

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As the number of American troops sent to Iraq nearly doubled on Monday and the White House continues to flex its executive privilege to make unilateral military decisions,citizens and lawmakers alike are raising concerns and objections over the escalating American presence in the country, asking: Are we nearing 'mission creep'?
"A continued escalation of U.S. commitment in Iraq is troubling," said Iraq war veteran and U.S. Senator John Walsh (D-Mont.) in a statement Tuesday.
Echoing the concerns of many, the lawmaker continued: "The President has promised to prevent 'mission creep.' But how many Americans will we deploy? How much money will we spend? How long until we demand the Iraqi people stand up and defend their own government?"
Walsh's comments came a day after it was announced that President Obama had deployed 300 additional troops, as well as more helicopters and armed Predator drones, to the war-torn nation. Operating under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Obama has thus far sent roughly 650 American troops to Iraq. The legislation permits the president to send up to 770 troops to the country without Congressional approval.
During a Pentagon press conference on Tuesday, press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby refused to rule out the possibility that more troops would be sent.
"Is there a grand total? No," Kirby told reporters. "But in terms of the grand total limit, he's the commander in chief. He makes these decisions. And he needs the freedom to make those decisions as he and the military commanders and the civilian leadership here in the Pentagon advise him to."
"There's no mission creep," Kirby insisted when asked, but added that the situation in Iraq is "fluid" and that both the President and military leadership "expect and should have a certain measure of flexibility."
The Pentagon's repeated calls for "flexibility" in responding to the situation in Iraq, in addition to President Obama's claimed authority to send even more troops, has many on alert.
Last week, two members of Congress sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that respect the Constitutional requirement to seek Congressional authorization before using military force in Iraq. Citing that letter, a coalition of 32 organizations including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Codepink and Peace Action issued a statement on Tuesday calling on other lawmakers to support their call and "demand a vote."
"The current situation in Iraq has grabbed the nation's attention, and the President has already deployed U.S. military personnel and assets in response to the crisis," the group writes. "Yet the President and Administration officials have also suggested that the U.S. military may take further action, including potentially airstrikes and other uses of military force."
The letter cites recent news reports that have suggested that the President may proceed with further military intervention in Iraq without any Congressional approval.
In a memo sent to House Speaker John Boehner on Monday, Obama wrote that the troops were being deployed "for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property" from the fighters associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), recently renamed the "Islamic State." However, he added that the force "will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed."
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As the number of American troops sent to Iraq nearly doubled on Monday and the White House continues to flex its executive privilege to make unilateral military decisions,citizens and lawmakers alike are raising concerns and objections over the escalating American presence in the country, asking: Are we nearing 'mission creep'?
"A continued escalation of U.S. commitment in Iraq is troubling," said Iraq war veteran and U.S. Senator John Walsh (D-Mont.) in a statement Tuesday.
Echoing the concerns of many, the lawmaker continued: "The President has promised to prevent 'mission creep.' But how many Americans will we deploy? How much money will we spend? How long until we demand the Iraqi people stand up and defend their own government?"
Walsh's comments came a day after it was announced that President Obama had deployed 300 additional troops, as well as more helicopters and armed Predator drones, to the war-torn nation. Operating under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Obama has thus far sent roughly 650 American troops to Iraq. The legislation permits the president to send up to 770 troops to the country without Congressional approval.
During a Pentagon press conference on Tuesday, press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby refused to rule out the possibility that more troops would be sent.
"Is there a grand total? No," Kirby told reporters. "But in terms of the grand total limit, he's the commander in chief. He makes these decisions. And he needs the freedom to make those decisions as he and the military commanders and the civilian leadership here in the Pentagon advise him to."
"There's no mission creep," Kirby insisted when asked, but added that the situation in Iraq is "fluid" and that both the President and military leadership "expect and should have a certain measure of flexibility."
The Pentagon's repeated calls for "flexibility" in responding to the situation in Iraq, in addition to President Obama's claimed authority to send even more troops, has many on alert.
Last week, two members of Congress sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that respect the Constitutional requirement to seek Congressional authorization before using military force in Iraq. Citing that letter, a coalition of 32 organizations including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Codepink and Peace Action issued a statement on Tuesday calling on other lawmakers to support their call and "demand a vote."
"The current situation in Iraq has grabbed the nation's attention, and the President has already deployed U.S. military personnel and assets in response to the crisis," the group writes. "Yet the President and Administration officials have also suggested that the U.S. military may take further action, including potentially airstrikes and other uses of military force."
The letter cites recent news reports that have suggested that the President may proceed with further military intervention in Iraq without any Congressional approval.
In a memo sent to House Speaker John Boehner on Monday, Obama wrote that the troops were being deployed "for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property" from the fighters associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), recently renamed the "Islamic State." However, he added that the force "will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed."
_____________________
As the number of American troops sent to Iraq nearly doubled on Monday and the White House continues to flex its executive privilege to make unilateral military decisions,citizens and lawmakers alike are raising concerns and objections over the escalating American presence in the country, asking: Are we nearing 'mission creep'?
"A continued escalation of U.S. commitment in Iraq is troubling," said Iraq war veteran and U.S. Senator John Walsh (D-Mont.) in a statement Tuesday.
Echoing the concerns of many, the lawmaker continued: "The President has promised to prevent 'mission creep.' But how many Americans will we deploy? How much money will we spend? How long until we demand the Iraqi people stand up and defend their own government?"
Walsh's comments came a day after it was announced that President Obama had deployed 300 additional troops, as well as more helicopters and armed Predator drones, to the war-torn nation. Operating under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Obama has thus far sent roughly 650 American troops to Iraq. The legislation permits the president to send up to 770 troops to the country without Congressional approval.
During a Pentagon press conference on Tuesday, press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby refused to rule out the possibility that more troops would be sent.
"Is there a grand total? No," Kirby told reporters. "But in terms of the grand total limit, he's the commander in chief. He makes these decisions. And he needs the freedom to make those decisions as he and the military commanders and the civilian leadership here in the Pentagon advise him to."
"There's no mission creep," Kirby insisted when asked, but added that the situation in Iraq is "fluid" and that both the President and military leadership "expect and should have a certain measure of flexibility."
The Pentagon's repeated calls for "flexibility" in responding to the situation in Iraq, in addition to President Obama's claimed authority to send even more troops, has many on alert.
Last week, two members of Congress sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that respect the Constitutional requirement to seek Congressional authorization before using military force in Iraq. Citing that letter, a coalition of 32 organizations including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Codepink and Peace Action issued a statement on Tuesday calling on other lawmakers to support their call and "demand a vote."
"The current situation in Iraq has grabbed the nation's attention, and the President has already deployed U.S. military personnel and assets in response to the crisis," the group writes. "Yet the President and Administration officials have also suggested that the U.S. military may take further action, including potentially airstrikes and other uses of military force."
The letter cites recent news reports that have suggested that the President may proceed with further military intervention in Iraq without any Congressional approval.
In a memo sent to House Speaker John Boehner on Monday, Obama wrote that the troops were being deployed "for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property" from the fighters associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), recently renamed the "Islamic State." However, he added that the force "will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed."
_____________________