Iraqi Prime Minister: “There will be No Boots on the Ground in Iraq” ~ BY LEITH FADEL
The newly elected Prime Minister of Iraq, Haydar Al-‘Abadi, has issued a statement reassuring Iraqi citizens that the attacks on ISIS will be limited to aerial bombardments. Al-‘Abadi issued this message yesterday, when he responded to a question in regards to U.S. involvement; he replied, “there will be no foreign boots on the ground in Iraq” – this comes one week after U.S. President Barack Obama outlined his government’s intention to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
President Obama has released a statement reiterating his commitment to not include ground forces in Iraq. The recently formed Anti-ISIS Coalition, spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, is committed to destabilizing the ISIS threat by aerial bombarding their positions and working with moderate rebel forces in Syria. With the Anti-ISIS Coalition formed in Jeddeh, Saudi Arabia, President Barack Obama’s contingency is on its way to fruition with cooperation among local allies.
While, President Obama has conveyed his faith the Anti-ISIS Coalition’s capabilities; others remain rather skeptical. U.S. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, was not as optimistic as his Commander-in-Chief. General Dempsey stated that half of the Iraqi Armed Forces are incapable of combatting the ISIS threat in Iraq, leading many to question the purpose of the Anti-ISIS Coalition. He further added, “If any U.S. aircraft goes down in Syria; it means boots on the ground.”
Today’s amendment ostensibly is aimed at destroying ISIS—yet you’d hardly know it from reading the amendment’s text. The world has witnessed with horror the evil of ISIS: the public beheading of innocents, the killing of Christians, Muslims, and others.
The amendment’s focus—arming groups fighting the Assad government in Syria—has little to do with defeating ISIS. The mission that the amendment advances plainly isn’t the defeat of ISIS; it’s the defeat of Assad.
Americans stood overwhelmingly against entangling our Armed Forces in the Syrian civil war a year ago. If Congress chooses to arm groups in Syria, it must explain to the American people not only why that mission is necessary but also the sacrifices that that mission entails.
The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arm’s length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes “assistance” to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the president’s power to order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress doesn’t provide “specific statutory authorization” for such escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war.
As we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must plan for multiple satisfactory ends to military conflicts before we commence them.
If the Syrian groups that are “appropriately vetted” (the amendment’s language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result? Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would Syria’s territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control one of the resulting countries?
If the Syrian groups that we support begin to lose, would we let them be defeated? If not, is there any limit to American involvement in the war?
Perhaps some in the administration or Congress have answers to these questions. But the amendment we’ll vote on today contains none of them.
Above all, when Congress considers serious actions—especially war—we must be humble about what we think we know. We don’t know very much about the groups we propose to support or even how we intend to vet those groups. Reports in the last week suggest that some of the “appropriately vetted” groups have struck deals with ISIS, although the groups dispute the claim. The amendment requires the administration to report on its efforts to prevent our arms and resources from ending up in the wrong hands, but we know little about those precautions or their effectiveness.
Today, I will vote against the amendment to arm groups in Syria. There is a wide misalignment between the rhetoric of defeating ISIS and the amendment’s actual mission of arming certain groups in the Syrian civil war. The amendment provides few limits on the type of assistance that our government may commit, and the exit out of the civil war is undefined. And given what’s happened in our country’s most recent wars, our leaders seem to have unjustified confidence in their own ability to execute a plan with so many unknowns.
Some of my colleagues no doubt will come to different judgments on these questions. But it’s essential that they consider the questions carefully. That the president wants the authority to intervene in the Syrian civil war is not a sufficient reason to give him that power. Under the Constitution, it is Congress’s independent responsibility to commence war.
We are the representatives of the American people. The government is proposing to take their resources and to put their children’s lives at risk. I encourage all my colleagues to give the decision the weight it is due.
Member of Congress