Spanning the ideological spectrum, Georgia’s members of Congress agree something must be done to combat the brutal Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
But Georgia’s hawks and doves remain skeptical of the strategy from President Barack Obama, laid out in a prime-time address Wednesday night. And they have differing ideas on what Congress should vote on — if anything.
“The only way you can deal with ISIS is to kill ‘em, and the only way you can do that is to attack ‘em, and that means go to their headquarters (in Syria) as well as the periphery,” Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson said.
He added, “I’d say support is overwhelming in Congress to do something.”
U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat, saw parallels in the rush to hit ISIS, also known as the Islamic State group and ISIL, to costly U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan more than a decade ago.
“I think we must do something, but I don’t lean toward any type of full-scale military action,” Lewis said.
“He was elected to get us out of war,” Lewis said of Obama. “It’s not just the lives of our young men and young women we need to be concerned about. We need to be concerned about spending the treasure of the country on bombs and missiles and guns, more than anything else.”
His Atlanta Democratic colleague David Scott, though, is ready to fight. Scott co-sponsored a new bill to authorize military force against ISIS and other terrorist groups with U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.
The president “has chosen, from the reports I’m getting, to say he doesn’t need congressional approval,” Scott said.
“That is not an issue,” Scott said. “But the world needs to know that the Congress of the United States fully backs the president, and that the Congress of the United States is authorizing him to use whatever he needs to end this madness, and to demand that we reach out and not only deal with ISIS but Al-Qaida, Al-Shabab, all of these.”
Obama has asked Congress for additional money to arm Syrian rebels who oppose both ISIS and the government of President Bashal al-Assad. But the Obama administration has hesitated in arming the rebels there for years, given the terrorists in their ranks and the fear that the weapons could be turned on the U.S. in the years to come.
“I support arming the Free Syrian Army, but I’m not going to be willing to commit any money until I see what the president’s going to do,” said U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee.
“It’s one thing to say this is what it’s going to cost. But it’s another thing to say, well, we spend that amount of money, what are we going to accomplish by that? How many soldiers are going to be (there)? What’s the time period? There are lots of questions that the president will have to answer.”
Key members of Obama’s national security team are scheduled to brief members of Congress on the plan Thursday.
U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, a Republican from Ranger, compared the outreach with a year ago when Obama sought congressional approval to bomb Syria — then withdrew it in the face of opposition.
“There’s been a very different approach by the president this year as opposed if you go back a year ago,” Graves said, “and he sees the importance of keeping not only congressional leaders but (rank-and-file) members of the House and Senate involved.”
But the memory of last year's false steps on Syria lingers. There has been talk of arming the rebels for years, but the reality of figuring out which of the fighters taking on Assad would make good allies is messy. Also, in ISIS, Assad and America now have a common enemy.
“I was glad that the president exercised discipline with the proposal that he has now to arm the rebels,” said U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, a DeKalb County Democrat. “Perhaps things have changed, but I don’t think so. I’m skeptical about that, and I ask a question: Why should we not talk to the Assad government about assisting in bringing stability to Syria?”
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Savannah Republican, said if Obama and his aides can come up with a cohesive strategy, it will pick up wide support in Congress.
“He’ll have Democrats on his side who may already have gone through their primaries who are pro-Israel or whatever,” Kingston said.
“And he’ll have guys like me who are on the (Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee) who are hawkish to begin with. And we’re going to get behind him,” he said. “I think historically Americans stand behind the commander in chief when the American interest is at stake.
“I don’t know whether we’re going to have a vote or not.”
About the Author
