Follow us on social

P022415ps-0983_208783768462

A bipartisan reform for the first 100 days: A new War Powers Act

I once sued President Obama for making me fight an illegal war. Now it's time to restore Congress’s war powers.

Analysis | Global Crises

In the years following the Vietnam War and Watergate, Congress passed legislation that sought to rein in an out-of-control executive branch. Some of those solutions have proven effective. Others are abject failures. What seems clear is that Congress should now look at all with a critical eye.

We should start by examining one. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon’s veto. The law sought to ensure that abuses of presidential war-making like Vietnam couldn’t happen again. Congress hoped the War Powers Resolution would set a modern process for its right to “declare war” stipulated in the Constitution. 

When I entered the Army as a young second-lieutenant in 2010, I never imagined how a Nixonian-era reform could impact me personally. Yet in 2016 I found myself an Army captain serving in the Middle East in a conflict of dubious legal authority. I say dubious because under a fair reading of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the counter-ISIS war in which I was serving in 2016 was illegal.

The legal justifications issued by the Obama administration make it sound more complex of course, but the fact was that the congressional permission requirement outlined in the War Powers Resolution hadn’t been met. As an officer charged with upholding an oath to the Constitution and following the law, it seemed plain that President Obama alone lacked the authority to order me to Kuwait. But in an act that has echoed since 1973 in other theaters of American conflict, President Obama chose to simply ignore key tenets of the War Powers Resolution. Dismayed by this, I took the only action that I felt available to me; I sued the president

Ultimately, the lawsuit failed and in the desert I stayed. After 12 months, another officer took my place for his own long tour. And then another. And another. It’s now been over four years since I left Kuwait. My former headquarters is still there, still approving airstrikes in two countries. Four years later, if you’re looking for a face to embody the failure of the War Powers Resolution to achieve what it was designed to do, look my way. 

And yet somehow since the failure of my very personal effort to hold the president accountable via the War Powers Act not so long ago, things have gotten even worse. Last year in a rare, hopeful act of bipartisan collaboration, a small group of Republican senators joined the senate Democratic caucus in a vote to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi war in Yemen. But this inspiring moment was cut short by a presidential veto.

What seemed lost on many was the absurdity of it all. The executive branch first entered the U.S. military into involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen without congressional consent, despite Congress’s reserved right in the Constitution on such matters. Several years later, both houses of Congress expressed their desire that U.S. involvement end. The president then simply vetoed the bill, knowing the impossibility of a two-thirds majority to override his veto. Despite a large bipartisan consensus in Congress mandating that the president withdraw from an unauthorized conflict, U.S. participation in that conflict continues to this day. The War Powers Resolution failed once again.

Now the country stands at a different precipice. We have an increasingly erratic president, with a history of authorizing dubious military action. I fear every day for my friends serving overseas. With almost 50 years of failure to restrain presidential military action on its resume, the War Powers Resolution provides little comfort. 

And yet perhaps we also stand at a moment of opportunity. President-elect Biden has made clear he wants to heal the wounds of the election and the past four years and work with Republicans when possible (to the consternation of some in the progressive wing of the Democratic party). The same band of Republican senators who voted to end the Yemen war will retain their seats next January. If these votes reflect a sincere concern among some Republican senators for a more assertive congressional voice in matters of war, it would seem that with a Democratic president this impetus would only grow stronger. As an added plus for Biden, addressing the issue would have the potential to notch a bipartisan win that skeptical progressive members of his party could cheer: a curtailment of endless war. 

So what to do? Congress should throw the last shovelful of dirt on the failed War Powers Resolution and replace it. New legislation should render vague and politically-motivated presidential talk of imminent threats unactionable. It should ban funding for all lethal military action abroad that has either not been approved by Congress, or meets very narrow definitions. Air strikes outside that criteria should be limited to areas where congressionally approved authorizations for the use of military force with strict geography and time limits apply.

Language could be added stating that military leaders should consider executive branch orders contrary to these requirements unlawful, a tenet courts in our country once upheld. Such legislation would represent a return to our Founders’ intent that the decision to go to war be a difficult one. Legislators of both parties can work to craft such a law, offering President Biden a chance to sign bipartisan legislation on Congress’s terms, albeit at the expense of some long-abused presidential power.

Perhaps the nation will be lucky enough to make it through to inauguration with democracy intact and no military crisis abroad. If we prove so lucky, it’s critical that we commit to ending this dangerous status quo that gives such abusable power to one person. We need a new generation of congressional leaders to rise up and reassert the legislative branch’s authority on war powers. Hopefully this time they get it right. 

Then-Vice President Joe Biden talks with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah following a meeting with bipartisan Members of Congress to discuss criminal justice reform, in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Feb. 24, 2015. Sen. Lee recently led congressional efforts to withdraw U.S. military participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Analysis | Global Crises
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

QiOSK

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.

“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”

keep readingShow less
South Korean president faces setback in elections

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol casts his early vote for 22nd parliamentary election, in Busan, South Korea, April 5, 2024. Yonhap via REUTERS

South Korean president faces setback in elections

QiOSK

Today, South Korea held its quadrennial parliamentary election, which ended in the opposition liberal party’s landslide victory. The liberal camp, combining the main opposition liberal party and its two sister parties, won enough seats (180 or more) to unilaterally fast-track bills and end filibusters. The ruling conservative party’s defeat comes as no surprise since many South Koreans entered the election highly dissatisfied with the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and determined to keep the government in check.

What does this mean for South Korea’s foreign policy for the remaining three years of the Yoon administration? Traditionally, parliamentary elections have tended to have little effect on the incumbent government’s foreign policy. However, today’s election may create legitimate domestic constraints on the Yoon administration’s foreign policy primarily by shrinking Yoon’s political capital and legitimacy to implement his foreign policy agenda.

keep readingShow less
Could the maritime corridor become Gaza’s lifeline?

A tugboat tows a barge loaded with humanitarian aid for Gaza, as seen from Larnaca, Cyprus, March 30, 2024. REUTERS/Yiannis Kourtoglou

Could the maritime corridor become Gaza’s lifeline?

Middle East

As Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens, a small U.S.-based advisory group hopes to build a temporary port that could bring as many as 200 truckloads of aid into the besieged strip each day, more than doubling the average daily flow of aid, according to a person with detailed knowledge of the maritime corridor plan.

The port effort, led by a firm called Fogbow, could start bringing aid into Gaza from Cyprus within 28 days of receiving the necessary funding from international donors. The project would require $30 million to get started, followed by an additional $30 million each month to continue operations, according to the source.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest