Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Con. Res. 55

Withdrawing Most U.S. Troops Deployed to Fight ISIS

Argument in favor

There is nothing to be gained from leaving U.S. troops in the region to combat ISIS. If Iraqi and Syrian armies haven't learned how to fight ISIS already, further training — that put our troops in danger — won't make a difference.

···
07/29/2015
If we don't commit to full victory, draft a Doctrine of War and pass it via Congressional vote...There's no reason to have forces in harms way.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Cj's Opinion
···
08/07/2015
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, etc. have PLENTY of troops to send to protect the land surrounding them. I don't want to say "not our problem" but, not our problem.
Like (11)
Follow
Share
AndrewGVN's Opinion
···
11/04/2015
Other countries in the region have enough soldiers to handle ISIS without our assistance.
Like (7)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

U.S. troops are a core component of building local forces on the ground. Taking them out now would not only leave Syrian and Iraqi forces high and dry in the fight against ISIS, but could also end up putting the U.S. in danger in the long run.

DonaldTrump's Opinion
···
10/07/2015
"I would knock out the source of their wealth, the primary sources of their wealth, which is oil. And in order to do that, you would have to put boots on the ground. I would knock the hell out of them, but I’d put a ring around it and I’d take the oil for our country.” [infowars.com]
Like (73)
Follow
Share
Jim's Opinion
···
07/23/2015
The ISIS issue is far from over. ISIS is to the Middle East as cancer is to the body. They have to be annihilated or the Middle East will never regain any measure of peace. The current coalition.needs to grow, expand and become more aggressive.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
JebBush's Opinion
···
10/07/2015
"ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat." [businessinsider.com]
Like (3)
Follow
Share

concurrent resolution Progress


  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Rejected June 17th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 139 Yea / 288 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedJune 4th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H. Con. Res. 55?

This resolution would direct the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces that have been deployed to Iraq or Syria since August 7, 2014 within 30 days of this resolution’s adoption. 

As of October 2015, the Obama administration announced concrete plans to deploy "less than 50" troops to Syria. Troops will not have a combat mission, but are charged with advising and supporting local Kurdish and Arab forces in fighting ISIS. That said, troops would always maintain the right of self-defense — and if deemed necessary, could secure permission to fight in the field. This planned deployment is considered the most serious escalation of U.S. military efforts against ISIS to date. 

If the President determines that it is unsafe to remove U.S. military personnel in that timeframe, there would be an extension to December 31, 2015 — at which time those troops must be removed.

Troops that are necessary to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in the two countries would be exempt from this resolution, and could remain in Iraq and Syria to continue carrying out their mission.

This bill gets its authority under the War Powers Resolution. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids them from remaining for more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period. This gives the President flexibility to use the military without obtaining an authorization to use military force (AUMF) or a formal declaration of war, which would be required for any deployment longer than 90 days.

Impact

U.S. military personnel deployed to combat ISIS, U.S. assets in the region that will have to adjust to a reduced American military presence, Congress, the President.

Cost of House Bill H. Con. Res. 55

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: This resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), introduced this legislation because he is:

“deeply troubled by our policy in Iraq and Syria. I do not believe it is a clearly defined mission -- with a beginning, a middle and an end... I am not convinced that by enlarging our military footprint, we will end the violence in the region; defeat the Islamic State; or address the underlying causes of the unrest. It’s a complicated situation that requires a complicated and more imaginative response.”

In his press release, Rep. McGovern noted that in July 2014 a similar resolution passed the House on a vote of 370 to 40 -- though it should be noted that the vote occurred before the beheading of American journalist James Foley in August 2014.

President Obama has requested the passage of an AUMF directed at ISIS, but thus far Congress has not obliged. In the Senate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) considered attaching an AUMF to unrelated legislation, but withdrew his proposed amendment to a State Department bill after the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) agreed to hold a hearing on the matter in the future.


Of Note: The growth of ISIS throughout Iraq and Syria has left U.S. policymakers with difficult decisions to make in their efforts to stop, and ultimately eliminate ISIS’ influence in the region. ISIS is believed to have between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters, according to a CIA estimate from the fall of 2014.

Following the beheadings of several Americans and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities by ISIS as it began its military campaign. During the previous session of Congress there was a bill introduced to end the AUMF against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and legislation that would simultaneously repeal the AUMF and declare war on ISIS -- but neither was successful.

