Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
South Korea president President Lee Jae-myung
Top photo credit: South Korean president Lee Jae-myung travels to of the Group of Seven in Kananaskis, Canada, June 2025 (Ministry of culture, sports and Tourism/ Lee jeong woo/Creative Commons

Trump NSS puts S. Korea at center of US primacy aims in region

Asia-Pacific

It has been half a year since the Lee Jae-myung administration took office in South Korea.

Domestically, the Republic of Korea (ROK) is still recovering from numerous problems left by former president Yoon Suk-yeol's brief imposition of martial law. However, there are also many diplomatic challenges that need to be addressed. The Lee administration faces arguably the most challenging external environment in years.

keep readingShow less
Christian evangelicals Israel
Top photo credit: A member of Christians United for Israel during the second day of the Christians United for Israel summit in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., July 29, 2024. REUTERS/Seth Herald

1,000 US pastors travel to train as 'ambassadors' for Israel

Middle East

More than 1,000 U.S. Christian pastors and influencers traveled to Israel this month becoming “the largest group of American Christian leaders to visit Israel since its founding.”

At the height of the Christmas season — one of the two most important celebrations for Christians of the year, the birth of Christ, the other being Easter which marks his death — these pastors were on mission paid for by the Israeli government “to provide training and prepare participants to serve as unofficial ambassadors for Israel in their communities,” Fox News reported.

keep readingShow less
White house
Top photo credit: Chat GPT

A farewell to Oz: Trump’s strategy for a multipolar world

Washington Politics

The end of the Cold War ushered in a long period of make-believe in American foreign policy. We saw ourselves, in the words of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, as “the indispensable power. We stand tall. We see farther into the future.” And we could use our unmatched abilities to transform the world in unprecedented ways.

Globalized flows of capital and labor would liberalize China and usher in a new age of largely frictionless international relations. Russia would be transformed quickly into a friendly, free market democracy. NATO would shift its focus from protecting Western Europe to reforming and incorporating the states between it and Russia, with little worry that it might ever have to fight to defend new members. The US military would serve as the world’s benevolent policeman, and Americans could re-engineer societies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Americans would be endlessly content to fight endless wars that bore little connection to their own well-being, and foreign creditors would forever finance America’s burgeoning national debt.

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.