WASHINGTON — In the heat of an election campaign, Congress cleared the way for the U.S. military to train and equip Syrian rebels for a war against Islamic State militants Thursday night, reluctant ratification of a new strategy that President Barack Obama outlined scarcely a week ago.

The 78-22 Senate vote sent Obama legislation that also provides funding for the government after the end of the budget year on Sept. 30, eliminating any threat of a shutdown. The House approved the bill on Wednesday.

Both of Maine’s senators, Republican Susan Collins and independent Angus King, voted in support of the measure.

In a statement following the vote Collins voiced skepticism about the administration’s strategy and said she was disappointed that Senate leaders did not allow a full debate.

“I continue to have many unanswered questions about the president’s strategy, such as whether we can vet Syrian fighters sufficiently to ensure that we are not training, equipping and arming Islamist extremists, who have infiltrated the Syrian opposition.”

During a speech delivered early in the day, King explained his rationale: “This arming and equipping provision is not a panacea. It is not going to end the war. It is not going to be easy. It is no sure thing. …(I)t is the least worst option.”

In an appearance at the White House soon after the vote, Obama said he was pleased that a majority of both Republicans and Democrats had supported the legislation. “I believe we’re strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together,” he said. Noting the killing of two Americans by the Islamic State group, he said that “as Americans we do not give in to fear” and would not be put off by such brutal tactics.

In the Senate, 44 Democrats, 33 Republicans and one independent voted for the bill, while 9 Democrats, 12 Republicans and one independent opposed it.

The issue created new fault lines for this fall’s elections for control of the Senate as well as the 2016 White House race.

“Intervention that destabilizes the Middle East is a mistake. And yet, here we are again, wading into a civil war,” said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., laying down a marker for Republican presidential primaries still more than a year distant.

Sen. Mark Begich, in a difficult re-election campaign, said, “I disagree with my president” on the wisdom of having the U.S. military become involved. “It is time for the Arab countries to step up and get over their regional differences” and be more aggressive in the fight against terrorists, the Alaska Democrat said, drawing a quick rebuttal from Republican rival Dan Sullivan.

Combining approval for aid to the rebels with funds to prevent a government shutdown into a single vote made it difficult to measure support for Obama’s new military mission.

For a second straight day, the administration dispatched top-ranking officials to reassure lawmakers – and the public – that no U.S. ground combat operation was in the offing. Obama made the same promise in an address to the nation eight days ago laying out his new policy – and repeated it Thursday night. His new strategy includes increased airstrikes in Iraq and the possibility of strikes in Syria.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told one House committee that Obama “is not going to order American combat ground forces into that area.”

Obama’s general plan is to have U.S. troops train Syrian rebels at camps in Saudi Arabia, a process that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said could take a year.

Copy the Story Link