Some members are pressing Congress to authorize U.S. military action in Iraq. Action could boost Iraq vote pressure

The rising numbers of U.S. airstrikes and troops deploying to Iraq could increase pressure on a Congress that has so far been reluctant to hold a vote on military action there.

A small group of lawmakers from both parties is urging a congressional vote on the latest military action in Iraq, arguing that the conflict has intensified to a point that makes authorization necessary.


Even so, most members remain hesitant to seek a vote on the matter, more comfortable letting the Obama administration act on its view that congressional authorization isn’t required and avoiding what could be a controversial issue before midterm elections.

“I think many Democrats are skittish about supporting military operations in Iraq, and many Republicans are skittish about supporting this president, particularly on such a partisan and polemical issue as Iraq, with so much history and baggage associated with it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Plus no one really knows where this is headed, and we all know by this point that Iraq has quagmire potential.”

So far, lawmakers have mostly stayed on the sidelines. Many Republicans have praised President Barack Obama for launching airstrikes — but argued he has failed to outline the overarching U.S. strategy in Iraq. Democrats, meanwhile, have backed the president’s use of force for humanitarian reasons, while raising concerns about “mission creep.”

But some members are beginning internal discussions about pressing Congress — when it returns to session in September — to authorize U.S. military action in Iraq.

“This is not some trite administrative task here,” Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) said in an interview. “It truly is about the [War] Powers issues, and I think it’s one that has been breached clearly by not only this administration but prior administrations expanding and enlarging the authority of the presidency.”

The War Powers Resolution mandates that the president notify Congress after sending troops into action and limits the time period they can stay to 60 days without authorization from Congress. (It provides another 30 days to withdraw troops.) Obama has already made several notifications to Congress under the resolution.

Rigell is partnering with anti-war Democrats like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to press for Congress to have a voice on military action in Iraq. He said he supports the president’s effort to protect U.S. personnel, but is still wrestling with the possibility of a lengthy U.S. military mission there.

“I think the president would be wise to slow down and to not just keep us informed but to seek authorization, should this thing need to be sustained,” Rigell said.

The military has already launched 90 airstrikes, including more than 50 to help Iraqi forces near the Mosul Dam. U.S. officials said Wednesday the Pentagon is considering sending another 300 troops to beef up security around the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which would bring the total troops in the country to roughly 1,000.

Before Congress left for its August recess, the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution, authored by Lee and Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.), that would prohibit sustained U.S. military action in Iraq. The measure, largely symbolic, passed 370-40.

In a statement, Lee said “many of my congressional colleagues share my concerns over mission creep in Iraq.”

“The overwhelming passage of [the Iraq resolution] was a clear indicator that Congress must have a role any future U.S. military action in Iraq,” she said.

Some senators are also calling for an Iraq authorization vote. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has proposed reforming the War Powers Resolution, said last week he is “concerned about the timeline and scope of our renewed military efforts in Iraq.”

“It is now up to the administration to receive congressional authorization for the current air campaign against” the Islamic State, Kaine said in a statement.

And Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a possible 2016 presidential candidate, said on Twitter that Obama “needs to come to Congress to authorize any prolonged military action in #Iraq, in particular any troops on the ground.”

Defense hawks, however, have not focused on a vote; instead, they’ve pressed for answers about a broader strategy.

“We must get beyond half-measures, tactical responses, and defensive actions,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement. “We need to develop a comprehensive strategy — political, economic, and military — to go on the offensive against ISIS, both in Iraq and Syria.”

An aide to House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said the chairman is “more concerned about strategy than he is authority at this point.”

“There is a real chance that 30 or even 60 days from now, the president will still be authorizing piecemeal airstrikes but will not have presented a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the aide said.

The congressional response to the military action in Iraq stands in stark contrast to lawmakers’ reaction to conflicts in Libya and Syria. In Libya, lawmakers slammed the administration for not seeking authorization. In Syria, the White House turned to Congress for authorization before beginning military action — and ultimately did not act at all.

Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security law, said the two missions the U.S. is undertaking in Iraq — a humanitarian effort and an initiative to protect U.S. personnel and facilities — are unlikely to spark a congressional push for authorization. The law’s definition of “hostilities” is vague and gives the administration plenty of wiggle room, he added.

But the pressure could rise if the U.S. effort goes further in trying to eradicate ISIL.

“If we do plan to get more involved and help them go on the offensive, it’s going to be very hard to maintain the humanitarian and force protection arguments, if the U.S. becomes involved in sustained air support operations to evict ISIS from its territorial gains,” said Chesney, a co-founder of the national security blog Lawfare.

Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also said a groundswell in Congress to require authorization remains unlikely if the U.S. military continues at the same level.

“Something has to go either very wrong in terms of the threat becoming far more serious — in which case you really don’t have a problem with the War Powers — or something has to go really wrong in what the U.S. is doing, which isn’t quite clear [without troops on the ground],” he said. “Unless you’ve got a political reason to do it, nothing really happens.”

This article tagged under: Iraq