Follow us on social

Time to rip up the president's blank check for war

Time to rip up the president's blank check for war

The 2002 military authorization — up for a vote today — is largely symbolic. The 2001 AUMF is what's being used to justify all post-9/11 interventions.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting recently, we debated repealing the 2002 Authorization for the Iraq War. The Iraq War ended long ago. You’d think it would be unanimously agreed to end a war that’s already over.    

But, if we stop with just repealing the Iraq War authorization, I fear nothing will change.

We need to take the additional step of also repealing the Authorization for the war in Afghanistan. The 2001 authorization to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice was warranted, but like the Iraq War, the Afghan War has long ago ended — yet its authorization remains on the books.

Deciding when and where to go to war is Congress’s job. The president has authority to execute the war, but not to initiate it. James Madison wrote that the executive branch was the most prone to go to war and, therefore, the Constitution vested that power in the legislature.

There is wisdom in Madison’s words. Presidents of both parties abused the 9/11 authorization to take us to war in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger, among others.

Repealing the Iraq War authorization is a step in the right direction. But realize that the Biden administration will not oppose its repeal because the United States does not independently rely on it for ongoing military activities. In other words, they don’t need it. Repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization only, and nothing changes. The decision of where and when to go to war will still be dependent solely upon the whims of the executive.

All recent presidents erroneously claim limitless war powers under Article II of the Constitution and use the 9/11 2001 authorization to justify wars in at least 19 countries.

But the 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

It authorizes force against those entities narrowly defined by their relationship to the 9/11 attacks. Authorization was not given for a global war on terror or against radical Islamists.

Over the years, the definition of what groups are covered by this AUMF grew. Over time, the 9/11 2001 AUMF was said, without congressional authorization, to cover “associated forces,” meaning the president could claim the authority to go to war against any group no matter how tenuous the relationship to its involvement in 9/11.

No one in Congress in 2001 believed they were voting for a decades’ long war fought in at least 19 countries.

Our job is not just to put a congressional imprimatur on war. The important job of Congress is to determine where and when we send our sons and daughters to fight.

Recently, I asked my fellow committee members: would anyone here vote to authorize the status quo? Would you vote to authorize military operations nearly two dozen countries? Don’t you think Congress should have a debate over the question where and when we go to war?

Some argue repealing the 2001 9/11 AUMF would put us at risk.

Then let’s have that debate. The amendment I offered makes no mention of whether we should continue these operations. My amendment sunsets the 2001 9/11 AUMF after six months. We can use that time to debate exactly where and how to authorize force.

War is sometimes necessary, but going to war should not be the decision of one person. Ending congressional authorization for the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War returns the war power to the American people and their representatives.


A U.S. Soldier, in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, Jan. 17, 2021. The Soldiers are in Syria to support the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) mission. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jensen Guillory)|A U.S. Soldier, in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, Jan. 17, 2021. The Soldiers are in Syria to support the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) mission. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jensen Guillory)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.