 |
THE TOPLINE: Democratic senators expressed alarm Wednesday after the administration's envoy leading the coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) wouldn't define key language in President Obama's proposed authorization for the use of military force.
At issue is the measure's ban on "enduring offensive ground combat operations," which lawmakers from both parties have criticized. Democrats fear it could lead to a new ground war, while Republicans fear it could handicap the effort against ISIS.
Retired Gen. John Allen testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said "it would be difficult to put necessarily a level of precision against the word 'enduring.'"
Ranking Member Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) asked if the definition banned 20,000 U.S. troops in ground combat for four months. "Is that enduring?"
"Again, senator, I think that trying to put a specific amount of time on that word 'enduring' -- ," Allen responded before he was cut off by Menendez.
The New Jersey senator pressed: "So it's neither time nor size?"
"Enduring might only be two weeks. But enduring might be two years," Allen said. "I think we need to ensure we put the right resources against the contingency and give us the time necessary... to solve the problem."
"And I think you've honestly stated the challenge that we have. Two weeks is one thing and two years is another thing, and this is problem with the language as it exists," Menendez said. "There is no clear defining element of the authorization given to the president in which hundreds but maybe tens of thousands of troops could be sent."
"I think your point is correct in that regard," Allen said.
Secretary of State John Kerry similarly struggled to define what the term meant in hearings Tuesday and Wednesday.
"If you're going in for weeks and weeks of combat, that's enduring. If you're going in to assist somebody and fire control and you're embedded in an overnight deal, or you're in a rescue operation or whatever, that is not enduring," he said Tuesday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the State Department's budget.
When lawmakers at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing asked Kerry on Wednesday whether "enduring" meant two months, he replied, "It depends on what they're asked to do."
The language has prompted criticism from Republicans who say that it is too restrictive and ties military commanders' hands, as well as from Democrats who say it is too vague and could lead to another ground war.
The divide portends an uphill battle to get an authorization passed, especially before the U.S. military helps Iraqi forces launch an offensive to retake Mosul -- Iraq's second largest city -- from ISIS as early as April or May.
The offensive could require the use of troops to accompany Iraqi forces into combat. There are currently about 2,665 U.S. troops in Iraq.
BERGDAHL DECISION COMING SOON: Army Secretary John McHugh said Wednesday a decision on whether former prisoner of war Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post in Afghanistan would be coming in the "near future."
"I would think that we could reasonably expect to see something in the relatively near future," McHugh told reporters at a briefing in Washington.
McHugh said the range of actions against Bergdahl, depending on the decision of Gen. Mark Milley, commanding general of Army Forces Command, range from "no further action to the other end of the spectrum, potential court-martial."
Although the Army's investigation of Bergdahl concluded in December, McHugh said no decision has been reached on charges because of the number of documents to be reviewed and the "complexity" of the case.
"We want to be fair. We want to protect that soldier's rights and come out to the proper conclusion," McHugh said.
Critics have charged that politics is slowing the decision on Bergdahl, given the potential embarrassment to the White House if he is found to have deserted his post.
The Obama administration secretly negotiated with the Taliban through Qatar to swap Bergdahl, 28, for five senior Taliban members being held at the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The deal outraged members of Congress, who were not given the 30-days notice required by law before the detainees were released. They also charged that the prisoner swap had violated the U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists.
The president announced Bergdahl's recovery at a White House Rose Garden ceremony, and several days later, national security adviser Susan Rice declared Bergdahl had served "with honor and distinction."
However, some troops who served with Bergdahl say he deserted his post and that people lost their lives looking for him. Last month, defense officials acknowledged that one of the five Taliban members being held in Qatar is suspected of returning to terrorist activity.
WHAT WILL MOSCOW DO? NATO's military chief on Wednesday said there's no way to predict how Russia will react if the U.S. supplies lethal arms to Ukraine's military.
"Clearly we don't know what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will do," Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO's supreme allied commander, told the House Armed Services Committee.
"It could cause positive results, it could cause negative results" but "what we are doing now is not changing the results on the ground," he said.
Breedlove said he did not "believe Ukrainian forces can stop a Russian advance in Eastern Ukraine" and that even with lethal aid, Ukrainian forces might not be able to stop a Russian advance.
Such a move might strengthen Kiev's forces and allow them to be more effective against pro-Moscow separatists, but the potential concern is that Russia "might then double down" and escalate the violence, said Christine Wormuth, under secretary of defense for policy.
Their comments come as lawmakers in both chambers have ramped up efforts to force President Obama to provide lethal weapons to Kiev, a move he has been loathe to take.
Breedlove said he has discussed the possibility of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine with the administration.
Small arms could be provided in a "very short timeline" but that more sophisticated weaponry might require training and therefore would take longer to get onto the battlefield, he said.
However, he said, "I don't think we've exhausted" all options and that providing lethal assistance is the next step.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the panel's chairman, admitted that no one could be certain how Putin will react to Washington supplying arms, but that lawmakers have seen what's happened on the ground without them.
"And that hasn't gone very well," he said.
VETS' GROUPS SPLIT ON SCRAPPING TRICARE. The heads of several service organizations split over eliminating Tricare, the insurance option provided to members of the military and their families.
The suggested reform would allow almost 5 million active-duty family members, reserve soldiers and military retirees who are not yet old enough to receive Medicare, to leave the Tricare system and sign up for a private insurance plan.
The proposal was recently put forward by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, and has become a hot topic on Capitol Hill.
The proposal "is a welcome shot across the bow," Norbert Ryan, President and CEO of the Military Officers Association Of America, told the Senate Armed Services Personnel subcommittee.
While the "status quo is unacceptable," he said, his group recently conducted a survey of more than 7,500 beneficiaries and found that eight out of 10 prefer Tricare to broadly comparable alternatives.
The Retired Enlisted Association struck a similar chord.
"Scrapping the entire Tricare system would represent a change in the entire philosophy of delivering military health coverage," the group said in a statement, urging senators against "blowing up the system."
But Gus Hargett, president of the National Guard Association, said the proposed change has been "well received" by his members since many don't live near a major military installation, and therefore do not have easy access to many Tricare-accepting providers.
However, he added, the association is concerned about the costs associated with the plan and advised lawmakers to bring in actuaries to study the proposal's costs.
Subpanel Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) admitted lawmakers have been "wrestling this alligator" for years and that he had "lost faith" in the existing system.
He said that while he sees the benefits of scrapping the current plan -- including more choice for members of the reserve and families -- military retirees likely will end up paying more for health coverage.
Graham said he doesn't know what the right system is but "change is coming."
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
-Poll: Support growing for US ground troops against ISIS
-Former Obama official: Time to arm Ukraine
-Dem warns ISIS fight could lead to another Vietnam
-Republican senator wants update on A-10 'treason' probe
-House lawmakers return from Gitmo inspection
Please send tips and comments to Kristina Wong, kwong@thehill.com, and Martin Matishak, mmatishak@thehill.com.
Follow us on Twitter: @thehill, @kristina_wong, @martinmatishak
|
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기