Follow us on social

Us-capitol-scaled

Conservatives throw weight behind repealing Iraq War AUMF

Saying the 2002 authorization for military force has been "stretched beyond belief," they hope to help pass a bipartisan bill on Thursday.

Analysis | Washington Politics

Republicans and conservatives are increasingly showing support for rolling back war powers, as the House of Representatives prepares to vote on the Iraq War authorization this coming Thursday.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations had pushed back against attempts to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, which was originally passed to deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein but later stretched to justify other military operations in Iraq.

The bipartisan consensus seems to have flipped, with both the Biden administration and prominent conservatives now supporting a measure by Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Ca.) to take the Iraq War authorization off the books.

Americans for Prosperity announced on Monday that it would lobby for the measure, while the Heritage Foundation has been expressing support for repealing the 2002 AUMF as well.

“Congress really needs to get back in the gym…and exercise their Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 muscles,” the foundation’s acting chief of staff Cully Stimson told a May 27 panel, referring to the section of the Constitution that provides Congress with the power to declare war.

He explained that lawmakers need to “get back in the habit of passing laws that are specific or repealing laws that have no longer any authority.”

U.S. operations in the Middle East are currently authorized under both the Iraq War authorization — which refers generically to “the threat posed by Iraq” — and the 2001 war authorization against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. There are also Middle East war authorizations dating back to 1957 and 1991 still on the books.

Stimson said that the 2001 war authorization has also been “stretched beyond any imagination,” authorizing operations against not only al-Qaida but also a variety of militant groups around the Middle East.

Stimson’s comments are tapping into a wellspring of conservative support for broader war powers reform.

Rep. Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) advanced a bill last month to revoke the 1957 authorization. On May 20, as that bill passed the House Foreign Relations Committee, Meijer said that Congress should next take aim at the 2001 AUMF.

“Allowing our current military operations overseas to be guided by a twenty-year-old AUMF is a disservice to our service members and the American people and represents a dereliction of congressional responsibilities,” Meijer said. “I urge this committee to take up a new AUMF that carefully considers threats and potential boundaries, such as a defined mission, target groups, geographical constraints, and more.”

Meijer joins nine other Republicans currently co-sponsoring Lee's bill.

There is also a parallel effort in the Senate — led by Sens. Todd Young (R–Ind.) and Tim Kaine (D–Va.) — to repeal the 1991 and 2002 war authorizations. GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are also listed as co-sponsors.

“You want to have issues of the engagement of military forces, decisions of whether or not you go to war, or authorize military force, taking place in a public forum,” Young said on the panel with Stimson. “That's the only way you can significantly engage the American people and rally them behind a cause, if there's public debate and consideration of these matters. That's what our Constitution calls for. It calls for Congress to declare war under Article 1, Section 8.”

He agreed with Stimson that the 2001 AUMF has also been “stretched beyond belief.”

Unlike the House bill, Young and Kaine’s proposal to end the Iraq War authorizations has yet to advance out of committee.

Kaine had said on Sunday that the effort was waiting on a “green light” from the Biden administration. That approval appeared to come on Monday, when the Biden administration announced its support for the House bill, indicating that the Senate effort may move forward soon.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget stated that Lee’s bill “would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” noting that there are “no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis.”

The administration’s support for repealing the AUMF marks a major shift from the Obama era. When Sen. Paul worked with progressives to end the Iraq War authorization in 2011, the Pentagon pushed back, with top military brass arguing that they still needed legal authority for “limited windup activities normally associated with ending a war.”

Three years later, during the war against the Islamic State, then-President Barack Obama used the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs as his legal basis to re-enter Iraq and Syria. Congress and the White House eventually did try to pass an updated war authorization, but had clashing ideas on what it should look like.

Kaine and then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Az.) proposed repealing and replacing the 2001 AUMF with a narrow, time-limited war authorization. The Obama administration — along with Young, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) — supported bills with much looser restrictions.

The war authorizations remained unchanged when former President Donald Trump took office. He continued operations against the Islamic State under the same legal basis, while also using the 2002 AUMF to justify the January 2020 assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani.

Although Young supported the asassination, and Paul opposed it, both voted for a war powers resolution to restrain the President from further escalation with Iran.

“Unfortunately, for nearly two decades, Congress has been AWOL on certain matters of national security and attempted to pass the buck to our commander in chief when things go wrong,” Young said at the time. “As a Marine, I have been a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform by reasserting Congress’ war making powers, and the need to jump start long overdue debates about our military engagements around the world.”


(shutterstock/trekandshoot)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Friedrich Merz
Top photo credit: German Prime Minister-in-waiting Friedrich Merz (Shutterstock.Penofoto)

German leaders miscalculated popular will for war spending

Europe

Recent polls show the center right Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) headed by prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz losing ground against the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD), even before the new government has been formed.

The obvious explanation is widespread popular dissatisfaction with last month’s vote pressed through the outgoing parliament by the CDU-CSU and presumptive coalition partner the SPD (with the Greens) to allow unlimited increases in defense spending. This entailed disabling the constitutional “debt brake” introduced in 2009 to curb deficits and public debt.

keep readingShow less
Bernie Sanders Chris Van Hollen
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

Can Bernie stop billions in new US weapons going to Israel?

Middle East

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz have been roundly criticized for the security lapse that put journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat where administration officials discussed bombing Houthi forces in Yemen, to the point where some, like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have called for their resignations.

But the focus on the process ignores the content of the conversation, and the far greater crime of continuing to provide weapons that are inflaming conflicts in the Middle East and enabling Israel’s war on Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians.

keep readingShow less
Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?
Top Image Credit: The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), foreground, leads a formation of Carrier Strike Group Five ships as Air Force B-52 Stratofortress aircraft and Navy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft pass overhead for a photo exercise during Valiant Shield 2018 in the Philippine Sea Sept. 17, 2018. The biennial, U.S. only, field-training exercise focuses on integration of joint training among the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This is the seventh exercise in the Valiant Shield series that began in 2006. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erwin Miciano)

Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?

QiOSK

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) conducted an airstrike in Somalia against ISIS targets on Saturday, killing “multiple ISIS-Somalia operatives.” It was the eighth such strike in the short time that Trump has been in office, reflecting a quiet, but deadly American campaign in a part, of the world that remains far below the public radar.

“AFRICOM, alongside the Federal Government of Somalia and Somali Armed Forces, continues to take action to degrade ISIS-Somalia's ability to plan and conduct attacks that threaten the U.S. homeland, our forces, and our civilians abroad,” a Sunday AFRICOM press release stated.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.