ISIS in Mosul, Syria
When the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters began a sweep across Greater Syria and Iraq, the largest prize they claimed was the city of Mosul. The Iraqi military and many of the residents fled the city, but 600,000 residents were left behind. Mosul was the largest population center that ISIS took control of and gave them a level of prestige and support for the claim of building a state.In March, the Iraqi government announced their intention to launch a military operation to retake Mosul but progress was very slow. The Iraqi military lacked the troops to launch a full-scale assault on the city. So, instead they committed their troops to a different campaign of retaking Fallujah, a city that lies closer to Baghdad. With success in Fallujah, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider AL-Abadi declared that Mosul was the next battle. But Mosul posed many difficult challenges. Aside from the military challenge, it was expected that the military would need to rely on the powerful Kurdish militias to help pave the way to Mosul, but the semi-autonomous group that had not yet committed to the operation.
with or without congressional action
Meanwhile, President Obama was planning to take action to support the military operations in Iraq. In his final State of the Union Address (2016) President Obama reached out to Congress asking for authorization to use military force against ISIL or ISIS. He made it very clear though, that even if Congress did not take action, he would. Obama stated that " the American people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America's commitment—or mine—to see that justice is done, just ask Usama bin Laden".Here is the full except of the 2016 State of the Union Address where President Obama declared his intentions to act alone in launching military operations against ISIS.
"And that's exactly what we're doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL's financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 airstrikes, we're taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. We're training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.
If this Congress is serious about winning this war and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. [Applause] Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America's commitment—or mine—to see that justice is done, just ask Usama bin Laden. Ask the leader of Al Qaida in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. And it may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limits."
More US Troops
President Obama was not going to wait for authorization from Congress to support military operations in Iraq. And in September of 2016, President Obama went ahead and approved sending an additional 615 troops to Iraq bringing the total U.S. service members in Iraq to 5000. The troops went primarily to two air bases in Iraq including Qayyarah West Airfield, 25 miles South of Mosul. President Obama insisted that the American troops would not be involved in combat operations, but will help with "logistics and maintenance". They would be assisting the troops, but would remain off the front lines. Yet, they were still clearly being deployed to hostile areas.This action along with existing military operations in Syria and Iraq, raised constitutional objections. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly stated that Congress "shall have the power to declare war", and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 required the president to come to Congress for a force authorization within 60 days of introducing troops into hostile military operations. Without Congress approval, where did President Obama find justification for the troop increase and military operations? In fact, on May 4, 2016 a law suit by Captain Nathan Michael Smith of the U.S. Army claiming that he was injured in an illegal war issued by President Obama. President Obama defended his actions by citing the 2001 War on Terror authorizations as legal justification. The 2001 resolution authorized force against any groups who "planned authorized, committed, or aided terrorist attacks" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
On October 16, 2016 the New York Times reported, "As Iraqi and American troops prepare to try to retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State, the Obama administration is describing the battle as the last major hurdle before declaring victory against the extremist Sunni militancy — in Iraq, at least."
But is US involvement in this operation legal? This question has not yet been answered. The 2001 resolution only authorized operations against AL-Qaeda and the Taliban, it did not specifically authorized actions in Libya or ISIS. To be fair, President Obama has tried to work with the Congress to update the authorization, but efforts went no where in Congress. In 2014, Senator Tim Kaine (2016 VP candidate) spoke on the Senate Floor, "The 2001 authorization passed in the days after 9/11 to enable us to go after the attack's perpetrators is badly in need of an update", and since then has repeatedly called on the Senate to revisit the war authorization.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/28/officials-us-to-send-more-troops-to-iraq-to-help-with-mosul.html
http://time.com/isis-mosul/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-hasnt-congress-authorized-force-against-isis/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2823282-Smith-Complaint-as-Filed.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure
No comments:
Post a Comment