ISIS DATop Level1NC ISIS DATime is of the essence Congress shifted the agenda and only has a week to act on ISISObama is key

Espo and Klapper 9/11 (David Espo and Bradley Klapper, writers for the Associatged Press, President's request to combat militants draws bipartisan support http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/11/presidents-request-combat-militants-draws-support/) swap

WASHINGTON Bending for once to the will of the White House, Republicans and Democrats coalesced Thursday behind President Barack Obama's call to train and arm Syrian rebels fighting Islamic State militants and pointed toward votes in the heat of a midterm election campaign. "We ought to give the president what he's asking for," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, although he swiftly added that many Republicans believe the Democratic commander in chief's strategy is too tepid to crush militants who have overrun parts of Iraq and Syria and beheaded two American journalists. On the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expected legislation ratifying Obama's request to clear Congress by the end of next week when lawmakers hope to wrap up their work and go home to campaign for re-election. Congress' two other top officials, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, also said Obama would likely get the support he seeks. Congress is in the midst of a two-week session that had been expected to focus on domestic issues, principally legislation to extend routine government funding beyond the end of the Sept. 30 budget year. That agenda changed abruptly Wednesday night, when Obama delivered a prime-time speech from the White House seeking "additional authorities and resources to train and equip" rebels. The forces are simultaneously trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad and defeat militants seeking to create an Islamist caliphate in the heart of the Middle East. Obama says he already has the authority to order airstrikes against militants in Syria, although so far, those attacks have come only in neighboring Iraq. The White House and many lawmakers say deployment of U.S. troops to train and equip Syrian rebels activity planned to take place in Saudi Arabia would require additional congressional approval. On the morning after Obama's speech, the administration deployed a battalion of officials to brief lawmakers, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry are expected to testify next week at public hearings in advance of any votes in Congress. There was a strong political subtext to the developments, eight weeks before voters pick a new House and settle a struggle for Senate control. Asked whether the topic would be part of the campaign now unfolding, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who is on the November ballot, said, "Everything is going to be an issue." "We do not want to go home without voting on some measure that goes toward destroying and defeating ISIS wherever it exists," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, using an alternate acronym for the militants. Reid accused Republicans of taking cheap political shots at the president, and said, "This is a time for the rhetoric of campaign commercials to go away." At the same time, candidates seeking re-election will be required to vote on the president's request, and challengers will be on the spot to state their positions. Broader debate Republicans served notice they will seek a broader debate, although not before Congress leaves Washington next week. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a frequent critic of Obama, said Congress will work quickly on the White House's immediate request. Beyond that, he said Congress must consider "what this multiyear campaign will mean for the overall defense program" from U.S. nuclear forces on land, sea and air, to a need to "retain dominance" in the Pacific. Boehner, the leader of the Republican-controlled House, said it could take years to train and equip rebel forces, yet "ISIL's momentum and territorial gains must be halted and reversed immediately." He added, "An F-16 (warplane) is not a strategy, and airstrikes alone will not accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. And the president's made clear that he doesn't want U.S. boots on the ground. Well, somebody's boots have to be on the ground." As a president who came to office promising to end wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama has been adamant that he is not now leading the nation into a new ground conflict. Even so, one Democratic supporter of the president, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, said Wednesday night, "The U.S. will probably put boots on the ground, but it will be more commando raids and forward air observers with others to do the actual strikes on the ground." There were scattered objections to Obama's request from within both political parties.

October 7th will determine the link congresss agenda is TIGHT any new legislation will force a war powers battle that collapses support for strikes.

Logiurato 9/3/14 (Brett, Political Analysit Congress Is Frustrated With Obama, And They're Beating The Drums For A War With ISIS Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-to-obama-go-to-war-with-isis-2014-9#ixzz3CSCtixAh)

Obama first notified Congress of military action in Iraq on Aug. 8 under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives the president a 60-day window to carry out military operations before coming to Congress for approval. The administration hasn't specified whether it would seek congressional authorization beyond that 60-day window, which would expire on Oct. 7. White House Press secretary Josh Earnest has said vaguely, when asked various times, that the president has and will continue to consult with Congress on U.S. military action. Two complicating factors for Congress are time and timing. Congress will return next Monday from its recess, but it has a full plate of legislation to tackle already, including passing a continuing resolution to keep the government funded past Sept. 30. Vulnerable members of Congress representing war-weary districts of America are also wary of a vote authorizing military action in an election year. Two congressional aides said they worry about the possibility of there being "little appetite" for a vote. If he pushes for it, congressional aides say, Obama will likely get his authorization though many members of Congress want that long-awaited strategy to be laid out. Obama will need to come to Congress with defined goals and objectives.

US military aid is the vital internal link to stopping ISIS solves MIDDLE EAST escalation and a host of other regional cross-border conflict. Every Delay increases the magnitude of our impact.

Al-Bahra 8/13/14 (Hadi, president of the Syrian Opposition Coalition. WSJ, Want to Defeat ISIS? Help the Syrian Opposition, http://online.wsj.com/articles/want-to-defeat-isis-help-the-syrian-opposition-1407971766)

It is said that common foes build strong partnerships. Long before the terrorist army of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham marched into the Iraqi city of Mosul, threatened to exterminate the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq, and attacked the country's Kurds, the Syrian Opposition and the Free Syrian Army were battling ISIS and pushing back this common threat to our people. Now more than ever, there is a national-security impetus for the United States to support and arm the Syrian opposition to halt and defeat the ISIS campaign. The current U.S. airstrikes in Iraq will slow down these Islamic extremists, but airstrikes are also needed in Syria to hit at the heart of the ISIS. Defeating them requires the inclusion in a broader U.S.-backed effort of the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian tribes who already have extensive experience fighting ISIS. The conflict has crossed borders and now threatens to destabilize the wider Middle East. ISIS could not have reached Iraq and crossed into Jordan and Lebanon had the world heeded our warnings earlier this yearand formed a regional strategy to combat this threat by supporting those of us who have been fighting these terrorists for months with little to no outside support. We agree with America's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, who said recently that to effectively handle the ISIS terrorist threat, the U.S. needs a partnership with those who can "reject it from inside out." The U.S. has that partner with the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Opposition. To achieve this shared goal, we need quality military aid, and fast. We face an existential battle in Syria against the Bashar Assad regime that is bent on the eradication of all who oppose it. The slaughtermore than 160,000 Syrians have been killedis being conducted on an industrial scale. Recent evidence presented by defectors has revealed how meticulously the killing has been planned by Assad and his Iranian backers. Yet we have enemies in common with the U.S. and other potential allies. Before al Qaeda spawned ISIS, Assad's security services provided a haven for al Qaeda on Syrian territorylong before our revolution against the Assad regime began in 2011. We have fought ISIS and are fighting other al Qaeda affiliates in Syria. In the past few days, the forces of Assad and Iranian-backed Hezbollah have been making dangerous advances on the opposition-held ancient city of Aleppo in northwestern Syria. ISIS is trying to aid the advances by pushing deeper into areas in the north that were liberated during our revolution against the regime. This ISIS advance so close to the Turkish border presents a direct threat to us and to U.S. interests. Members of a Free Syrian Army group fighting in Aleppo, Syria. Getty Images The Free Syrian Army and tribal leaders have proven to be the most effective force in fighting against ISIS and al Qaeda affiliates. On May 16, Free Syrian Army units in Aleppo province announced the launch of an anti-al Qaeda offensive titled Operation Earthquake of the North. On May 19, five powerful rebel coalitions signed a "Revolutionary Covenant" denouncing "fundamentalism and extremism." On June 12, the Free Syrian Army's Southern Front Command released a statement reiterating the rebels' commitment to democratic principles. We have put forth a blueprint for stabilizing and freeing Syria from the threats that endanger both the Syrian people, regional allies and the West. We have proposed a scalable Syrian Rapid Deployment Force, which would form the nucleus of a larger stabilization force of more than 10,000 vetted and trained fighterscritical to defeating ISIS and Assad's killing machine. We are also in the process of establishing offices and services in the liberated areas of Syria to support a political framework that will oversee and coordinate with a military chain of command. We welcome President Obama's recent initiative to support us as the genuine and vetted Syrian opposition with a proposed package of $500 million for military training and equipment. This military support will be helpful in the battle against ISIS, and it will save lives and prevent further spread of the conflict regionally. But this support will not be enough if it does not arrive quickly and match the pace of the ISIS advance. Opposition forces will also need to be enabled with an air-defense capability. We need man-portable air-defense systems (Manpads) to defend homes and towns and villages from the incessant air bombardment and regime military assaults. These weapon systems will not fall into extremist hands because our forces are actively fighting those very extremists. We also know this because the Free Syrian Army has already benefited from lethal support from the U.S., demonstrating on the battlefield that it can effectively and responsibly use U.S.-made advanced-weapon systems such as the T.O.W. antitank guided missile. Manpads must be the next step. The Free Syrian Army is the tip of the spear in the fight against ISIS terrorism. If properly enabled, our opposition forces have the experience and personnel to turn the tide on the ground. Together with the U.S., we can end the suffering in Syria. In partnership, we can deal a mortal blow to the terrorist threat facing both our peoples. But time is of the essence, as ISIS and Assad will exploit any delay to destroy those who stand against them. The U.S. State Department recently referred to ISIS as "worse than al Qaeda." Given the dire threat, what could be worse than complacency?

Middle East goes nuclear

James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, 9 (Spring) Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East IFRI, Proliferation Papers, #26, http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf

Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

UQ2NC UQ Wall St. FrancisFragile bipartisan cooperation will insure passage now

Gore 9/11 (Celina Gore, writer for the Talk Radio News Service Senate Democrats Call For Bipartisan Unity On ISIS Plan http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2014/09/11/sen-democrats-call-bipartisan-unity-isis-plan.html#.VBOtlPldWSo) swap

(TRNS)- Top Senate Democrats called for bipartisan cooperation Thursday on President Barack Obamas plan to defeat ISIS. Now its up to Congress to rally behind President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said during a press conference, noting that he was confident in lawmakers ability to overcome party divisions, cooperate with the President and immediately act on the proposal. Pointing to Title X of the Armed Services code, which requires congressional approval to train and equip foreign fighters, the leaders urged their colleagues form both sides of the aisle to support training efforts that will strengthen partnerships in the region and prevent the deployment of American troops to fight. When we commit American servicemen and women in harms way, its time to put partisanship aside and stand together as a Congress and a nation to be on their side, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. When asked about funding the strategy against ISIS, they stated it was too soon to be speculating about the cost, but estimated that the fighter training could be $500 million alone. If Democrats and Republicans cant come together to keep us safe from terrorism, I dont know what will bring us together, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) told reporters. The House is expected to vote in favor of the proposal next week. Democrats in the upper chamber said they will be involved in briefings in the next few days to understand the challenges and ask questions regarding the Presidents strategy.

The GOP is shifting to Obamas side bipartisanship is key

Starks 9/11 (Tim Starks, writer for Roll Call, Rhetoric Aside, Signs of Bipartisanship After Obama ISIS Speech http://blogs.rollcall.com/five-by-five/obama-isis-speechrhetoric-aside-signs-of-bipartisanship-over-isis/?dcz=) swap

If you were just judging by the tone of the GOP response to Barack Obamas speech Wednesday night about the terrorist group that calls itself the Islamic State, you might get the impression that Republicans were on very opposite pages with the Democratic president. Look a little closer and youll see some similarities. Part of the reason for the signs of agreement over fighting the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is that Obama is getting more aggressive, which is what many Republicans wanted. Another reason is that they got a strategy against ISIS from Obamas speech, which theyve been demanding, even if it fell short of their hopes. And Obama has been trying to win over the Hill in his anti-ISIS activities, something theyve complained he doesnt do enough of generally. So many Republicans are expressing some measure of agreement, couched in criticism. CQ Now reports Thursday, for instance, for CQ.com subscribers: Sen. Rob Portman [R-Ohio @senrobportman] said he supports the strategy Obama laid out to fight Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, but said there had been a vacuum of leadership on the issue: The president may wish it away, but this threat continues, Portman said. Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona (@SenJohnMcCain) and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (@GrahamBlog) have been some of Obamas chief critics over ISIS. While we are eager to receive additional information on all of the Presidents proposals, we believe these actions deserve bipartisan support and can degrade ISIS over time. However, the Presidents plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the worlds largest, richest terrorist army. [emphasis theirs] While some Republicans are still interested in an explicit vote to authorize military action, some key GOP leaders House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio (@SpeakerBoehner) among them arent challenging his claim of authority to go it alone. And while Obamas late request for inclusion in a stopgap funding bill of authorization to ramp up arming Syrian rebels might have given House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. (@HouseAppropsGOP), heartburn, a vote on the bill was postponed while he and other lawmakers gave it consideration. Some are already on record as supporting the arming of Syrian rebels, and Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (@SenBobCorker), said he would still support doing so. This doesnt mean they agree with everything about what Obama is doing, of course. Many of them want him to be doing even more, and not just McCain and Graham. Its just that the stories about the GOP hammering Obama over ISIS have evolved.

Lawmakers are crossing the aisle sustained bipartisan cooperation is key

Lawder and Zengerle 9/11 (David Lawder and Patricia Zengerle, writers for Haaretz, Republicans mull ISIS plan as Obama invites Congressional support http://www.haaretz.com/1.615246) swap

REUTERS - U.S. lawmakers say they are on the verge of taking a "war vote" as they consider whether to back President Barack Obama's campaign to destroy Islamic State, and despite broad support for action many fear being drawn into a quagmire. The White House wants Congress to approve $500 million to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels to battle Islamic State militants, a show of confidence for administration officials as they try to form an international coalition. The beheadings of two U.S. captives by Islamic State have steeled lawmakers to the need for more military action, and both Democratic and Republican congressional leaders were supportive of Obama's plan on Wednesday. But some Republicans in particular say they want more information from the administration about its wider strategy to combat global terrorism, and many would prefer a broad vote rather than one focused on funding. "This could be taken by some as a war vote," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, adding that he has reservations about providing weapons that could fall into enemy hands. "There are so many unknowns that we are dealing with here, it's too early to make any decisions," the Kentucky Republican told reporters shortly before Obama told Americans in a speech on Wednesday night that he had authorized an escalation of his campaign against Islamic State. Republican Senator Rand Paul, also from Kentucky and normally a leader of his party's isolationist wing, said he would support military action against Islamic State, but wants Obama to "follow the Constitution" and seek congressional authorization. Just a year ago, U.S. lawmakers recoiled at the thought of military strikes against Syria's government for using chemical weapons. They handed Obama an embarrassing foreign policy defeat as anti-war Democrats joined isolationist Republicans in a rare show of bi-partisanship that killed his request for strikes. Democrats are crossing the aisle again, this time as they voice strong support for attacking Islamic State, though the overwhelming majority of lawmakers from both parties oppose the idea of sending in any U.S. ground troops. "I often disagree with the president's foreign policy, but you've got to come together as a nation to stand up to ISIS," said Representative Luke Messer, an Indiana Republican, using another name for Islamic State. While criticizing Obama's previous handling of the threat from Syria, Representative Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, predicted Obama would ultimately get bipartisan support. "You back presidents up in a situation like this," Cole said. Obama has requested that funds for training rebels be included in a stop-gap funding bill that would avert a U.S. government shutdown on Oct. 1, the start of a new fiscal year. The White House has said Obama he does not believe he needs Congress' formal authorization to attack Islamic State.

Its at the top of the docket, but itll take time

Benen 9/11 (Steve Benen, writer for MSNBC, Congress weighs next move on ISIS, authorization http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/congress-weighs-next-move-isis-authorization) swap

It was just two weeks ago when Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, argued that it would be wise for Congress to come together and draft a grant of some authority for President Obama to use force against ISIS targets. He just didnt think its possible not in a million years. There is simply no way on earth that members of Congress are going to come together and agree on what the language for an authorization for the use of force in Syria is its just not going to happen, Smith told the New York Times. At the time, that seemed like a safe bet, and I shared Smiths assumptions. But just over the last couple of days, the prevailing winds seem to have shifted. While the week started with congressional leaders taking a pass on the issue, a new consensus started to come together: Congress cant just do nothing. Jake Sherman has the latest from the Hill: [I]nternally, senior aides to Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise recognize that theres a significant enough outcry from lawmakers to have an up-or-down vote on Obamas plan. The issue came up at a closed House briefing Thursday, and White House officials reiterated that its their strong preference to have the language included in the government-funding bill, in order to orchestrate a quick passage. The Republican leadership is considering a few options. Theres a pending measure to fund the government through mid-December the continuing resolution, or CR that Congress must pass to avoid a shutdown. As far as the White House is concerned, that creates an opportunity: add the anti-ISIS provisions to the spending measure and lawmakers can tackle two important tasks at once. But for many lawmakers, in both parties, its not that simple. Some want to keep the governments lights on, but have real concerns about the counter-terrorism strategy. Others arent comfortable with combining these two important-but-unrelated measures on principle. Others want to take more time, beyond the end of the fiscal year that ends in 19 days. For those of us who believe Congress has a constitutional obligation to weigh in, the fact that lawmakers are debating how, and not whether, to move forward is itself a sign of unexpected progress. But that doesnt mean the road ahead will be easy. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, said he expects a two-step process in which Congress takes up a bill in the short term to support training anti-ISIS rebels, and then after the election, lawmakers would take up consideration of a larger authorization for the use of military force. But this is only one option. Members could also take up one bill related to the ISIS mission, which includes both rebel support and presidential authorization. If the two are split, both could receive votes before Congress leaves town, or maybe just one. Its all up in the air. The key, however, remains the same: theres been a marked shift in the direction of the debate. Whereas it seemed clear that Congress wanted no part of this discussion, at least not before the election, the real momentum on Capitol Hill is now pointing in the opposite direction. Ed OKeefe and Robert Costa added, House Republican leaders moved quickly Thursday to broadly support President Obamas plan for an open-ended campaign to combat the Islamic State but the mechanics of how they will do so wont be determined for several days.

No thumpers they were all pre-speech

Tomasky 9/12 (Michael Tomasky, writer for the Daily Beast, Will the House GOP Stop the War on ISIS? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/12/will-the-house-gop-stop-the-war-on-isis.html) swap

Fast background: Congress has to pass a continuing resolution by September 30 or well have a government shutdown again. Actually, in practical terms, it has to pass it within the next few days, because the Jewish holidays are coming and Congress is going on recess so members can go back home and campaign. In an election year, no one on the GOP side wants to risk a government shutdown (check thatTed Cruz still kind of does!). The two parties are mostly arguing about the Export-Import Bank, the newest piece of coal for the tea party fire, but thats the kind of thing they usually agree at the last minute to extend for another six months. But that was the pre-ISIS state of play. Then we all saw the beheading videos, and fighting the Islamic State became a matter of urgency. Obama had asked Congress for $500 million in aid to the Syrian rebels back in June, but Congress, in its laconic, congressional way, was originally going to wait until next year to get around to that. But now the administration wants that $500 millionwhich is actually part of a larger $2 billion request that would include other money for operations in Iraq and Ukraineto be passed now. And it wants it included in the CR, as they call it. As you probably know, the House Republicans met Thursday morning in the aftermath of Obamas speech to figure out how to proceed. As you probably also know, they didnt figure it out. Some support Obamas requestJohn Boehner does, and the relevant committee chairmen. Others, of course, dont trust Obama. Some want to keep the Syria money in the CR. Others want to pry it out and have two votes, one on government funding and one on the Syria dough.

2NC UQ Wall WakeStrike approval for ISIS in Syria will pass now delays could be a game changer

Rogin 9/2/14 (Josh, s senior correspondent for national security and politics for The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Newsweek, Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japans leading daily newspaper, After Steven Sotloff Murder, Congress Demands a Vote on Obamas ISIS War, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/02/after-steven-sotloff-murder-congress-demands-a-vote-on-obama-s-isis-war.html)

In the wake of ISISs latest alleged killing of an American journalist, leading lawmakers from both parties are calling for a bigger role in the U.S. war against the terrorist group. Leading lawmakers in charge of foreign policy reacted Tuesday to the reported beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff by increasing their calls for more congressional involvement and oversight of President Obamas war on ISIS. The latest apparent ISIS atrocity against an American citizen added to the congressional anger at the Obama administration for what many critics call an incomplete and unclear plan to confront the group both in Iraq and Syria, following President Obamas admission last week that We dont have a strategy yet for dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The two leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Tuesday that they want to lead the charge for more congressional oversight by holding hearings and forcing a vote on Obamas ISIS war within 60 days of the commencement of airstrikes in Iraq last month. The beheading of poor Mr. Sotloff really just brings back that we are dealing with a dangerous adversaryCongress needs to play a vital role and we are determined that the House Foreign Affairs Committee will lead the way, said Rep. Eliot Engel, ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We believe that before the president can continue beyond 60 days of doing airstrikes in Iraq or anyplace else, he would have to come to Congress and get Congresss authority to continue. Engel and the committees chairman, Rep. Ed Royce, spoke to reporters via conference call from Israel on Tuesday. Royce said Secretary of State John Kerry, who will travel to the region this week, must come before Congress and present a strategy for defeating ISIS and put it up for a vote by the beginning of next month. We are scheduling a hearing upon our return and requesting the secretary of state to present a plan, a strategy focused on rolling back ISIS, defeating ISIS through the use of airstrikes and the support of those with common interests, Royce said. We anticipate there will be a vote on authorization of the use of force for such a plan. That would come within the 60-day window. Shortly after beginning airstrikes against ISIS in early August, Obama notified Congress of the military action consistent with the War Powers Resolution, which gives the executive branch 60 days to wage war before coming to Congress for authorization. That notification said Obama was striking ISIS in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel in Erbil and prevent a potential act of genocide against the Yazidi minorities. That 60-day window would expire in early October. Congress returns from recess next week and has two weeks of session before adjourning again until after the election. The White House has made two additional notifications under the War Powers Resolution since first striking ISIS, including one Monday to inform Congress that Obama authorized the U.S. military to conduct targeted airstrikes in support of an operation to deliver humanitarian assistance to the town of Amirli, where thousands of Shia Turkomen have been cut off from receiving food, water, and medical supplies for two months by ISIL, said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. Other leading lawmakers, including Senate Foreign Relations Near East Subcommittee Chairman Tim Kaine, have called on Obama to come to Congress for permission if he wants to continue the air war against ISIS past the beginning of October. Obama didnt ask Congress before striking Libya in 2011, but he did start the process for congressional approval last year to strike the Assad regime in Syria before calling off those strikes at the last minute. Still reeling from Obamas August 28 declaration that the White House lacks a strategy for confronting ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, top lawmakers in both parties called on the president Tuesday to get one fast and tell Congress and the American people what it is.

Dont buy any older evidence Wolfs bill introduction changed the game.

Boyle 9/3/14 (Matthew Boyle, Political Analyist, FRANK WOLF TO INTRODUCE BILL AUTHORIZING MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/03/Frank-Wolf-To-Introduce-Bill-Calling-For-Congressional-Authorization-For-Military-Action-Against-ISIS)

Though President Barack Obama hasnt consulted Americas legislative branch on what to do about the ISIS threat, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)a national security hawk from Virginiais stepping forward himself to introduce legislation that would congressionally authorize military action against ISIS and other terror threats in the region. It isnt enough for the Congress to just say the administration isnt doing enough then not participate, Wolf told Breitbart News in a phone interview. He continued: The Congress has the ability to declare war under the Constitution. I think the Congress has to be involved in this. I think you also almost have to do what President [George H.W.] Bush did with regard to Desert Storm. If you put together a coalition of regional powersthey had the Saudis, even Syria was involved. You had all the countries out in the region involved. You had all of NATO involvedAmericans cannot do this alone. We need to bring in all of this regional power. Wolfs bill, which he will introduce when Congress returns from recess next week, wouldaccording to Wolfs officeauthorize U.S. military force against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda and its affiliates, like al Nusra, Ansar al Sharia, al Shabaab and Boko Haram, while encouraging close coordination with NATO and regional allies on any action. Wolf, in his interview with Breitbart News about the forthcoming bill, said hes puzzled that the president at first did not have any strategy yet to deal with ISIS, and that now the president thinks ISIS can be a manageable problem. I dont know what the word manageable means, Wolf said. I saw the comment. How do you manage it? They have spread now from Syria to the suburbs of Baghdad. They have Mosul. You have 140 Americans, at least, with American passports who have gone over there to fight with them. We have never had this happen before. 9/11 were mainly Saudis and some other nations. Wolf said the threat to the United States is very, very big.

Framing issue recency matters for uniqueness it was a much tougher vote at the end of August but ISIS killed another hostage, Stephen Sotloff which increased Congressional appetite for a vote

Rusling 9/5/14 Philippines News Agency (Matthew, Analysis: U.S. may intensify air raids in Iraq, unlikely to send combat troops factiva)

However, experts say Obama is unlikely to put U.S. combat troops on the ground, as he is concerned about his legacy, and wants to be known as the president who ended the war in Iraq. Instead, he will likely ramp up the U.S. air campaign. "When the Iraqi and Kurdish ground component of an overall anti-ISIS military package has been better prepared and armed, the tempo of U.S. and possibly other NATO airstrikes against ISIS will rise markedly," White said. Many in the Congress are on board with such increased U.S. air involvement. In reaction to the Islamic State radicals' beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff, leading lawmakers on both sides of the isle this week called for a greater U.S. roll to fight what they believe is a deadly terror threat. For his part, Obama would not be averse to toughening air attacks, and the Congress would likely approve such a move, Republican strategist Ford O'Connell told Xinhua. "Congress is pretty much prepared to authorize him to use more force," O'Connell said.

There are only 12 days total to get it done

OToole 8/25/14 (Molly,staff for Defense One, National Journal Online, Obama, Iraq, and the Coming War-Powers Fight With Congress National Journal Online, factiva)

If interagency legal teams determine that the 2001 AUMF applies to the fight against the Islamic State, it would simply be a matter of sending a memorandum to Congress, the Senate aide said. Operations could then continue in Iraq with "blanket legal cover," and without a vote. If the administration decides to formally expand the mission in Iraq into a broader campaign against the Islamic State, Obama would almost certainly need to seek new authorization. If the administration doesn't get separate authorization, the 60-day limit should hit right at Congress's most vulnerable, and busiest, time. Once Congress returns from its long summer recess, it has only 12 days of work before departing for October's run-up to the midterm elections. On Oct. 7, 60 days after Obama's announcement of air strikes, both chambers won't even be in session.

Internal Link2NC Internal LinkThere are only 12 days total to get it done

OToole 8/25/14 (Molly,staff for Defense One, National Journal Online, Obama, Iraq, and the Coming War-Powers Fight With Congress National Journal Online, factiva)

If interagency legal teams determine that the 2001 AUMF applies to the fight against the Islamic State, it would simply be a matter of sending a memorandum to Congress, the Senate aide said. Operations could then continue in Iraq with "blanket legal cover," and without a vote. If the administration decides to formally expand the mission in Iraq into a broader campaign against the Islamic State, Obama would almost certainly need to seek new authorization. If the administration doesn't get separate authorization, the 60-day limit should hit right at Congress's most vulnerable, and busiest, time. Once Congress returns from its long summer recess, it has only 12 days of work before departing for October's run-up to the midterm elections. On Oct. 7, 60 days after Obama's announcement of air strikes, both chambers won't even be in session.

Congress will prey on obamas authority if they smell blood in the water

Howley 9/3/14 (Patrick, Political Reporter, Boehner: Obama Clearly Has No ISIS Strategy, Is Required To Ask Congress For War Authority Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/03/boehner-obama-clearly-has-no-isis-strategy/#ixzz3CK12zLGR)

Republican House Speaker John Boehner said that President Obama would need to ask Congress for authority to go to war with ISIS and that the president clearly has no strategy to deal with the terrorist group in either Iraq or Syria.

I think under existing authorizations from the Congress, he has the ability to do this in Iraq, Boehner said Tuesday night in a phone interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitts fill-in, California Rep. John Campbell. The interview occurred shortly after ISIS released a video showing its beheading of a second American journalist.

Its, I think its questionable whether he has the authority to do this in Syria, Boehner said. You know, the threat from ISIS goes back well over a year. And the crisis in Syrias been going on now for over two years. And weve asked the president, asked the president what is your strategy to deal with Syria. And clearly, theres no strategy thats developed there.

Until the president is willing to lay out a plan, the Congress has very few options ahead of it, Boehner said.

Well, the president has provided the notification of some of these strikes, even in Iraq, because theres some ambiguity there in terms of how much authority in Iraq did he have. But if hes going after ISIS, he would have, I think he would have to provide a war powers notification to the Congress. And then it would be up to the House to make a decision about whether we dealt with the issue or not, Boehner added.

AT: Obama Strategy FirstThe area is murky airstrikes depend on CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL

Trujillo 9/3/14 (Mario, The Hill, Boehner: Congress limited until Obama outlines ISIS strategy, http://thehill.com/policy/defense/216476-boehner-congress-limited-until-obama-outlines-isis-strategy#ixzz3CJyVMCM5)

Boehner said he believes Obama has authority to target ISIS in Iraq, but it is "questionable" whether that authority extends to airstrikes against the group in Syria. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said he would introduce legislation to give Obama the option to launch strikes targeting ISIS in Syria. The Speaker did not answer directly when asked if the House would easily grant Obama authorization. "But if hes going after ISIS, he would have, I think he would have to provide a War Powers notification to the Congress," he said. "And then it would be up to the House to make a decision about whether we dealt with the issue or not." The threat extends further than Iraq and Syria, Boehner warned. He noted it touches from "Libya to Gaza to Lebanon to Syria and Iraq." Obama vowed to degrade and destroy ISIS Wednesday morning, after the administration authenticated a video Tuesday showing the second beheading of a U.S. journalist by the group.

AT: Thumpers (MUST READ)Thumpers that are ON THE DOCKET are incoherent. The DA is about the UPSET of the congressional agenda. ISIS vote needs to happen immediately to prevent escalation. New unpopular pieces of legislation INHERENTLY require debating and time, the same is not true with un-necessary legislative priorities like immigration. ISIS vote first

Caldwell 9/3/14 (Leigh, CNN Why it took Obama so long to address his no ISIS strategy comments http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/politics/obama-isis-response/)

In other words, the President wants to engage coalition partners, create a meaningful military plan and explain it to the public. He also said he might need approval from Congress. So why did that take so long to respond to that rare moment of candor that resulted in ongoing criticism from every corner of the political spectrum and provide another opportunity for critics to define his foreign policy as feckless and aimless? Dr. Nussaibah Younis, senior researcher at the Project on Middle East Democracy, said Obama's slow response to his critics is characteristic of his approach to foreign policy. "Slowly he's getting there," said Younis, an Iraq expert who has been warning about the growing threat of ISIS and is critical of the President's "cautious" approach to ISIS in Iraq. He wants strategic, limited and immediate airstrikes in Syria. "The gravity of the situation is filtering through and I think that's progress." The President again fell victim to that perception again Wednesday. During that same news conference in Estonia, Obama gave mixed messages of U.S. goals against the group that effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria. On one hand he said the goal is to "degrade and destroy," then appeared to move back from the "destroy" part of the phrase by saying the goal against ISIS is to ensure the group is "manageable." It is another instance that opens him up to criticism from those who want aggressive military action as well as confusion on the part of an American public that wants answers. "He left a little ambiguous what the goal is today," David Gergen, a former adviser to four presidents, said Wednesday on CNN. An administration official defended the President, saying he did not deliver two conflicting messages, but noted that this is going to be a time-consuming fight that will begin with managing ISIS's threat and eventually lead to its destruction. Now that this is the second messaging problem the President has had in less than a week when talking about the terrorist group, Major Gen. James "Spider" Marks said the President's missives must be more clear. "Words are very, very important," Marks said on CNN, adding that his messages are mixed because the U.S.'s lack of a strategy. Regardless of messaging, the President's restrained strategy does have its defenders. Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "GPS," said that the President's response to ISIS in Syria, which is embroiled in a three-year long civil war, is appropriate. He said one important consideration is whether the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would be strengthened if ISIS is defeated there. "In the Middle East, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy," Zakaria said on CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday. The external pressure put on Obama to act is harmful, Zakaria said. "This is where the media pressure actually is unhelpful to having a strong foreign policy," he said. After ISIS beheaded American journalist Steve Sotloff, the second American in less than one month, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that caution is the President's ally because ISIS's actions are "meant to get us to overreact." The President will begin to mold his strategy at the NATO summit where he will attempt to organize a coalition to address ISIS in Syria. And next week, Congress is back in Washington where debate about U.S. response to ISIS is expected.

