US airstrikes target IS militants
The US military has stepped up its campaign against Islamic State (IS) militants with five airstrikes across Iraq.
US Central Command says military forces using fighter aircraft launched two airstrikes north-west of Irbil and hit an armed truck and fighters.
Three other airstrikes south-west of Baghdad hit anti-aircraft artillery, a truck and two boats on the Euphrates River that were resupplying the militants.
The strikes are part of the new broader military mission in Iraq authorised by President Barack Obama that began on Monday.
Under the new mission, US forces are going after IS militants wherever they are. Previously, the strikes were limited to protecting US interests and personnel, assisting Iraqi refugees and securing critical infrastructure in Iraq.
Meanwhile the nation’s senior military officer said American ground troops may be needed to fight IS forces in the Middle East if the president’s strategy fails.
General Martin Dempsey’s comments came as Congress plunged into an election-year debate of Mr Obama’s plan to expand airstrikes and train Syrian rebels.
A White House spokesman said quickly the president “will not” send ground forces into combat, but Gen Dempsey said Mr Obama had personally told him to come back on a “case by case basis” if the military situation changed.
“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Gen Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, declared in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He referred to the militants by an alternative name.
The four-star general said if Mr Obama’s current approach is not enough to prevail, he might “go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of ground forces”.
Later, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Gen Dempsey’s remark about ground troops. Mr Obama “will not deploy ground troops in a combat role into Iraq or Syria,” he said.
Gen Dempsey’s testimony underscored the dilemma confronting many politicians as the House moves through its own debate on authorising the Pentagon to implement the policy Mr Obama announced last week.
Democrats in Washington spoke of a fear that the US might inevitably become dragged into yet another ground war on the heels of Afghanistan and Iraq.
“We must ... ask ourselves if we can truly ’vet’ these rebel groups beyond their known affiliations, and ensure we are not arming the next extremist threat to the region and the world,” said Pete Visclosky.
House Republicans said they worried Mr Obama was responding tepidly to the current threat by terrorists who have overrun large sections of Iraq and Syria and beheaded two American journalists.
“If it’s important enough to fight, it’s important enough to win,” said Jack Kingston.
A vote is expected in the House today, and in the Senate within days. The timetable was remarkably rapid by congressional standards, the result of a strong desire by politicians in both parties to adjourn quickly and return home to campaign for re-election.
With only seven weeks before voters go to the polls, most Republicans had little stomach to oppose Mr Obama on a matter of national security, particularly when polls suggest he has the support of large segments of the public.
As a result, the likelihood was that Congress would swing behind his request, and then return for a fuller debate of his war strategy after the elections.
