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
Trump's war is a gift to Iran’s hardliners
REUTERS/Imran Ali

Shi'ite Muslims hold posters of Iran's new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, alongside late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as they take part in the religious procession marking the death anniversary of Imam Ali, son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, during the fasting month of Ramadan, in Karachi, Pakistan, March 11, 2026.

Trump's war is a gift to Iran’s hardliners

Middle East

When the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28 — an escalation that has already brought new suffering and uncertainty to millions of ordinary Iranians — the central debate quickly turned to whether the Islamic Republic might collapse. Some analysts argued that decapitating Iran’s leadership could produce rapid regime change, perhaps resembling the leadership removal in Venezuela earlier this year. Others warned that Iran’s political system was far more resilient.

Yet the more important point may lie elsewhere. Given the Islamic Republic’s internal dynamics, war could produce the opposite of what many expect. Rather than weakening the regime, the war may strengthen its most committed supporters — the ideological networks often labeled “hardliners” in Western media — while marginalizing the broader political middle, inside and outside the system, that favors non-violent and gradual change.

keep readingShow less
As Iran war rages, Washington opens a new front in Ecuador
Top image credit: Ecuadoran security forces patrol the streets of Manta, Ecuador. (IMAGO/Agencia Prensa-Independiente via Reuters Connect)

As Iran war rages, Washington opens a new front in Ecuador

Latin America

As the world’s attention is focused on the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, the United States has, with little fanfare, opened another front in its expanding campaign against so-called “narco-terrorism” in the Western Hemisphere.

Since this new "war on drugs" began last year, U.S. military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats, as well as a direct military intervention in Venezuela, have claimed the lives of more than 250 people. Now, Ecuador, a country on the northwestern edge of South America, has become the latest site of Washington’s reinvigorated “war on drugs.” This escalation risks making the United States complicit in the human rights abuses of a government that is steadily dismantling its own country’s democracy, including by suspending the nation’s largest opposition party.

keep readingShow less
Israel’s push for Somaliland base raises fears of wider war
Top image credit: Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi participate in a joint press conference during Saar's visit to Somaliland on January 6, 2026. (Screengrab via X)

Israel’s push for Somaliland base raises fears of wider war

QiOSK

Bloomberg reported Wednesday that Israel is in talks with Somaliland officials to form a strategic security partnership, which might include granting Israel access to a military base or other security installation along the Somaliland coast from which it can launch attacks against Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

With war raging in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa is a particularly important geoeconomic and geopolitical puzzle piece. Its location near the Bab el-Mandeb strait, which connects ships traveling through the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, makes it a strategic location from the perspective of global shipping, 10% to 12% of which travels through the strait annually.

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.