Beginning in August 2014, the U.S. began carrying out airstrikes in Iraq, started arming the Kurdish Peshmerga, and eventually began carrying out airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria. By mid-May 2015, the U.S. had carried out over 3,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

During this time, the number of American ground troops sent to Iraq has increased, with the first deployment raising troop levels to about 800 soldiers. Many of these soldiers were protecting the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad (which employs more than 5,000 people), and other diplomatic outposts.

By February 2015, total troop levels in Iraq topped 3,000 after several deployments of about 1,000 troops each. These personnel are primarily tasked with training the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga, while also defending U.S. diplomatic facilities. They are not engaging ISIS in ground combat, although some participated in the evacuation of the Yazidis from a mountain where they had been surrounded by ISIS fighters.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user The U.S. Army)

Official Title

Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq or Syria on or after August 7, 2014, other than Armed Forces required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel, from Iraq and Syria.

    If we don't commit to full victory, draft a Doctrine of War and pass it via Congressional vote...There's no reason to have forces in harms way.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    "I would knock out the source of their wealth, the primary sources of their wealth, which is oil. And in order to do that, you would have to put boots on the ground. I would knock the hell out of them, but I’d put a ring around it and I’d take the oil for our country.” [infowars.com]
    Like (73)
    Follow
    Share
    Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, etc. have PLENTY of troops to send to protect the land surrounding them. I don't want to say "not our problem" but, not our problem.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    The ISIS issue is far from over. ISIS is to the Middle East as cancer is to the body. They have to be annihilated or the Middle East will never regain any measure of peace. The current coalition.needs to grow, expand and become more aggressive.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Other countries in the region have enough soldiers to handle ISIS without our assistance.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    We have brought more chaos to the Middle East through oil wars and a war against ISIS has the potential to ruin the region forever. Instead we should focus on humanitarian aid and preventing the refugee crisis from getting worse. Allow Russia, Kurdistan, and other nearby nations aid in fighting ISIS.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    "ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat." [businessinsider.com]
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    The troops that are there are low in numbers. They should be left there to fill the non-combative role they were assigned to play.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to defeat ISIS before removing troops. Then we need to ensure ISIS doesn't return as soon as we leave.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    More troops with less regulations, Not fewrer troops with more regulations.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    ISIS isn't that big of an issue the media just blows it up to be. We should be focusing our money on the USA instead of an organization on the other side of the world that poses little to no threat to The USA. The only Americans killed by ISIS have been the ones stupid enough to go where ISIS is.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a waste of time. If this passed both houses, the president would veto it. Congress has several means to curtail war. It could have chosen not to renew war power approval first given in 2001. Or it could refuse to fund the war budget--Congress just voted to maintain this funding. Stop wasting the time of the American people with cations that can't pass. Politics is the art of the possible, not the quixotic.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We have troops deployed? Clearly they are not being utilized to any great effect, but if we have any presence or assets there some defensive posture is required. Further, if deemed insufficient to avoid being ambushed or surrounded and captured it is criminally negligent for the armchair decision makers to impose their ignorant edicts on the military responsible to the troops so deployed.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Pulling out before the job is complete will not serve the long term interests of the U.S.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    If we do not go in and help get rid of Isys we will be having a war on our own soil. Plus it seems when we train people over there to fight and we leave our weapons with them or weapons are ending up in the wrong hands. If we are going to stop Isis we are going to have to send in our troops on the ground. The longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Our withdrawal in Iraq is what created the vacuum of power to allow Isis to occupy the region. We have a moral and logistical cause to be there. BUT, if we are going to be there, we need to go full force, shock and awe, and keep the politicians out of it. We need a declaration of war with a clear goal of winning. Otherwise, our troops are at a disadvantage without the means to defend themselves and others. Furthermore, the execution of Christians, Jews, and non-radical Muslums is unacceptable. If the Iraqi govt doesn't like it, too bad. We need to finish what we started.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    We actually need about 10 thousand troops on the ground to smash ISIS once and for all before they get here.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Radical ISLAM is more of a threat than Nazi Germany was. It must be destroyed.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This isn't Iraq war II (III?). There are relatively few troops in country and there role is very limited. So long as we keep an attentive eye out for mission creep, I think the troops we have there should stay there.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Get the Saudis to stop ISI!
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE