One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations “have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action,” reports Stephen Prager.
U.S. House of Representatives Building and the east portico of the U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. (Ron Cogswell/ Flickr/ CC BY 2.0)
By Stephen Prager
Common Dreams
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives voted this week to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the lead-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as “years of neglected oversight” by Congress over the “steady expansion of presidential war-making authority.”
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, “have been stretched far beyond their original purposes” by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS — an offshoot of Al Qaeda — President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand U.S. military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
“These AUMFs,” Weinstein said, “have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action.”
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).
Meeks described the authorizations as “long obsolete,” saying they “risk abuse by administrations of either party.”
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something “strongly opposed by the, I’ll call it, defense hawk community.” But, he said, “the AUMF was passed in ‘02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy’s been dead… and we’re now still running under an ‘02 AUMF. That’s insane. We should repeal that.”
“For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East,” said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. “Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs.”
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump’s war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump’s increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes — including last week’s bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, “the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs” are “good to remove,” but pointed out that it’s “mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars.”
“Not to mention,” McCoy added, “we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela.”
In the wake of Trump’s strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless “a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties.”
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers “to show where they stand on restraining U.S. military adventurism.”
Stephen Prager is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
This article is from Common Dreams.
The views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
It serves only one purpose: to forever claim that America is different—that it eventually finds its soul and corrects itself. But that’s baloney. The AUMF has already served its purpose: destroying the seven countries that Wolfowitz and other neocons planned to target three decades ago and actively agitated for after 2001. Now it’s done. The AUMF can be safely tossed into the waste bin, and we can all move on.
I have yet to see a shred of evidence that the left was responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death. I think there needs to be real tangible evidence before people can go around blaming the left just because their politics were so different from that of Kirk. I have been a professional U. S. historian for most of my 81 years, and I have not seen any assassination of a major political figure in this country carried out by the Left. We do not have an organized left in this country. In the much more left influenced politics of the sixties and seventies, we had a good many assassinations of public figures: JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and many more. Nobody, let alone a president, the day after one of these very visible assassinations, jumped on the left or right. Most of the time, assassins’ politics have been quite idiosyncratic and not identified with any left or right group. The left at that time, as now, was not into assassinating public figures. Many on the left are pacifist (antiwar). They did a lot of demonstrating but no killing. I think frankly that with no evidence President Trump has blamed “the left,” merely because Kirk’s politics were on the right. Where’s the evidence? There is none at this time.
s
The legislative branch of our government has become a useless decoration on the front door of a tyranny.
Agreed.
Both sides of our corruptocracy survive only upon bribes to the political parties, primarily from the militarists, zionists, and anti-socialists in foreign policy matters. They have shown “where they stand” on restraining U.S. militarism by refusing to remove the last AUMF, impeach the criminal officials, sign the Treaty of Rome accepting jurisdiction of the ICC, refusing to revoke the act authorizing US military attacks upon the ICC (“Servicemen’s Protection Act”), and a thousand other very direct and deliberate criminal acts under international law.
A “major development” would require amendments to the US constitution limiting political spending to registered individual contributions, with similar isolation of mass media from economic power. That will never be passed by our 99% corrupt Congress, and would be ignored by our completely corrupt judicial and executive branches.