ISIS needs to be resolved before the session ends thats 1NC Rogin any risk the plan pushes it off the agenda triggers the DAISIS strikes are congresss top priority all other bills are being put on the stopper

Harress 9/3/14 (Christopher, Sotloff Beheading Prompts Congressional Bill On Striking ISIS In Syria, ibtimes.com, September 3, 2014, http://www.ibtimes.com/sotloff-beheading-prompts-congressional-bill-striking-isis-syria-1677328)

As President Barack Obama addressed the world from Talinn, Estonia, on Wednesday, saying that the U.S. and its allies would "degrade and destroy" ISIS, members of Congress were calling for more direct action against the Sunni militant group that has horrified the world with its atrocities in recent months. The bipartisan outrage over the beheading of Steven Sotloff, the second American journalist to be beheaded by ISIS in as many weeks, has prompted Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, to introduce legislation that would grant Obama congressional authority to strike ISIS, aka the Islamic State, in Syria. This will ensure theres no question that the president has the legal authority he needs to use airstrikes in Syria, Nelson said. We must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop this group thats intent on barbaric cruelty. But Nelson won't be able to introduce the bill until next week, when Congress returns from its recess, which may see the National Defense Authorization Act 2015 held up again as bills are inserted to deal with the increasing threat of Russia and ISIS. The bill is currently being held up in the Senate. Nelson is not alone in his support for action. It is chilling that this type of madness is now part of their operation as they take cities across the area, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-California, said on CNN in a joint interview with his committees ranking Democrat, Eliot Engel of New York. Both Royce and Engel want to see airstrikes hit ISIS training camps in order to stem the flow of fighters to the group. The renewed interest from Congress to intervene in Syria comes one year after an Obama-led drive to strike Syrian President Bashar Assad fell apart. Congress was reluctant to allow the United States to become embroiled in another overseas conflict, but now, as the U.S. conducts airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq in response to the Islamic militant group's continuing brutal rampage, the threat from ISIS in Syria is one that Congress appears more willing to deal with. It is time we act decisively against ISIL [another name for ISIS] wherever it resides. Whenever American air power has been employed, in coordination with reliable partners on the ground, ISIL has been devastated. Its a tactic that should be aggressively pursued in both Syria and Iraq, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, on Tuesday.

AT: Thumpers (Drum)Issues dont cost capital until theyre at the finish line

Drum 10 [Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner]

Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage well, that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.

AT: Thumpers (Immigration)Wont happen until after the election

Sink 9/5/14 (Justin, The Hill, Obama: Immigration action soon http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/216792-obama-immigration-action-soon)

President Obama vowed Friday to announce executive actions to address immigration "soon, though he did not specifically commit to moving before the November elections. The president said he has received some of the proposals and recommendations for executive actions developed by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. "I suspect that on my flight back this will be part of my reading, taking a look at some of the specifics we've looked at, and I will be making an announcement soon," Obama told reporters at a press conference following the NATO summit in Wales. Obama said his actions would include efforts to move resources to better address the surge of child migrants who have flooded across the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as finding a way to encourage legal immigration. High-tech companies and immigration groups have been lobbying the administration to expand the number of green cards available to specialized workers and the relatives of permanent residents. The president said he also hoped his administration could find a way "to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English, and be able to not look over their shoulder, but be legal since theyve been living here for quite some time." Advocates have suggested that the president could expand his deferred action program which allows certain children brought to the country illegally to work legally and avoid deportation proceedings to cover a broader group of individuals. "My intention is, in the absence of action by Congress, Im going to do what I can do within the legal constraints of my office, because its the right thing to do for the country," Obama said. But while Obama said he'd be considering those steps "fairly soon," he did not say whether the announcement would come ahead of the midterm elections. Vulnerable Senate Democrats have begged the president to hold off on any move until after November, fearing that any steps Obama takes could motivate the Republican base and alienate independent voters. Earlier this week, press secretary Josh Earnest conceded that Obama could wait until after the midterms to act.

Obama wont act before the election

NPR 9/5/14 - Don Gonyea talks to with NPR Senior Political Correspondent Mara Liaison and Robert Costa of The Washington Post about the issues and key races in this fall's midterm elections. (Run-Up To Midterm Elections Overshadowed By Other News http://www.npr.org/2014/09/05/345997442/run-up-to-midterm-elections-overshadowed-by-other-news)

GONYEA: OK, we're going to get to the Senate in a moment. First, Mara, the big domestic issue this summer has been whether the president would use some sort of executive action to tackle the immigration crisis. How likely does that look at this point? LIASSON: He is going to use executive action to tackle the immigration crisis. The question was whether he would do it before Election Day, and now that looks less and less likely. He has been under pressure from immigration groups. And he has said he will act to expand deportation relief beyond the dreamers. But the White House has changed its mind about the politics of doing executive orders, that Republicans would see as amnesty, before Election Day. When the president originally said he would act without delay, after he got recommendations by the end of the summer, the White House simply wasn't anticipating how big an issue this would become on the campaign trail from Republicans. The White House has also been getting a tremendous amount of pushback from Senate Democrats up for reelection in red states. They do not want the president to do this before Election Day.

AT: Thumper (Border)Its not a major priority so its not causing a fight

Hallerman 9/5/14 (Tamar, Roll Call staff , Congress' To-Do List: Border Funding, Stopgap http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress_to_do_list_border_funding_stopgap-236018-1.html)

House Republicans in recent days have hinted that the border supplemental has fallen off their radar as the administration has also made less noise about the issue. The emergency spending bill was conspicuously left off the email Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California sent to House Republicans about the September agenda on Thursday.

Wont even be a vote

Davis 9/4/14 (Susan, USA Today, Border funding bill loses steam in Congress http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/04/border-bill-congress/15093657/)

The White House request in July for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to deal with a surge of undocumented minors has fallen to the wayside and may not get a vote at all as lawmakers return to Capitol Hill for a three-week legislative sprint before Election Day. Aides to House and Senate leaders and the Appropriations committees said the number of undocumented minors at the border has been dropping and existing funds are likely to cover the immediate needs. The aides spoke on background because negotiations are ongoing.

AT: Thumper (Shutdown)

The GOP leadership will avoid it sees it as a threat to midterms

Hallerman 9/5/14 (Tamar, Roll Call staff, Congress' To-Do List: Border Funding, Stopgap http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress_to_do_list_border_funding_stopgap-236018-1.html)

With control of both chambers of Congress within reach for the first time in years, GOP leaders will try to clear the way for Republican candidates as they head into the final campaign stretch. They want to avoid another bruising government shutdown when fiscal 2014 funding runs out after Sept. 30, and minimize awkward votes that could disadvantage incumbents. That means leaders will work to keep a CR free of too many spending anomalies to avoid sapping Republican support and fend off policy riders that could jeopardize Democratic votes needed to move it through the Senate.

Strikes Core2NC Solves Conflict EscalationOnly congressional approval of military force against ISIS solves conflict escalation.

