Follow us on social

google cta
Photograph-of-president-dwight-d-eisenhower-delivering-a-special-broadcast-f0a209-1600

Congress moves to revoke Eisenhower’s blank check for Middle East wars

Bet you didn't know there was an authorization for the use of military force against international communism still on the books.

Analysis | North America
google cta
google cta

The United States still has laws on the book authorizing war to keep “international communism” out of the Middle East. Congress is looking to change that.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will be examining bills to repeal the 1991 and 1957 authorizations for the use of military force, or AUMF, during a Wednesday markup meeting. The former bill authorized the Persian Gulf War, while the latter is a blank check to carry out anticommunist operations in the Middle East.

Recent events have made Congress much more wary about leaving extraneous war powers on the books. Last year, the Trump administration used the 2002 AUMF — originally passed to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq — to justify assassinating Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani.

The House of Representatives moved forward on a bill by Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) to repeal the 2002 AUMF two months ago, while the Senate is advancing a bill by Sens. Tim Kaine (D–Va.) and Todd Young (R–Ind.) to repeal both the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs.

Lawmakers are now taking aim at older war authorizations as well. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D–Va.) is looking to take the 1991 AUMF off the books, and a bill by Rep. Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) is taking aim at the 1957 AUMF.

“It’s great to see the House Foreign Affairs Committee pursuing these repeals, having already advanced Rep. Barbara Lee’s bill to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, which was misused last year to justify killing an Iranian general,” said Heather Brandon-Smith, legislative director for militarism and human rights at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby group. “There is simply no need to retain outdated AUMFs and leave them open to abuse by the executive branch.”

Neither the 1957 nor 1991 AUMFs are being used for ongoing military operations. The 1991 AUMF authorized U.S. forces to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait three decades ago, and enforce UN resolutions that expired long ago.

The 1957 law is much more vague. It declares a U.S. policy of using “armed forces” to defend nations in “the general area of the Middle East” against “armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.”

The Eisenhower administration told Congress at the time that the authorization would hopefully never have to be used, as its very existence would deter a Soviet attack.

“You may say, ‘Why don’t we wait until the attack occurs?’ Why, then it is too late. The whole purpose of this thing is to be a deterrent, a preventive to war,” then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said at a 1957 meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But several close calls during the Trump administration and a turn in public opinion away from “forever wars” has pushed Congress to finally begin revisiting the broad war powers it had given away over the past few decades.

“There’s an evident hunger among both parties in Congress to do more on this — and there should be,” said Erica Fein, legislative director at Win Without War. “The work has just started, and it will not be over until Congress repeals all of the AUMFs on the books, and reformed the War Powers Resolution so that legislating blank checks for war becomes a thing of the past.”


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (National Archives)
google cta
Analysis | North America
Von Der Leyen Zelensky
Top image credit: paparazzza / Shutterstock.com
The collapse of Europe's Ukraine policy has sparked a blame game

They are calling fast-track Ukraine EU bid 'nonsense.' So why dangle it?

Europe

Trying to accelerate Ukraine’s entry into the European Union makes sense as part of the U.S.-sponsored efforts to end the war with Russia. But there are two big obstacles to this happening by 2027: Ukraine isn’t ready, and Europe can’t afford it.

As part of ongoing talks to end the war in Ukraine, the Trump administration had advanced the idea that Ukraine be admitted into the European Union by 2027. On the surface, this appears a practical compromise, given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s concession that Ukraine will drop its aspiration to join NATO.

keep readingShow less
World War II Normandy
Top photo credit: American soldiers march a group of German prisoners along a beachhead in Northern France after which they will be sent to England. June 6, 1944. (U.S. Army Signal Corps Photographic Files/public domain)

Marines know we don't kill unarmed survivors for a reason

Military Industrial Complex

As the Trump Administration continues to kill so-called Venezuelan "narco terrorists" through "non-international armed conflict" (whatever that means), it is clear it is doing so without Congressional authorization and in defiance of international law.

Perhaps worse, through these actions, the administration is demonstrating wanton disregard for centuries of Western battlefield precedent, customs, and traditions that righteously seek to preserve as many lives during war as possible.

keep readingShow less
Amanda Sloat
Top photo credit: Amanda Sloat, with Department of State, in 2015. (VOA photo/Wikimedia Commons)

Pranked Biden official exposes lie that Ukraine war was inevitable

Europe

When it comes to the Ukraine war, there have long been two realities. One is propagated by former Biden administration officials in speeches and media interviews, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion had nothing to do with NATO’s U.S.-led expansion into the now shattered country, there was nothing that could have been done to prevent what was an inevitable imperialist land-grab, and that negotiations once the war started to try to end the killing were not only impossible, but morally wrong.

Then there is the other, polar opposite reality that occasionally slips through when officials think few people are listening, and which was recently summed up by former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe at the National Security Council Amanda Sloat, in an interview with Russian pranksters whom she believed were aides to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.