When Congress left for the summer recess, few predicted members would return to face a vote on a bill to authorize bombing in Syria just weeks before the critical midterm elections.
But the growing threat in the Middle East from the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has forced both President Obama and Congress into a pre-election quandary of deciding whether to move forward with expanded military action.
The move could be politically dangerous. The Nov. 4 election is just weeks away and many lawmakers won their seats — or nearly lost them — because of the Democratic pledge to end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 and 2008.
Obama, who campaigned to end the wars, has not sought any new authorization for military action and continues to conduct targeted bombings in Iraq under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that preceded the Iraq War.
Some Democrat and Republican lawmakers have called a congressional vote authorizing new strikes, but most want Obama to present a plan first.
That gives congressional leaders an escape hatch. The House is in session a mere 12 days before it adjourns until after the election, while the Senate is scheduled to work for 17 days. So far, leaders of both chambers have been ambiguous about what they will do to address ISIS in that time.
If Obama doesn’t present a plan fast, they will run out of time to vote on anything.
It’s not clear whether the House or Senate would act on its own without a plan from the president, although that would typically be unlikely. In interviews one day apart on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., seemed at odds over how the House should act.
On Sept. 2, Boehner said he is waiting for Obama to seek authorization for military strikes.
“Until the president is ready to lay out out a plan, Congress has very few options ahead of it,” Boehner said on the show.
The next day, McCarthy sounded more eager to act ahead of Obama, though he was vague about how to do it.
“If the president won’t act, I think we have to take some action to move forward,” McCarthy said.
That Republican leadership is still mulling what, if any, action to take was evident in a Sept. 4 memo laying out the party’s pre-election agenda, which made no mention of legislation addressing ISIS but instead merely promised some hearings and briefings.
McCarthy pledged the House would then “take the appropriate steps necessary” to defeat the militant group.
If Congress does decide to act, it has several options.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., is pushing for passage of a bill that would prevent the more than 100 U.S. passport holders fighting with ISIS from returning to the United States.
Wolf has also introduced a bill that would authorize U.S. military strikes on ISIS, but that legislation is likely going nowhere, GOP aides said.
Rep. Darrell Issa has authored legislation that might be more politically palatable.
The California Republican, who is head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and thus a de facto member of the GOP leadership, introduced a resolution that would “require the president to present a strategic plan” for military action and then give him a 120-day authorization for use of force against ISIS.
It is also possible Congress will hold hearings but no votes, especially if Obama continues to put off presenting his own military plan.
Congress can easily look too busy to address the issue on its own. Lawmakers must pass a short-term funding bill by Sept. 30 or the government will run out of money. There is also a heated debate on whether to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which also expires Sept. 30.
The biggest reason they may skip a vote is that it would simply be too risky for everyone involved.
“It will never happen,” Democratic political strategist Doug Schoen told the Washington Examiner. “Neither side can or wants to reach a deal or cooperate. Too fraught with political controversy and electoral minefields.”
But Congress and Obama also watch the polls, which indicate public support is growing for U.S. action against ISIS. The terrorist group not only threatens the stability of the Middle East and has beheaded two American journalists but is also promising to take the fight to American soil.
A recent YouGov poll found Americans support a military strike against ISIS in Syria by a wide margin: 63 percent to 16 percent.
Lawmakers know there is also political risk in doing nothing, but for the near future, it looks like they may take cover behind the president’s inaction.