DePetris 9/2/14 (Daniel, Foreign Policy consultant, wannabe politico and avid blogger, Why Obama Should Ask Congress for an ISIS AUMF, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-r-depetris/why-obama-should-ask-cong_b_5745460.html)

President Barack Obama and his national security advisers have some serious thinking to do over the next week on the scope, duration and lethality of U.S. military action against the organization calling itself the Islamic State. To date, the president has relied upon the Article II powers that are granted to his office by the U.S. Constitution, such as the ability of the Commander-in-Chief to take limited military action when U.S. citizens are at risk. Just this past weekend, President Obama ordered the U.S. Air Force to pummel Islamic State checkpoints, armored trucks, and mortar positions to break a two-month siege of a small, agricultural Turkomen town that was cut off nearly all attempts to bring in food, water, and medical supplies to the people who lived there. In this case, the need to ensure that a genocide didn't occur was given as the sole explanation for the latest bombing.

U.S. Central Command has conducted nearly 120 airstrikes as of August 31, 2014. The number may seem high, but the military force that President Obama has used thus far is confined to specific geographical areas in northern Iraq in danger of being taken over by the jihadists, such as Irbil, the Mosul Dam, and now the Iraqi village of Amerli. As long as the U.S. Air Force is employed in this way, the White House can claim that it has all of the legal authority it needs under Article II to defend U.S. national security interests and the safety of American citizens and facilities in the region. Indeed, members of Congress have been relatively quiet on the president's decision to launch the full weight of the U.S. Armed Forces, and when they have spoken about it, they tend to support the president's legal argument.

If the Obama administration, on the other hand, finds it necessary to expand U.S. military activity against the Islamic State into Syria (a choice it will have to make if there is any possibility of degrading the organization's military capability in the short-term), President Obama will quickly face a wave of pressure on Capitol Hill on the need to submit a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force for congressional debate and approval. In fact, the push for greater congressional buy-in is already there, with Senators Tim Kaine (D - VA), Chris Murphy (D - CT) and Bob Corker (R - TN) lobbying for a vote.

"I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action," Kaine expressed in a written statement. "[I]t is what the framers of the Constitution intended, and Congress and the Executive have a responsibility to do the hard work to build a political consensus in support of our military missions." Sen. Murphy was even more blunt in an interview with Yahoo News on Sunday, August 31: "We have to pass a new authorization [for use] of military force in order to continue hostilities against ISIS."

After getting embarrassed last summer when both houses of Congress were increasingly reluctant to grant President Obama the authority to retaliate against Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on civilians, the White House is no doubt reluctant to try the same route again. Any AUMF request in an election year will inevitably seen by Democrat lawmakers in tough election contests as a politically amateurish thing for a Democratic president to do to his own party. And Republicans in Congress will attempt to use any AUMF vote as a way to remind Americans going to the polls in November about the president's (and by extension, the Democratic Party's) poor numbers on foreign policy.

But fear aside, Obama should go directly to Congress for a new AUMF -- that is, if he plans to embark on the kind of large-scale, comprehensive anti-IS strategy in both Iraq and Syria that his own Secretary of State, John Kerry, pushed for in an August 29 New York Times op-ed.

Doing so would meet several objectives, the first being a much-needed clarification on the legal underpinnings that guide the use of U.S. military force against a constantly amorphous and evolving international terrorist enemy. The 2001 AUMF, which was a mere 60 words passed overwhelmingly three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has been on the books for nearly thirteen years and has been stretched to the breaking point in order to accommodate threats emanating from al Qaeda associates and affiliates. Although the Islamic State may have been the spawn of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the very public breakup between Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi means that the 2001 AUMF cannot be used as the domestic legal basis of an anti-IS military campaign (it's difficult for even the most clever constitution lawyer to argue that a document justifying the targeting of al Qaeda could be used to target a group that wasn't formed until 2004). Only a new authorization could resolve the outstanding questions that legal scholars and lawmakers continue to have on the war powers issue post-9/11.

Secondly, going to Congress to obtain buy-in would provide the president with the bipartisan, domestic backing that only the people's representatives can provide on the eve of a major military operation. If the United States works best when it speaks with one voice, as President Obama said last summer, allowing lawmakers to have an open, objective and healthy national debate before voting is only appropriate.

Finally, a new AUMF directed solely against the Islamic State would serve an incredibly useful political function for the White House. Instead of being the one actor tied to the success or failure of a military operation, the administration would spread the responsibility and costs across two, co-equal branches of government. If things go bad for U.S. personnel or if the strategy is too slow to produce lasting damage on the terrorist group, members of Congress who clamor for action but fail to step up and vote will not be able to sit back, go on national television and engage in the familiar Monday-morning quarterbacking that has come to define contemporary Washington politics. Both branches, Congress and the White House, will own the successes and shortfalls of the operation.

AT: Strikes BadTurns are non-unique the US is already bombing ISIS in Iraq the only question of the disad is whether Obama seeks authorization to extend strikes to Syria

Not dealing with ISIS now makes conflict inevitable in the future

Gay 8/7/14 (John, assistant managing editor at The National Interest The Smart Way to Bomb ISIS The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-smart-way-bomb-isis-11033)

Going back into Iraq will be a tough sell for Obama at any scale. But a confrontation between America and the Islamic State is probably inevitableif not now, then at some point in the future. ISISs gains profoundly destabilized the region, with diplomatic alignments put under pressure, vital infrastructure captured and large refugee flows. Kurdish independence and the broader breakdown of the regions old colonial borders have both become more likely. The magnetic pull of jihad is growing. Iraqs internal politics have grown even rougher; externally, Iran and Russia have increased their influence in Baghdad. An effort to contain or push back ISIS, in this light, is certainly worth considering. What factors should shape Americas approach?

Intervention only solution

Levitt 9/4(2014. Matthew- he Fromer-Wexler fellow and director of the Washington Institutes Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. While still risky, military intervention against ISIS may be the only good option for President Obama. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/risky-military-intervention-isis-option-article-1.1927277//GH)

If President Obama is serious that the objective now is to degrade and destroy ISIS, then U.S. air strikes must be stepped up targeting the Islamic State. The .U.S cannot rely simply on military advisers to the Iraqi Army, an Iraqi political agreement, and a few air strikes here and there. Nor can it stop at the Iraq-Syria border because ISIS certainly does not. Destroying ISIS will only happen if it is hit hard in both northern Iraq and eastern Syria. It may be the case, as the President has repeatedly said, that there is no military solution in Iraq or Syria. Yet it is hard to imagine a viable political solution without an improvement in the military situation. Obama staked much of his reputation on getting American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it does not surprise that he is not keen on returning. But the most extreme Islamist group the world has ever seen now controls huge swathes of territory across Iraq and Syria. Although Obama has kept the U.S. out of the conflict on the basis of dont do stupid stuff, it is hard to see how military involvement could have made the situation worse. Now, it is hard to see how the situation will get better without it.

