Back to War: ‘Sustained’ ISIS fight stirs questions over US commitment

The launch of U.S. airstrikes in Syria marks the beginning of what military officials are calling a “sustained campaign” against the Islamic State — a new war in the Middle East that immediately poses complex challenges for the Obama administration and Congress.

Some already see the war against the Islamic State, or ISIS, as an engagement that could last years, and could fall to President Obama’s successor to finish.

“The fact is, Islamic terrorism is out to destroy us … and the war is only going to end when they are defeated,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News, suggesting the “war” was never over in the first place. “And this may well go on for a number of years. In fact, in many ways it’s been going on for 20 years.”

In Capitol Hill hearings and press briefings last week, in advance of the Syria strikes, the American public got their first full glimpse of the questions raised by the expanded intervention.

Among them:

How much will it cost?

How will ground troops be used, and how many will be required?

Does Congress need to formally approve the expanded mission?

The latter question is resurfacing in the wake of Monday’s airstrikes. While some influential lawmakers have backed the administration’s claim that it does not need congressional approval, a mix of Democrats and Republicans say otherwise.

Critics say the administration is relying in part on a faulty argument that the 2001 authorization to use military force still applies. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on Tuesday called for House Speaker John Boehner to bring members back to debate and vote on a new authorization.

On Twitter, he cautioned against “Iraq War 2.0.”

More From FoxNews: