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
Macron Merz
Top image credit: EUS-Nachrichten / Shutterstock.com

France and Germany launch Europe's nuclear Plan B

Europe

Since early last year, France has been exploring with Germany and other partners the question of expanding or extending France’s nuclear deterrent to protect NATO partners in Europe.

This idea, in more modest versions advanced by France since the 1990s, always met resistance from traditionally Atlanticist Germany, concerned never to appear to doubt U.S. defense commitments to Europe. France itself has until now also been ambivalent about seeming to internationalize its force de frappe, conceived as the ultimate guarantor of France’s national territorial defense.

keep readingShow less
On Iran, Spain's Sanchez rises above the bowed heads of Europe
Top photo credit: Madrid, Spain - October 12, 2025: National Day Parade held in Madrid. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attends the parade with other politicians. (Marta Fernandez Jimenez/Shutterstock)

On Iran, Spain's Sanchez rises above the bowed heads of Europe

Europe

While most European leaders have responded to the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran with condemnations of the Iranian regime and tepid calls for "de-escalation" designed not to offend Washington, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has unequivocally condemned the war on Iran as a breach of international law.

Contrast that with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who chose to insist at the war’s outset that "this is not the time to lecture our partners and allies" about potential violations of international law.

keep readingShow less
Are Kurds really joining US-Israel fight to take down Iran regime?
Top photo credit: Iraq, 2021/10/11. In a secret location in Iraq, Kurdish fighters from Iran are training for combat. Several thousand members of the PDKI have settled in Iraqi Kurdistan to prepare the war against Iran. Photography by Laurent Perpigna Iban / Hans Lucas.

Are Kurds really joining US-Israel fight to take down Iran regime?

QiOSK

Reports indicate that Kurdish Iranian militant groups have launched an offensive against Iranian regime forces in the country’s northwest, allegedly with U.S. backing.

Kurdish groups have denied the reports. In a Washington Post story on Thursday, the White House confirmed calls with Kurdish leaders but did not say those discussions have progressed any further. Though one official, PUK leader Bafel Talabani, said, “Trump was clear in his call” on Sunday that "the Kurds must choose a side in this battle — either with America and Israel or with Iran.”

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.