AT: Strikes FailIntel solves strikes WE WILL RAIN HELLFIRE on those terrorists

Rilanian & Pace 8/26/14 (KEN DILANIAN and JULIE PACE, the Associated Press, quoting US military commanders, Possible airstrikes in Syria raise more questions, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/08/26/5129562/top-general-us-needs-more-info.html#.VAf6qPldVzI)

WASHINGTON The intelligence gathered by U.S. military surveillance flights over Syria could support a broad bombing campaign against the Islamic State militant group, but current and former U.S. officials differ on whether air power would significantly degrade what some have called a "terrorist army." Further complicating the plans, any military action against Islamic State militants in Syria would also have the effect of putting the U.S. on the same side as Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose ouster the Obama administration has sought for years. The Islamic State group is headquartered in the Syrian city of Raqqah and has been fighting the Assad government, though it is also at war with moderate rebels who have received arms and funding from the U.S. The group, which controls a large part of eastern Syria, crossed into Iraq earlier this year and has captured much of the Sunni sections of northern and western Iraq, prompting U.S. airstrikes to protect American personnel in that region. U.S. officials say that surveillance drones and spy planes had begun flying over Syria on the orders of President Barack Obama, who is considering a series of military options against the extremist group that also killed an American, journalist James Foley, and is holding an American woman hostage. In recent months, the threat from the Islamic State has eclipsed the issue of Assad, who escaped U.S. military action after Obama pulled back planned airstrikes one year ago in order to consult with Congress. The hostage-takings have galvanized a U.S. government that already had been trying to respond to the militant group's surge with airstrikes that seem to have the public's approval. The U.S. military has been bombing the Islamic State group's positions for weeks, helping break its hold on a dam near the city of Mosul. U.S. attacks destroyed two more militant vehicles Tuesday near the Kurdish city of Irbil, bringing to 98 the total number of U.S. air strikes in Iraq since Aug. 8. The decision to expand surveillance flights into Syria will boost intelligence gathering there, because the flights provide far better imagery and other data than do spy satellites in space orbit. Drones, for example, can hover over targets for hours, and both drones and spy planes can carry equipment that intercepts ground communications. The U.S. is not cooperating or sharing intelligence with the Assad government, Pentagon and State Department spokesmen said. But the U.S. flights are occurring in eastern Syria, away from most of Syria's air defenses. And experts expressed doubt that Syria would attempt to shoot down American aircraft that are paving the way for a possible bombing campaign against Assad's enemies. As Obama contemplates options, military officials are sorting through what kind of campaign it would take to defeat or contain the Islamic State group. Obama has ruled out sending large ground formations. Targeted drone missile strikes against al-Qaida groups in Yemen and Pakistan had significant impact, American officials say, but only after many months of intensive, on-the-ground intelligence gathering that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in Iraq and Syria. Yet some air war planners argue that since the Islamic State group acts more like an army - massing in large formations of vehicles and moving over open terrain - a sustained air campaign could smash it. "You can make a big impact on ISIL by actually using air power as a tool," said retired Gen. Charles Wald, who commanded the air campaign that drove the Taliban from power after the Sept. 11 attacks, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group. "You could kick their butt if you had the right kind of campaign." It would require the insertion of special operations troops or CIA officers on the ground helping direct the bombing, as happened in late 2001, Wald said. It would also require a sustained, massive air campaign, said David Deptula, who planned the bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein's forces in the 1991 Gulf War. "Air power needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, not a drizzle," Deptula said, entailing "24-7 overwatch with force application on every move of ISIL personnel." One senior congressional official said intelligence suggests that such an approach has its limits, because the Islamic State militants would be likely to melt into civilian areas as soon as the U.S. began bombing. Such a move by militants would complicate further bombing efforts, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss intelligence matters by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. But if the Islamic State group hides among civilians in cities, Wald said, that may constitute a sort of victory. In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets. However, that option is largely unappealing to the president given that it could open the U.S. to the kind of long-term commitment to Syria's stability that Obama has sought to avoid.

Their evidence assumes unilateral US action - Obama just formed an international coalition that trains allied ground forces to work in conjunction with strikes

Cooper 9/6/14 (Helene, U.S. and Allies Form Coalition Against ISIS New York Times, factiva)

The Obama administration said Friday that it had formed a coalition of countries to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, unveiling a military and political campaign that officials said could eventually serve as a model for fighting extremist groups around the world. In a hastily organized meeting on the outskirts of the NATO summit meeting, diplomats and military officials from the United States, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark huddled on what they called a two-pronged strategy: working to bolster allies fighting on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while the United States, alone so far, bombs Sunni militants from the air, so long as they are in Iraq. There is no containment policy for ISIL, Secretary of State John Kerry said at the beginning of the meeting, referring to the militant group by another acronym, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Theyre an ambitious, avowed, genocidal, territorial-grabbing, caliphate-desiring quasi-state with an irregular army, and leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us. But he and other officials made clear that at the moment, any ground combat troops would come from either Iraqi security forces and Kurdish fighters in Iraq, or moderate Syrian rebels opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Obviously I think thats a red line for everybody here: no boots on the ground, Mr. Kerry said. Britain said that no military requests had been made of it as part of the talks. We are not at the stage for this type of conversation, said an aide to Prime Minister David Cameron. Discussions focused mainly on a political-led strategy, said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with diplomatic practice. The discussion, the aide said, was about how we put together the best support and help for those countries in the region which are in the front of squeezing the threat that is posed by ISIL. Privately, one diplomat said that the meetings participants, at the level of foreign ministers rather than leaders, indicated that the United States was still fleshing out its strategy against ISIS. The Americans also are eager to maintain pressure on Iraq to form an inclusive government as a prerequisite for closer engagement. But some diplomats were also uncomfortable using a summit meeting of the 28-nation alliance as a backdrop for a smaller group with no NATO imprimatur and, except for Turkey, no partners with large Muslim populations. American officials are hoping to expand the coalition against ISIS to include as many countries as possible, particularly in the Middle East region. Obama administration officials said privately that in addition to the countries that attended the meeting Friday morning, the United States was hoping to acquire intelligence help about the Sunni militants from Jordan, whose leader, King Abdullah, was attending the Wales meeting. United States officials said they also expect Saudi Arabia to contribute to financing and building up moderate Syrian rebel groups. In addition, Yousef al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States, said in a statement earlier this week that his country stood ready to join the fight against ISIS. No one has more at stake than the U.A.E. and other moderate countries in the region that have rejected the regressive Islamist creed and embraced a different, forward-looking path, the ambassador said. The Emiratis, he said, are ready to join the international community in an urgent, coordinated and sustained effort to confront a threat that will, if unchecked, have global ramifications for decades to come. Enlisting the Sunni neighbors of Syria and Iraq is crucial, experts said, because airstrikes alone will not be enough to vanquish ISIS fighters. The Obama administration is also seeking to pursue a strategy that begins with gathering intelligence, followed by targeted airstrikes, more robust and better-coordinated support for moderate rebels, and finally, a political reconciliation process. Administration officials said amassing support for moderate rebels in Syria was particularly critical. This summer President Obama set aside $500 million to train and support vetted members of the moderate opposition to Mr. Assad. Officials say they expect that Congress will approve that request at the beginning of October.

Authorizing special ops and airstrikes can roll back ISIS

Boot 7/29/14 (Max, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations A Strategy for Defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq Congressional Testimony, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Max%20Boot%20HASC%20Testimony%20July%2029%202014.pdf)

I wish there were some way to roll back ISISs advances without greater American military involvement. But there isnt. Again, I stress I am not advocating fighting another ground war. What I am advocating is a prudent and limited deployment of American trainers, special operators, air controllers and intelligence agents whose primary job will be to mobilize indigenous opposition to ISIS. Such opposition exists because in every country where Islamist fundamentalists have come to power their Draconian decrees have triggered a backlash from ordinary people who want to be left alone to live their lives. The job of our armed forces, our diplomats, and our intelligence community is to catalyze and channel that backlash to prevent Al Qaedaaligned extremists from winning their most significant victory since 9/11. The good news is that the battle is far from lost. The situation in Iraq may seem hopeless today. But remember that the outlook appeared even more pessimistic in late 2006 when the senior Marine intelligence officer was writing off Anbar province and the widespread assumption was that the war was lost. But as General David Petraeus said back then, Hard is not hopeless. Petraeus and the troops under his command proved that with the success of the surge which dismantled Al Qaeda in Iraq, brought violence down by 90%, and allowed Iraqi politics to function again. Similar success can be possible today and without nearly as big a troop commitment as long as we are skillful in mobilizing and enabling indigenous opposition in both Syria and Iraq to the violent fanatics of ISIS.

