Obama's Islamic State strategy: what he'll discuss with congressional leaders

Members of both parties and in both chambers disagree on whether congressional authorization is now necessary for President Obama to continue airstrikes against the Islamic State.

Even as congressional leaders meet with President Obama Tuesday afternoon to hear his strategy to 'degrade and defeat' the Islamic State, lawmakers are split on their role in a military campaign against the extremist group.

Members of both parties and in both chambers disagree on whether congressional authorization is now necessary for Mr. Obama to continue airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS). Also known as ISIS or ISIL, the Sunni extremists have moved quickly to control a wide swath in Syria and Iraq. They recently released videos showing the beheadings of two American journalists.

Those who favor formal congressional approval point to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, intended to prevent the president from committing the United States to armed conflict without congressional consent. They see a vote on the issue as fulfilling their constitutional duty and as a means to show resolve to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East.

'We really should have a vote. The process of a vote puts all congressmen and senators on record, and it is the process of enlisting the American people in a long and expensive conflict,' Sen. Mark Kirk (R) of Illinois recently told reporters.

On Monday, bills authorizing military action against IS were introduced in both the House and Senate, and by members of both parties.

Although the US public has been war-weary, it's not so weary about this issue. Americans broadly support more airstrikes against IS, according to polls released this week by CNN/ORC and The Washington Post/ABC News.

But the pending midterm elections complicate things, as do ambiguities and uncertainties about the president's strategy and the possible outcomes, as well as the role of Congress when it comes to the use of force abroad.

US voters go to the polls to elect members of Congress in less than two months. Some lawmakers - including the leadership of both chambers - feel no need to rush to a vote on this issue.

Such a vote is controversial among lawmakers 'because they have to sign on to a military action that may or may not be successful,' says Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian. Tricky questions are involved. For instance, should the US go after IS in Syria, where a civil war is raging? And what about boots on the ground? Obama says there will be none, but do special forces count?

' What I'm hoping to hear from the president today is a strategy that goes after ISIS and destroys them,' said House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio on Tuesday morning. 'Until there's a strategy, there's no reason to talk about any of the specifics, because I don't know how they fit into the broader strategy.'

The US Constitution divides war powers, giving Congress the power to declare war and to fund the armed forces, while the president is the commander in chief. The War Powers Resolution, meant to clarify the congressional role, has itself been a source of confusion, with presidents and lawmakers interpreting it differently over the decades.

Obama maintains he already has the authority to go after IS, and he has backing from members in both parties. What he seeks now is 'buy-in' to show a united front that strengthens America's hand.

The president will address the nation on his strategy at 9 p.m. on Wednesday. Administration officials have been consulting with members of both parties and will will brief all lawmakers on Thursday.