An unusual but overwhelming coalition in the House voted Wednesday to authorize the training and arming of Syrian rebels to confront the militant Islamic State, backing President Obama after he personally pleaded for support.
The 273-156 vote was over a narrow military measure with no money attached, but it took on outsize importance and was infused in drama, reflecting the tension and ambiguity of members wary of the ultimate path to which any war vote could lead.
There was rare unity between House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, who strongly backed the training legislation and sought to portray it as a modest measure. And the opposition included the equally unlikely pairings of antiwar Democrats and hawkish Republicans.
The Senate passed the legislation the following day.
The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission,” President Obama pledged to troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida as the House debated his request. “I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
Mr. Obama’s reassurance came a day after his top military adviser, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that he would recommend deploying troops to serve as ground forces providing tactical and targeting advice if the current airstrikes were not sufficient to vanquish the militant group, the Islamic State.
 |
| Gen. Martin E. Dempsey |
Mr. Obama’s reassurance came a day after his top military adviser, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that he would recommend deploying troops to serve as ground forces providing tactical and targeting advice if the current airstrikes were not sufficient to vanquish the militant group, the Islamic State.
White House officials insisted that General Dempsey’s remarks did not conflict with the president’s policy of ruling out combat troops. They said the general’s comments were in line with a narrow definition of combat in which American advisers already in Iraq could be deployed close to the front lines — calling in American airstrikes, for example, without being considered to be in a combat role.
Mr. Kerry, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed the president’s message and added that “From the last decade, we know that a sustainable strategy is not U.S. ground forces....It is enabling local forces to do what they must for themselves and their country.”
Mr. Obama and his allies pleaded with lawmakers not to undercut him as he tries to assemble an international coalition to confront the terrorist group.
“Obama is our commander-in-chief. You don’t weaken the commander-in-chief when we’re in a serious crisis,” said Representative Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Opponents in both parties framed the vote as a step toward a wider conflict in a region where American troops have been fighting for more than a decade.
Ultimately, 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats supported it; 71 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted against it.
Representative Duncan D. Hunter, a California Republican who fought with the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, joined others in questioning how the military could be sure the rebels of the Free Syrian Army could be trusted with United States arms and how suspect Saudis could host the training.
Saudi Arabia has already pledged to host the training of Syrian rebels, and the Obama administration promises to vet the fighters for reliability.
But the unusual left-right coalition in opposition loudly voiced grave doubts that the training mission will work.
“It is more complex than just an up-or-down vote on arming and training members of the Free Syrian Army,” said Representative Barbara Lee of California, a veteran antiwar Democrat. “The consequences of this vote, whether it’s written in the amendment or not, will be a further expansion of a war currently taking place and our further involvement in a sectarian war.”
Our past experience, after 13 years, everything that we have tried to do has not proven to be beneficial, “not proven at all,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia and an opponent of the measure. “So what makes you think it’s going to be different this time? What makes you think we can ask a group of Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?”
Still, senators said, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, backing it, there is little chance it will fail. Even as he kept up his fierce criticism of the president’s strategy, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he would support it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Talbiseh and across Syria, insurgent fighters who oppose both the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the foreign-led militants of the extremist group called the Islamic State are being pummeled by a new wave of attacks and assassination attempts. The assaults are coming at a crucial moment, as President Obama tries to intensify efforts to defeat the Islamic State extremists.
Insurgents of all stripes, except for the Islamic State group, say the Syrian government appears to be stepping up its attacks on them ahead of the threatened American air campaign. Both pro-government and antigovernment analysts say Mr. Assad has an interest in eliminating the more moderate rebels, to make sure his forces are the only ones left to benefit on the ground from any weakening of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
==============================================
Airstrikes on Iraq were a fairly easy sell. The government in Baghdad asked for help in combating the Islamic State, and the United States answered its request.
White House Could Have No International Legal Justification for Airstrikes in Syria
 |
Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters
|
That is perfectly legal under international law, diplomats agreed, and it helped to get dozens of European and Middle Eastern allies on board. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, applauded the airstrikes as a “decisive” move. Secretary of State John Kerry is now scheduled to preside over a Security Council meeting on Friday, at which more than 40 foreign leaders from as far afield as Germany and Qatar are expected to articulate their support for the American-led effort against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, in Iraq.
But airstrikes on the group in Syria? That is another matter altogether.
The White House has articulated no rationale for airstrikes on Syrian territory, nor has it sought a Security Council resolution to authorize going to war. Syria has not consented to strikes within its territory, and Mr. Ban has demurred on the question of whether a Security Council resolution authorizing them is necessary, saying only that he expects the 15-member body to take it up — and not without disagreement.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has already said that without a Security Council resolution, any strike against Syria would constitute an act of aggression.
American allies have by and large been silent on the question of military action against Islamic State targets in Syria. Western diplomats here privately say that they confront a difficult dilemma over how to support American military action against the group’s strongholds in Syria, while also obeying the law.
The diplomatic challenge in Syria has become increasingly evident among American allies. France on Monday hosted a conference of Western and regional Middle Eastern countries to pledge support for the new Iraqi government’s fight against the Islamic State. The statement produced at the conference made no mention of Syria. Germany said it would provide arms and training to the Iraqi Kurdish forces fighting the insurgents. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain offered military assistance to the Kurds as well, though his government has not said anything about what it is willing to do in Syria.
"The focus of ...is ISIS and combating terrorism,” said one diplomat from a Middle Eastern country who declined to be identified because diplomatic discussions were underway. “What about the root cause of the problem — which is the Syrian regime?”
In principle, the Security Council could authorize military action, though the chances of that seem slim at the moment. Russia, which has veto power, has staunchly backed the Assad government.
======================================
======================================
 |
| William J. Bratton |
The police in New York stepped up security on Wednesday in response to the possible threat of a terrorist attack in Times Square, even as officials cautioned that they had no information about specific plans against the city.
Officers expanded their presence in Times Square and at mass transit sites after an online post, purportedly from the Islamic State, encouraged “lone wolves” to attack tourist attractions in New York and elsewhere. Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said that with tensions escalating between the militant group and the United States, the group’s ability to recruit attackers online constituted “a current threat.” But, he added, “There is no direct actionable intelligence in our possession that indicates an attack in the Times Square area or anywhere else in the city for that matter.”