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.
On June 20, protesters staged a rally outside the White House calling for 'no new war in Iraq.' (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/ cc/ Flickr)
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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."
_____________________