Military strikes are vital to stopping ISIS prevents destabilizing the entire Middle East

Keane and Pletka 8/24/14 - Gen. Keane, a retired four-star general and former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, is the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. Ms. Pletka is the senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. (An American-Led Coalition Can Defeat ISIS Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/articles/jack-keane-and-danielle-pletka-an-american-led-coalition-can-defeat-isis-in-iraq-1408919270)

Third, the military component: ISIS is at war and wants to control as much territory as possible. Jordan, Kuwait and Lebanon are in the group's sights. The Islamic State wants to control oil fields, financial and political centers and create a quasi-state with self-proclaimed emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in charge. President Obama has "limited" action to protect American personnel and selected refugees, but even his tactical air strikes to help reclaim the Mosul Dam and the slow ramp-up of advisers are inadequate to meet the threat. A military campaign is needed to defeat ISIS, not merely stop or contain it. Contrary to some claims, this is not a plan for a new American ground war in Iraq seeking to reconstitute a failed state. It is a mission to help Iraqis and Syrians on the ground help themselves. A U.S.-led international coalition can provide the military capability, including air interdiction to deny ISIS freedom of movement, take away its initiative to attack at will in Iraq, and dramatically reduce its sanctuary in Syria. Political and military leaders must recognize that Iraq and Syria are indivisible in this conflict. The group must be defeated in both places. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey has said ISIS cannot be defeated "without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria." Like the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq, the Free Syrian Army needs heavy weapons, ammunition and supplies. And Washington is also blocking the delivery of much-needed weapons and equipment already purchased by the Iraqi military. Arming allies to fight a common enemy cannot be an afterthought. U.S. military support will be key: The U.S. Central Command has a list of ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq, including staging bases for equipment and troops, supply bases, training areas for foreign fighters, command and control and frontline troop positions. Advisers and trainers are also needed by the thousands, not hundreds, to assist the Peshmerga, reconstitute the Iraqi army, and assist Sunni tribes now opposing ISIS who must join this fight. Close air support will also be vital. Baghdadi and his senior leaders aren't invulnerable, and U.S. special operations forces should be given the mission to target, kill and capture ISIS leaders. We targeted senior terrorist leaders once in Iraq and still do in Afghanistan and elsewhere. ISIS should be no different, particularly after its brutal murder of Foley. None of these steps are sufficient by themselves to defeat a capable, motivated and well-armed terrorist group. Much will depend on the effectiveness of the combined ground force backed by consistent air power. But failure means the destabilization of the Middle East, terrible bloodshed and, ultimately, the murder of more Americans. A comprehensive strategy is the only realistic choice to defeat ISIS, and the time is long past to get serious.

AT: Obama Wont Do ItThe congress will force his hand

Newhauser 9/4/14 (Daniel, National Journal, House Republicans Promise Action on ISIS to Force Obama's Hand, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/house-republicans-promise-action-on-isis-20140903)

That could include legislation within the next few weeks, House leaders told their members in a conference call on Wednesday. "The overwhelming consensus was that not only do we need a plan, but we will have a plan, and we will have an unfettered and determined approach to make sure we stop this process that is growing like a cancer in the Middle East," said Rep. Mark Meadows, a junior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. On the call, Speaker John Boehner told members that, while traveling the country on behalf of candidates over the past several weeks, leaders heard considerable anxiety from the public about the militant group and the limited U.S. response thus far. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy criticized Obama's response to ISIS' rapid gains, saying it revealed misplaced priorities of the government bureaucracy. As an example, he seized on anarticle on a U.S. Forest Service blogproviding safety tips for making s'mores. Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers briefed members on ISIS's growing ranks, noting that Qaida affiliates have been joining the group over the past several weeks. His committee, along with Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Armed Services, will hold hearings next week about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the threat it poses to U.S. interests, and the appropriate U.S. response. That all will likely lead to legislative language, if only in an attempt to force Obama's hand, said Rep. John Fleming, who sits on the Armed Services Committee. "There was nothing described, but I just got the sense that leadership wants to do something on that." There have been increasing calls from within Congress for Obama to act, especially after ISIS released a gruesome video showing the beheading of journalist Steven Sotloffthe second such video in as many weeks. The administration started airstrikes in Iraq last month, and for the action to continue beyond 60 days, an authorizing resolution might be necessary under the War Powers Act. Leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee have already said they want Congress to pass an authorizing bill by the beginning of next month. But with so much uncertainty about the U.S. strategy and little information coming out of the administration, many lawmakers remain unclear about the need for such legislation. "For far too long, the Obama administration and the Congress have been debating whether or not authority exists for action to address this threat," said Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, who is offering a bill authorizing action. "This resolution would provide clear authority for the president and our military, working with coalition partners, to go after these terrorists, whether in Syria, Iraq, or elsewhere."

2NC Escalation / AT: Troops NowTheyll be boots on the ground results in Protracted war which escalates.

Robinson 9/1/14 (Eugene, Political Analyst, Obama and Congress, what are we signing up for in ISIS battle?, http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/09/01/obama-congress-signing-isis-battle/14948729/)

To say that "rooting out" the cancer that is ISIS "won't be quick" implies that considerable time is necessary to accomplish certain tasks. What, exactly, might those tasks be? Is the idea to protect the Kurdish region in the Iraqi northeast, assume the Shiites in the south will defend themselves, degrade ISIS to the degree possible with airstrikes alone and wait for the Sunnis in the west to have another "awakening" and turn against this group of jihadists the way they turned against al-Qaida?

If this is the idea, it seems awfully far-fetched. During the first "awakening," there were tens of thousands of U.S. troops present who could eliminate al-Qaida leaders and assets identified by Sunni tribal leaders. Now there are just a few hundred U.S. advisers in Iraq, and ISIS, by all accounts, is a far more capable and better-equipped military force than al-Qaida ever was.

As much as we scoff at the notion of ISIS as an actual state, the group is managing to hold and administer huge swaths of territory and has found sources of continuing revenue gray-market oil sales, kidnapping Europeans for ransom, widespread local extortion that the militants probably see as taxation.

Why wouldn't time be on the side of ISIS as it digs in? Doesn't the "rooting out" of the group become more difficult if it becomes more rooted day by day?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said recently that ISIS is "beyond anything that we've seen." He called it "as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded."

AT: Obama UnilatSolves terror congressional action is key Obama has no strategy

McCaughney 9/2/14 (Betsy, The NY Sun, Obamas Lack of a Strategy Puts Focus on Congress In Fight Against ISIS, http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas-lack-of-a-strategy-brputs-focus/88829/)

President Obama said last Thursday that he doesnt have a strategy yet to combat ISIS in the Middle East. Worse is what Obama didnt say not one word about how to prevent ISIS from attacking us right here in the America. Thats despite security experts warning Congress repeatedly that ISISs gory threats to spill American blood should be taken seriously.

Compare Mr. Obamas inaction to Prime Minister Camerons decisive action. After British security experts raised the terrorist threat assessment there to severe, meaning an attack is highly likely, Mr. Cameron called for revoking passports of British citizens returning from Syria and Iraq and cracking down on jihadist recruiters, even by censoring the internet and rounding up extremist organizers. These proposals are sparking a lively debate in Britain over balancing security and civil rights.

Meanwhile, Mr. Cameron worked through the weekend on proposals he brought to the House of Commons Monday Thats the same weekend President Obama spent at a barbecue, two fundraisers, and the wedding of the White House chef. Also MIA are Speaker Boehner, still on his 14-state fundraising bus tour, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, busy politicking in Nevada.

in the White House, When theres a leadership vacuum Congress needs to step in. That means getting to work on thwarting jihadists with American or European passports from importing ISIS-style terror here. A year ago, on August 23, 2013, the then-director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, raised that danger in an ABC News interview. In January and again in February of this year, Mr. Obamas Director of National Intelligence told Congress it was a huge concern that ISIS training camps in Syria are preparing people to go back to their home countries and conduct terrorist acts.

Just days before breaking for August vacation, Congress was alerted again. On July 29, security expert Max Boot warned that ISIS is a clear and present danger to America, a warning repeated by several other expert witnesses.

Spasms of ISIS violence are already occurring in the West. On May 24, Mehdi Nemmouche, a Frenchman who spent 11 months fighting with ISIS in Syria before returning to Europe, opened fire at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, killing four.

AT: Article II SolvesWont work

Fox 9/3/14 (Lauren, US News, Would Congress Act Against the Islamic State?, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/03/obama-may-go-to-congress-on-the-islamic-state-but-will-lawmakers-act)

The White House has argued that under the War Powers Resolu