Congress now eager to vote on Obama’s plan to fight Islamic State

Congress, which seemed reluctant just a few days ago to vote on President Obama’s plan to fight Islamic militants, now appears eager to do so, as House Republicans on Thursday largely backed a White House proposal to arm Syrian rebels.

A vote could come as soon as next week, and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called upon the country to unite behind the administration, despite his and others’ reservations.

“We only have one commander in chief,” Boehner said. “At this point in time it’s important that we give the president what he’s asking for.”

Members of both parties increasingly want to vote, not only on the White House request to train and equip Syrian fighters, but also possibly on whether to give the president broader authority to launch what many expect will be a years-long military campaign against the extremist group Islamic State.

Obama said in his Wednesday address that he believed he already had authority from Congress to conduct aerial strikes on militants in Iraq and Syria.

Administration officials told lawmakers Thursday in a closed briefing that the president’s new counter-terrorism campaign was covered by the existing authority Congress granted to President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to go after Al Qaeda, and again in 2002 to launch the Iraq war.

Lawmakers, though, are increasingly uneasy about relying on those decade-old authorizations, which were passed by Congress before many of them were in office.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would be in favor of updating the 2001 authorization language to more broadly cover “terrorists who are all of a new breed since 9/11.”

But it remains unclear whether lawmakers will tackle such a thorny issue in the run-up to the midterm election.

Instead, lawmakers next week will probably take a smaller step by voting on the administration’s request, under Title X of the Armed Services code, to train and equip Syrian fighters.

“Our House Democratic caucus stands with the president,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the minority leader.

Some opposition to Obama’s request has come from both the left and right wings. Antiwar liberals and libertarian-minded tea party members are skeptical of Syrian rebels, whose allegiances are often blurred.

“We think that somehow we can trust them?” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who opposes the president’s request. “These so-called moderates are working with the enemy.”

“Too much can go wrong. This tactic could backfire and be counterproductive to our goal of eliminating ISIS,” Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.) said, using a common acronym for Islamic State.

But a large swath of lawmakers from both parties appear ready to vote in support. Lawmakers are eager to take a stand before they leave at the end of next week for an extended break until after the November election.

“It’s going to pass in a big way,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.).

The question now before the House is whether the authorization for arming the Syrians will be attached to a must-pass spending bill, which Congress needs to approve by Sept. 30 to avert another government shutdown.

Many Republicans are insisting the provision receive a separate vote, an idea that drew applause from both sides during Thursday’s briefing by the administration.

Just as Obama said he was seeking a “buy-in” from Congress to endorse his strategy, some lawmakers say a separate vote on the issue will allow them to gauge and build support from voters back home.

“Let them separate them, have a debate publicly, so the American people can come along with us,” said Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).

The vote is likely to be difficult for some members in tight reelection battles this fall, including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who opposes the request, and even for some Democrats who are not in races this year but find the plan to arm Syrian factions too risky.

Complicating the upcoming vote is the desire by some Republicans to modify Obama’s request to reflect their goals — “our imprimatur, our Republican stamp,” as Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) put it. Such changes could peel away Democratic support.

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

michael.memoli@latimes.com