Battle against ISIL sets up 2016 campaign issue

As U.S. jets began a bombing campaign in Syria, the nation's role in fighting the Islamic State militant group has already divided the field of potential 2016 presidential candidates and raised the prospect of another election dominated by issues of war.

With the beginning of airstrikes Monday — and a Pentagon spokesman's assertion Tuesday that the strikes are "only the beginning'' — the effort seems likely to roll into next year, when presidential campaigns begin in earnest.

Last week, Congress voted in favor of President Obama's plan to supply arms and training to Syrian rebels. A new authorization for Obama to use military force in Syria against the Islamic State militants — also referred to as ISIL or ISIS — may come up during Congress' lame-duck session after the November elections.

The 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq was a central issue in the campaign between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. A new resolution would give potential candidates an opportunity to lay out their positions on the issue and create a voting record that would be fodder in the presidential race.

The battle against ISIL has already revealed divisions among possible GOP candidates.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is considering a presidential bid, voted against aid for Syrian rebel groups, saying it is unclear which groups are truly opposed to ISIL and to the Syrian government. "Who are we really arming? What will be the result? Where will the arms end up?" he said on the Senate floor. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has been making trips to early primary states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, also voted against the measure.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, also considered a potential candidate, voted in favor of arming Syrian groups. "Defeating this menace to all who value freedom and tolerance will not be easy, but is essential to our security,'' Rubio said in a statement Tuesday, after the airstrikes began.

So far the most hawkish of 2016 aspirants, though the least known, appears to be Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. He said Sunday that sending U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria — which Obama has said he will not do — is "inevitable.''

The split on ISIL strategy could define the Republican primary field as candidates seek to differentiate themselves in the early primaries, says Peter Fenn, a veteran Democratic strategist. "We may have a real serious return to the hawk and the dove,'' he says. "Some (candidates) may say, 'I've got a crowded field, here I go.' Rubio may decide this is his ticket.''

The war in Iraq dominated Obama's 2008 race against Clinton and Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Clinton and McCain both voted for the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq.

Even in the first Republican primary debate of that election, U.S. involvement in Iraq was a dominant issue and most of the 10 candidates favored a continued U.S. presence, says Hogan Gidley of Brabender Cox, a Republican strategy firm. "Everyone pretty much had the same stance except for (Texas congressman) Ron Paul,'' he says. "It's that sliver of a percentage between the candidates that either catapults them to the nomination or sinks their campaign.''

For former Florida governor Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both mentioned as top GOP prospects, a presidential campaign dominated by military and foreign policy questions would emphasize an area that governors have little to do with. Christie, for one, may be studying up: He recently went on a trade mission to Mexico.

"Governors are at an inherent disadvantage on foreign policy,'' Gidley says.

If Clinton announces a second presidential run, a policy split could also develop among Democratic candidates as well. This summer, Clinton wrote in her book Hard Choices that she advocated arming moderate rebel groups in 2012 but was overruled within the White House.

Since Obama and Congress are now doing just that, "She's got one big 'I was right about ...' sitting on her plate,'' Gidley said.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, has said he is considering a run for president as a Democrat. He and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., both opposed the measure to aid Syrian rebels.

Ultimately, political fallout from U.S. action against ISIL will hinge on the military situation, and its perceived success, as the presidential election arrives, Fenn says.

"Will this be a full-fledged problem where you don't see that much progress and it's still a big mess and all kinds of money's going out there?" he says. "Or (will it be) something that gets results quicker than even Obama expects. And so the folks who voted 'yes' will be the folks who stood up and stopped (ISIL) beheading American journalists.''