicans said they likely will support the president’s request to arm and train the Free Syrian Army, who are combating both ISIS and loyalists of former Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
“While many of us believe that this is an insufficient response, that at least we should make the response that he’s asked for,” Franks said.
Corker also suggested he will vote to support the president’s request to use the rebels as proxy fighters for the U.S.
“I want this to be successful. And I want to do everything I can as one senator to ensure that that is the case,” he said.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said that while he would like to see the broader U.S. strategy for combating ISIS, the president “certainly ought to get the things that he has to get, whatever authority he needs (or) he think he needs.”
“My guess is over time this will prove long and tough and he’ll probably have to come back to Congress for additional authority and additional resources down the road,” he said.
Cole added that while he has concerns that the Syrian rebels can be trusted, they likely are the United States’ best option in lieu of sending in American troops.
“It’s a messy civil war, and to the president’s credit he did not want to get embroiled in this,” the Republican said. “He’s been criticized (about this) and I’ve actually defended him a couple of occasions because I think he should be cautious about this. But … you’re going to need some ally on the ground if you don’t want to put your own forces there.”
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, also said Congress should “give the president what he is asking for.”
“I support the president’s plan to train and equip Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition, but I remain concerned that those measures could take years to fully implement at a time when [ISIS’s] momentum and territorial gains must be halted and reversed immediately,” he said. But “we stand ready to work with the president to put in place a plan that would destroy and defeat” ISIS.
