A Congress that Can Agree on Little Votes for Another War

For a Congress widely accepted as one of the worst, if not the worst, the House voted with alacrity to grant approval for Obama's request, introduced during his primetime speech last week, to establish (create? recreate?) a new (re-branded? remodeled?) Free Syrian Army (FSA).

This rebooted FSA is to be trained in Saudi Arabia to fight in Syria against both Islamic State and the Syrian Arab Army of Bashar al-Assad. It is the same policy that the United States has been pursuing for years with no success and only embarrassing failure to show for the effort. (Earlier this week the FSA was reported to have agreed to a ceasefire with ISIS in a Damascus suburb.) The only difference now is the program is overt not merely covert; and it is to be administered by the Pentagon not the CIA. Possibly, with reports that the CIA is working with Al Qaeda's Syria affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, FSA will serve as a new umbrella for the myriad jihadi groups operating in the Levant.

The silver lining in yesterday's 273-to-156 House vote in favor is that it only lasts until mid-December; then Obama has to come back for another authorization vote. No dollar amount was attached, but that, I assume, just gives the administration carte blanche. Also, I was hoping that there would be stringent reporting requirements as to who will make up this new Free Syrian Army. But, according to Jonathan Weisman's "House Votes to Authorize Aid to Syrian Rebels in ISIS Fight," no such luck:

The legislation, drafted as an amendment to a routine bill to keep the government funded past Sept. 30, grants the president authority to train foreign forces to confront the Islamic State and to accept contributions in cash and in kind to help finance it. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to host the training of Syrian rebels, and the Obama administration promises to vet the fighters for reliability. 

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. Another provision requires the administration to keep Congress apprised of its progress and success. And the authorization expires in mid-December with the spending bill it would be attached to, ensuring lawmakers will revisit the issue in short order. Language specifies that the measure is not a broad authorization of force against the Islamic State.

Nothing to inspire confidence that this is anything other than business as usual, and that business is carving up Syria.

Now that the action moves to the Senate, my hope is that one of the presidential aspirants, a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, will stage a filibuster. But I will be disappointed because in the Senate there will not be a separate vote on the training and funding of this new army; it will be voted on as part of the overall government budget.

Sad that the most cogent statement in Weisman's story is from Yellow Dog Democrat Joe Manchin:

“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?”