SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama Seeks Broad Powers to Wage Geographically Limitless War On ISIS
Analysts raise alarm at presidential proposal for congressional authorization, which would allow for further troop deployments and years of intervention
Feb 10, 2015
President Barack Obama is seeking broad congressional authorization for the U.S.-led war on ISIS that would allow for further deployments of ground troops, years of intervention, and geographically limitless military operations, according to media reports on Tuesday.
The war has already been waged for six months without a congressional vote or meaningful debate. While Obama has previously claimed that such authorization is not required, he appeared to diverge from this line in his State of the Union address last month.
"I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against [ISIS]," he said in the speech. "We need that authority."
At a closed meeting on Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and White House counsel Neil Eggleston met with Senate Democrats to discuss the key stipulations of the war authority Obama is seeking, ABC reports.
The information revealed to the media so far indicates Obama is pushing for broad--and potentially global--war-making authority.
Analysts are already raising the alarm over the potential implications.
"First of all, this crisis does not have a military solution, and it continues to be a shame that we are only having a debate about how much war to have," Stephen Miles of Win Without War told Common Dreams. "That said, it is important for Congress to learn from mistakes in 2001 and 2002 and avoid making war permanent and world-wide and avoid committing to another massive ground war in the Middle East."
According to reports, the president is seeking authorization for at least three years of military intervention, at which point the next president could then seek reauthorization.
The proposal would not put any geographical limitations on the use of military force, similar to the 2001 AUMF, which was passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks and was used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to justify war and occupation in Afghanistan, covert drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, military intervention in countries from Ethiopia to Iraq, indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison, and more.
While the president is proposing a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq and use of force against Saddam Hussein, he is seeking to leave the 2001 AUMF firmly in place. Raed Jarrar, Policy Impact Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, told Common Dreams that this would amount to "a blank check for war from 2001 and another blank check from 2015."
The proposal, furthermore, does not ban deployments of U.S. troops. While it calls for a prohibition on "enduring offensive ground operations," it is not clear exactly what this term means, and analysts warn that this vague wording could, in fact, open a back door to another ground offensive.
Josh Rogin writes in Bloomberg that the White House proposal regarding ground troops leaves room for numerous exceptions: "First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel."
The proposal vaguely defines the enemy, authorizing force against ISIS and associated forces, which could potentially include combatants fighting alongside ISIS. This, in combination with the lack of geographical constraints, could spread the war beyond Iraq and Syria.
"We are against authorizing a new war," said Jarrar. "Unfortunately, what we know so far from the language that has been made public is extremely concerning, because it seems like it will not only legitimize the ongoing intervention in Iraq and Syria but will also prolong it and increase its scope."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
President Barack Obama is seeking broad congressional authorization for the U.S.-led war on ISIS that would allow for further deployments of ground troops, years of intervention, and geographically limitless military operations, according to media reports on Tuesday.
The war has already been waged for six months without a congressional vote or meaningful debate. While Obama has previously claimed that such authorization is not required, he appeared to diverge from this line in his State of the Union address last month.
"I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against [ISIS]," he said in the speech. "We need that authority."
At a closed meeting on Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and White House counsel Neil Eggleston met with Senate Democrats to discuss the key stipulations of the war authority Obama is seeking, ABC reports.
The information revealed to the media so far indicates Obama is pushing for broad--and potentially global--war-making authority.
Analysts are already raising the alarm over the potential implications.
"First of all, this crisis does not have a military solution, and it continues to be a shame that we are only having a debate about how much war to have," Stephen Miles of Win Without War told Common Dreams. "That said, it is important for Congress to learn from mistakes in 2001 and 2002 and avoid making war permanent and world-wide and avoid committing to another massive ground war in the Middle East."
According to reports, the president is seeking authorization for at least three years of military intervention, at which point the next president could then seek reauthorization.
The proposal would not put any geographical limitations on the use of military force, similar to the 2001 AUMF, which was passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks and was used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to justify war and occupation in Afghanistan, covert drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, military intervention in countries from Ethiopia to Iraq, indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison, and more.
While the president is proposing a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq and use of force against Saddam Hussein, he is seeking to leave the 2001 AUMF firmly in place. Raed Jarrar, Policy Impact Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, told Common Dreams that this would amount to "a blank check for war from 2001 and another blank check from 2015."
The proposal, furthermore, does not ban deployments of U.S. troops. While it calls for a prohibition on "enduring offensive ground operations," it is not clear exactly what this term means, and analysts warn that this vague wording could, in fact, open a back door to another ground offensive.
Josh Rogin writes in Bloomberg that the White House proposal regarding ground troops leaves room for numerous exceptions: "First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel."
The proposal vaguely defines the enemy, authorizing force against ISIS and associated forces, which could potentially include combatants fighting alongside ISIS. This, in combination with the lack of geographical constraints, could spread the war beyond Iraq and Syria.
"We are against authorizing a new war," said Jarrar. "Unfortunately, what we know so far from the language that has been made public is extremely concerning, because it seems like it will not only legitimize the ongoing intervention in Iraq and Syria but will also prolong it and increase its scope."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
President Barack Obama is seeking broad congressional authorization for the U.S.-led war on ISIS that would allow for further deployments of ground troops, years of intervention, and geographically limitless military operations, according to media reports on Tuesday.
The war has already been waged for six months without a congressional vote or meaningful debate. While Obama has previously claimed that such authorization is not required, he appeared to diverge from this line in his State of the Union address last month.
"I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against [ISIS]," he said in the speech. "We need that authority."
At a closed meeting on Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and White House counsel Neil Eggleston met with Senate Democrats to discuss the key stipulations of the war authority Obama is seeking, ABC reports.
The information revealed to the media so far indicates Obama is pushing for broad--and potentially global--war-making authority.
Analysts are already raising the alarm over the potential implications.
"First of all, this crisis does not have a military solution, and it continues to be a shame that we are only having a debate about how much war to have," Stephen Miles of Win Without War told Common Dreams. "That said, it is important for Congress to learn from mistakes in 2001 and 2002 and avoid making war permanent and world-wide and avoid committing to another massive ground war in the Middle East."
According to reports, the president is seeking authorization for at least three years of military intervention, at which point the next president could then seek reauthorization.
The proposal would not put any geographical limitations on the use of military force, similar to the 2001 AUMF, which was passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks and was used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to justify war and occupation in Afghanistan, covert drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, military intervention in countries from Ethiopia to Iraq, indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison, and more.
While the president is proposing a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq and use of force against Saddam Hussein, he is seeking to leave the 2001 AUMF firmly in place. Raed Jarrar, Policy Impact Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, told Common Dreams that this would amount to "a blank check for war from 2001 and another blank check from 2015."
The proposal, furthermore, does not ban deployments of U.S. troops. While it calls for a prohibition on "enduring offensive ground operations," it is not clear exactly what this term means, and analysts warn that this vague wording could, in fact, open a back door to another ground offensive.
Josh Rogin writes in Bloomberg that the White House proposal regarding ground troops leaves room for numerous exceptions: "First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel."
The proposal vaguely defines the enemy, authorizing force against ISIS and associated forces, which could potentially include combatants fighting alongside ISIS. This, in combination with the lack of geographical constraints, could spread the war beyond Iraq and Syria.
"We are against authorizing a new war," said Jarrar. "Unfortunately, what we know so far from the language that has been made public is extremely concerning, because it seems like it will not only legitimize the ongoing intervention in Iraq and Syria but will also prolong it and increase its scope."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.