House, in Unusual Alignments, Moves Toward Vote on ISIS Fight

By JONATHAN WEISMAN SEPT. 17, 2014

WASHINGTON — A House divided along unusual and unpredictable lines moved toward a vote Wednesday to authorize the training and arming of Syrian rebels to confront the militant group Islamic State, with President Obama leading efforts to secure a solid majority.

The showdown Wednesday afternoon was over a narrow military measure with no money attached, but it took on outsize importance. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and the minority leader, strongly backed the training legislation, and both sought to portray it as a modest measure.


But the theater around the debate and vote belied that characterization. The president personally lobbied for its passage, calling several Democrats to appeal for their support, according to House Democratic leadership aides. Opponents in both parties framed the vote as a step toward a wider war in a region where American troops have been fighting for more than a decade.

Republican and Democratic vote-counting operations said they would not press for “yes” on what they termed a “vote of conscience.”


“Launching airstrikes on another country, by any standard, by any definition, is an act of war,” said Representative Rick Nolan, Democrat of Minnesota. “Have we not had enough of imperial presidencies doing what they want in the world?”


The legislation, drafted as an amendment to a routine bill to keep the government funded past Sept. 30, would grant the president the authority to train foreign forces to confront the Islamic State and to accept contributions in cash and in kind to help finance the effort.

Saudi Arabia has already pledged to host the training of Syrian rebels, whom the Obama administration promises to vet for reliability and moderation.


To secure more support, the House Armed Services Committee added provisions mandating a report from the administration on how the training effort plays into a larger strategy to confront the Islamic State and to keep Congress apprised of its progress and success. And the authorization would expire in mid-December with the spending bill it would be attached to, ensuring that lawmakers would revisit the issue in short order.


“It is not to be confused with any authorization to go further,” Ms. Pelosi said Wednesday, adding firmly, “I will not vote for combat troops to be engaged in war.”


Yet for many Democrats, it has come down to a show of support for an embattled president. And even for Republicans who oppose the president on almost every issue, a “no” vote would appear to be extremely difficult.


“There’s just a lack of trust for the president and real concern it’s insufficient, but at the end of the day, I think we’ll give him the authorization he’s looking for,” said Representative Richard Hudson, Republican of North Carolina.


But an unusual coalition of antiwar Democrats, more isolationist-leaning Republicans, libertarians and hawks with grave doubts that the training mission will work came together in opposition.


“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.”


Representative Chris Gibson of New York, a Republican veteran of the war in Iraq, said he could not vote to authorize a program he was certain would fail.


“There’s nothing more important for a member of Congress than to vote to send a young man or woman to war to die,” said Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, one of the first Republicans to turn against the war in Iraq during the Bush administration. “We’re not there yet, but we’re heading that way, and that’s what bothers me greatly.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us...sis-fight.html