Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1046082265-scaled

Bipartisan majorities want more control for 'the people' on war and arms sales

A new poll finds that across the board, Americans say Congress should have more authority than the president in the use of military force.

Reporting | North America

Bipartisan majorities of citizens want Congress to exert greater control over Washington’s use of military force and sales of U.S. arms to foreign nations, according to a new public-opinion poll released Tuesday by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

Bipartisan majorities support a proposal contained in several pending bills that would automatically cut off funding for any military operation unilaterally initiated by the president after 60 days unless Congress acts to approve it, according to the survey, which noted that the nearly 50-year-old War Powers Act currently requires a super-majority in each house of Congress to override a presidential veto. 

Fifty-three percent of self-identified Republicans, 62 percent of self-identified Democrats, and 58 percent of Independents said they support the proposal.

The poll, which was conducted online from Jan 27 to Feb 28 with a nationally representative sample of 2,702 registered voters, also found that bipartisan majorities favor repealing the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, that was hurriedly passed after the 9/11 attacks and that authorized the president to use military force against individuals or organizations involved in the attacks and those who aided them. Fifty-nine percent of all respondents said they favored repeal, including 65 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of Independents.

Similar percentages of respondents (56 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Democrats, and 61 percent of Independents) said they favor requiring Congress to actively approve arms sales to foreign nations of more than $14 million. (A 1976 law currently in effect established that threshold.) The proposal, which is based on pending legislation introduced in the Senate by Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and in the House of Representatives by Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), would give Congress the power to stop arms sales with a simple majority that would not be subject, as they are now, to a veto by the president. 

If enacted, their bills would likely put into much greater question the future of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates whose war in Yemen has proved extremely controversial with lawmakers. Until now, Congress has never succeeded in halting arms sales approved by the executive branch. 

The survey’s findings do not reflect major changes in attitudes towards the use of U.S. military force or arms sales in recent decades, according to Steven Kull, the director of Maryland’s Program, who has specialized in polling and assessing public opinion on foreign policy, including identifying common ground between the two major parties on the subject, for more than 25 years.

“We have been consistently finding bipartisan majority support for giving Congress greater say over the use of military force and arms sales,” he said. "It's not that the public is so enthusiastic about Congress; they see a lot of problems with the way Congress operates. But they do believe in the Founders’ ideas of checks and balances and they do believe that a decision as significant as using military force shouldn’t be left to the president alone. Ultimately, the public would like the people to be consulted on these decisions, and, while they don’t see Congress as being a mirror of the public, it’s still an institution that can offset the president if the president got too far out of line with the public," he told ResponsibleStatecraft.

The new poll is unusual in its methodology in that it attempts to take respondents through a “policymaking simulation” by giving them a briefing on policy options that are under consideration, presenting strongly stated arguments both for and against each option, and only then recording their answers. The entire text of the survey was reviewed by experts to ensure that the briefings were accurate and balanced and the arguments presented were the strongest to be made. 

Respondents were also asked which arguments that were presented were most compelling.

The questionnaire and its results, broken down not only by party, but also by the respondent’s intensity of identification with the party, can be viewed here, while readers can review the policymaking simulation here.

Not only did majorities in both parties and independents favor enhancing Congressional powers vis-à-vis military operations and arms sales, but majorities in various demographic groups, including whites, blacks, and Hispanics; men and women; and all age groups, income categories and levels of education agreed. Among respondents who identified as “very red” and “very blue” there were no significant differences on either enhancing Congress’ war powers (59 percent to 62 percent, respectively) or on arms sales (70 to 70 percent). The most significant difference was on repealing the 2001 AUMF — 55 percent of Republicans who described themselves as “very red” supported repeal compared to 66 percent of “very blue” Democrats.

The survey’s margin of error is +/- 1.9%.

Photo: Orhan Cam via shutterstock.com
Reporting | North America
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest