Fears are growing in Congress about the deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The latest flashpoint is President Obama’s decision this week to send an additional 250 special operations troops to Syria, where they will support forces battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision follows a separate move to increase the number of troops in Iraq and as the Pentagon and White House struggle to withdraw troops as scheduled from Afghanistan, where the Taliban — and a nascent ISIS presence — are gaining strength.

The continual deployments have alarmed dovish lawmakers who worry about mission creep, a gradual shift in military objectives over the course of a campaign.

“We see a continual escalation with the now 250 additional troops,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the lone dissenting vote against 2001 legislation authorizing military force in Afghanistan, told The Hill on Tuesday.

“Whenever you have troops in harm’s way, unintended consequences could occur,” she said. “I’m very worried that our troops, while advisers, are still in the middle of the war and without authorization from Congress.”

Obama insists the new deployment is not a case of mission creep, arguing the troops are enabling local forces, not directly engaging in combat.

But he has also not ruled out that the troops could come into direct combat with ISIS, noting Monday to PBS’s Charlie Rose that “as a general rule, their role is not to engage directly with the enemy but rather to work with local forces.”

The White House on Tuesday said Obama would consider sending even more special operations forces if the latest deployment proves to be successful.

“If this additional commitment of additional troops yields positive results … then that’s something the president would consider,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

The latest deployment will increase the official number of U.S. forces on the ground in Syria from 50 to 300, just as a cease-fire that reduced violence verges on collapsing.

The plan announced last week for 217 more troops to go to Iraq will bring the official number there to 4,087 troops. This does not include hundreds more U.S. soldiers not based in Iraq but who deploy there for short periods of time.

The White House also said Tuesday that there would be no “geographical limitations” on where the U.S. could send troops to fight ISIS, opening the door to sending more troops outside of Iraq and Syria.

Obama’s latest decision in Syria has won support from Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhat Senate Republicans have said about election-year Supreme Court vacancies Bipartisan praise pours in after Ginsburg's death Trump carries on with rally, unaware of Ginsburg's death MORE and Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersKenosha will be a good bellwether in 2020 Biden's fiscal program: What is the likely market impact? McConnell accuses Democrats of sowing division by 'downplaying progress' on election security MORE. Both have sough to highlight their ties to the president during the campaign.

“These special forces will continue to provide critical support to local forces on the ground who ultimately must be the ones to win this fight,” Clinton’s campaign said in a statement.

Sanders has repeatedly criticized Clinton for supporting the Iraq War, as well as U.S. intervention in Libya, but he voiced unequivocal support for Obama’s actions.

“I think what the president is talking about is having American troops training Muslim troops, helping to supply the military equipment they need, and I do support that effort,” he said Monday during an MSNBC town hall.

The Democratic drift toward deeper involvement is alarming progressives who have long argued Congress needs to debate the war and provide a new authorization for the use of military force against ISIS.

“These wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria are on remote control, and, quite frankly, it’s unconscionable that Congress, which has a constitutional responsibility, is sitting on its hands,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

More hawkish Democrats are backing the president’s decision, arguing it is not a replay of Vietnam.

“One of the key points of decision in Vietnam was putting division-sized units in, in the mid-1960s, and then supporting them, and putting more in, etc. I think that’s a distinctive different approach than we’re adopting now,” said Sen. Jack Reed John (Jack) Francis ReedWhen 'Buy American' and common sense collide Hillicon Valley: Russia 'amplifying' concerns around mail-in voting to undermine election | Facebook and Twitter take steps to limit Trump remarks on voting | Facebook to block political ads ahead of election Top Democrats press Trump to sanction Russian individuals over 2020 election interference efforts MORE (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Republican hawks are also welcoming the use of more troops, but criticize the slow, incremental fashion the administration is using to do it.

“There’s no strategy; there’s begrudging incrementalism. We used to call it ‘mission creep.’ I’ve seen this movie before — it’s called Vietnam,” Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCainMcSally says current Senate should vote on Trump nominee Say what you will about the presidential candidates, as long as it isn't 'They're too old' The electoral reality that the media ignores MORE (R-Ariz.) told The Hill on Tuesday.

Lee and McGovern say debating a new authorization for the use of military force would help to clarify the strategy and avoid mission creep.

“Where is this all going? What’s our end game here? And how do you measure success?” asked McGovern, who also criticized Congress for not taking up a new authorization of military force bill.

Lee said the administration has made it very clear what its intentions are.

“Congress needs to do its job,” she said.

Jordan Fabian contributed.