Obama Considering Expanding U.S. Airstrikes to Include ISIS Logistics Hubs and Supply Lines in Iraq and Syria

Julian E. Barnes and Carol E. Lee

Wall Street Journal

September 9, 2014

Obama Looks at Expanding Airstrikes in Iraq

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is considering a major expansion of the scope of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq to target the logistics hubs and supply lines of militant Islamic State forces, in operations intended to help Iraq’s new government retake lost territory.

The new phase would represent a departure from the past month, when American military forces confined their operations to categories such as protecting U.S. personnel in the northern city of Erbil, humanitarian relief operations and defending key Iraqi infrastructure from the militants’ advance.

A new category of strikes is designed to have a wider effect. Some U.S. officials said airstrikes over the weekend at Haditha dam were a first example of the potential of an expanded air campaign, one closely coordinated with Iraqi forces.

"The strikes would support Iraqi forces on the ground and help them take back territory," said a defense official. "It opens the aperture."

President Barack Obama plans to use a speech to the nation on Wednesday to outline his strategy for combating Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. He is set to meet with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders Tuesday afternoon to detail his approach and determine what lawmakers need in order for them to sign on.

The Obama administration had been waiting to announce any expansion in help for Iraq until the new prime minister forms a cabinet. Iraq’s Parliament approved one Monday and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was sworn in, ending months of political wrangling.

Mr. Obama could green-light the new “sovereignty strikes” in his address on Wednesday. Mr. Obama also could decide by Wednesday whether to authorize strikes against Islamic State strongholds in Syria, a senior administration official said, although the strategy is still being formed.

Reporters raise their hands to question White House spokesman Josh Earnest in the briefing room of the White House in Washington on Monday. Reuters

Pentagon planners have been supportive of expanding strikes into Syria. Military officials believe that because Islamic State fighters move back and forth across the Iraq-Syria border, striking the group’s supply lines in Syria could help diminish its military strength more quickly.

"It makes military sense to expand to Syria, but this is a lot more than a military problem," said another defense official. "Is it the right move strategically? That is a decision the president has to make."

Senior Pentagon officials have discussed potential Islamic State targets in Syria with the White House, officials said.

The president’s speech, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, is primarily intended to explain to Americans both the threat posed by the Islamic State and his strategy, which will have diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military components, administration officials said.

The strategy also will rely on resources supplied by a coalition of nations from the Middle East to Europe. The president has remained adamant that he won’t deploy U.S. combat troops on the ground in Iraq or Syria.

Off the table, for now, is a stepped-up campaign of strikes targeting the leadership of the Islamic State. There are few senior leaders of the group operating in Iraq, said defense officials. Even if the president were to order an expansion of the air war into Syria, the U.S. lacks intelligence on where Islamic State leaders are hiding, officials said.

The U.S. has begun conducting surveillance flights over Syria, but it will likely be some time before the intelligence is sufficient to initiate a drone campaign against so-called “high value” leaders of Islamic State, defense officials said.

One problem with beginning the broader strikes in Iraq is that U.S. officials aren’t certain that Iraqi and Kurdish forces would be able to effectively capitalize on them.

The Obama administration also has held off expanding its advisory military effort, keeping the 1,192 U.S. military personnel now in the country focused on embassy security and on staffing joint U.S.-Iraqi operation centers.

The formation of a new Iraqi government likely will enable the Obama administration to allow U.S. personnel to begin directly advising Iraqi military units, although it will take weeks or months for American military officers to have an effect on the prowess of Iraqi units.

The Obama administration doesn’t believe it needs explicit congressional authorization for expanded strikes in Iraq. Senior congressional officials in both political parties have signaled that they don’t want to force members to take a vote, the senior administration official said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said he was wary of Congress voting to authorize additional action. “What if it comes over and you can’t pass it? That would be a disaster. And what if you put so many conditions on it that it makes any military operation ineffective, that’s what I worry about,” Mr. Graham said.

White House officials have indicated that Mr. Obama wants Congress to approve his proposal for a $500 million counterterrorism fund to help arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.