Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

If you’ve been waiting for the right time to support our work—that time is now.

Our mission is simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

But without the support of our readers, this model does not work and we simply won’t survive. It’s that simple.
We must meet our Mid-Year Campaign goal but we need you now.

Please, support independent journalism today.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

 

President Obama pictured during his first visit to the Pentagon since becoming President January 28, 2009. (Photo: DOD/public domain)

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

Sarah Lazare

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."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

"I'm sure this will be all over the corporate media, right?"
That’s what one longtime Common Dreams reader said yesterday after the newsroom reported on new research showing how corporate price gouging surged to a nearly 70-year high in 2021. While major broadcasters, newspapers, and other outlets continue to carry water for their corporate advertisers when they report on issues like inflation, economic inequality, and the climate emergency, our independence empowers us to provide you stories and perspectives that powerful interests don’t want you to have. But this independence is only possible because of support from readers like you. You make the difference. If our support dries up, so will we. Our crucial Mid-Year Campaign is now underway and we are in emergency mode to make sure we raise the necessary funds so that every day we can bring you the stories that corporate, for-profit outlets ignore and neglect. Please, if you can, support Common Dreams today.

 

'We WILL Fight Back': Outrage, Resolve as Protests Erupt Against SCOTUS Abortion Ruling

Demonstrators took to the streets Friday to defiantly denounce the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority after it rescinded a constitutional right for the first time in U.S. history.

Brett Wilkins ·


80+ US Prosecutors Vow Not to Be Part of Criminalizing Abortion Care

"Criminalizing and prosecuting individuals who seek or provide abortion care makes a mockery of justice," says a joint statement signed by 84 elected attorneys. "Prosecutors should not be part of that."

Kenny Stancil ·


Progressives Rebuke Dem Leadership as Clyburn Dismisses Death of Roe as 'Anticlimactic'

"The gap between the Democratic leadership, and younger progressives on the question of 'How Bad Is It?' is just enormous."

Julia Conley ·


In 10 Key US Senate Races, Here's How Top Candidates Responded to Roe Ruling

While Republicans unanimously welcomed the Supreme Court's rollback of half a century of reproductive rights, one Democrat said "it's just wrong that my granddaughter will have fewer freedoms than my grandmother did."

Brett Wilkins ·


Sanders Says End Filibuster to Combat 'Outrageous' Supreme Court Assault on Abortion Rights

"If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster, codify Roe v. Wade, and make abortion legal and safe," said the Vermont senator.

Jake Johnson ·

Common Dreams Logo