[If you were expecting Congress to reassert its war-making
authorities, think again.]
[[link removed]]

CONGRESS TO REPLACE 2001 AUMF WITH … 2001 AUMF  
[[link removed]]


 

Connor Echols
September 28, 2023
Responsible Statecraft
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ If you were expecting Congress to reassert its war-making
authorities, think again. _

U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Josh Williams, a supply clerk assigned to an
Afghan police mentoring team, provides security alongside Afghan
policemen in Zaranj, Nimroz province, Afghanistan, Dec. 30, 2011.,
U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Bryan Nygaard/Released

 

This year, there seemed to be reason for optimism among advocates of
war powers reform. When the Senate voted in March to repeal the 2002
authorization for war with Iraq, many assumed the House would quickly
pass the measure, which had garnered broad bipartisan support in
previous years.

But that optimism may be misplaced, as a hearing in the House Foreign
Affairs Committee demonstrated Thursday. Far from showing a desire to
wrestle back their war-making authorities, most lawmakers appear
determined to maintain the status quo that has seen U.S. troops carry
out operations
[[link removed]] in
more than 20 countries around the world.

The hearing revolved around the holy grail of war powers: the 2001
authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the
perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and any groups that harbored them.
Despite concerns that the law has been stretched well past its
original intent, Congress has struggled to build consensus on a
replacement.

Yet Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the HFAC chair, has made clear that
he will only consider repealing the 2002 AUMF alongside a
repeal-and-replace of the 2001 version. This may have been a clever
attempt to prevent
[[link removed]] a
straight repeal of the 2002 law, but, after a month of negotiations,
McCaul now says he hopes to mark up a compromise bill by the end of
October.

McCaul opened discussion on Thursday by arguing that America still
faces “terrorists committed to our destruction” around the world.
(It should be noted that the Department of Defense says
[[link removed]] the
threat to the homeland from Al Qaida, ISIS, and Al Shabaab is
“low” and possibly non-existent.)

McCaul said he would not consider putting geographic restrictions on a
replacement, going against a key proposal among war powers reformers,
who warn that unrestricted AUMFs are ripe for exploitation by the
executive branch. Most of his colleagues — including a number of
Democrats — agreed with McCaul’s approach.

In fact, the only substantive point of disagreement between lawmakers
was over which groups should be included in a replacement AUMF. Rep.
Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the committee, has
proposed that a new law should only cover Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their
affiliates. McCaul and his Republican colleagues argue that the new
AUMF should also include the Taliban and Iran-backed militias in Iraq.

There are, of course, some developments that will be welcomed by war
powers reformers. Lawmakers widely agree that any new authorization
should have a “sunset” provision that would require Congress to
reaffirm its support for U.S. operations abroad after a few years.
(Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said the
administration opposes this measure, which in her telling would allow
terrorists to simply wait Washington out.) A new AUMF would also
likely exclude the Taliban, providing a legal bookend to 22 years of
American involvement in Afghanistan.

But this shift falls far short of ending America’s so-called
“forever wars.” When Meeks asked witnesses what the war on terror
may look like in 2045, no one could offer a concrete response. Perhaps
more importantly, no official seemed ready to countenance the idea
that hostilities would finally be over.

Indeed, witnesses and lawmakers gave little indication that the war on
terror could ever truly end. They focused instead on a range of
emerging “threats” to the United States, including the rise of
terror groups in the Sahel, a sub-region of Africa stretching from
Mauritania in the west to Sudan in the east.

One may hope that lawmakers would discuss whether U.S. military
operations helped create the conditions for these new threats to
emerge, as a range
[[link removed]] of experts
[[link removed]] and journalists
[[link removed]] have argued
[[link removed]].
But such a discussion was absent from the conversation, leaving little
chance that these views will be taken into account when lawmakers
hammer out the text of any new AUMF.

In a telling moment, Meeks recalled that memorable day in September
2001 when Congress passed the AUMF. The long-time lawmaker joined all
but one of his colleagues
[[link removed]] in
voting in favor of the resolution, hurriedly kicking off a new
paradigm in which “war” and “peace” became relative terms.

“Though I carry the burden of that vote, not for one second do I
regret it,” Meeks said. “We needed to send a message. We needed to
take action and prevent future terrorist attacks by those who
orchestrated 9/11, and we did.”

The world has undergone a number of major changes in the past two
decades. But in Congress, it’s still 2001.

CONNOR ECHOLS is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was
previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he
co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter. Echols received his
bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied
journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.

About THE QUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: 

The practical and moral failures of U.S. efforts to unilaterally shape
the destiny of other nations by force requires a fundamental
rethinking of U.S. foreign policy assumptions. So does the emergence
of a multi-polar world in the 21st century where economic power is
more evenly shared across nations. Yet the influence of the
“military industrial complex” that President Eisenhower warned of
has led to a situation where the foreign policy debate within
Washington is intentionally constrained and fails to incorporate the
diversity of views needed for that rethinking.

The Quincy Institute aims to lead this reconceptualization, and to do
so in a way that serves both vital American interests and the broader
shared interest in creating a more just and peaceful world. We believe
that a foreign policy that emphasizes military restraint and
diplomatic engagement and cooperation with other nations will serve
American interests and values better than policies that prioritize the
maintenance of U.S. global dominance through force.

AS A RESEARCH INSTITUTION, WE EXPOSE the dangerous consequences of an
overly militarized American foreign policy and present an alternative
approach that promotes local ownership and resolution of local
issues.  We connect and mobilize a network of policy experts and
academics who are dedicated to a vision of American foreign policy
based on military restraint rather than domination. We help increase
and amplify their output, and give them a voice in Washington,
including through our publishing platform Responsible Statecraft
[[link removed]].

AS AN ACTION-ORIENTED THINK TANK we serve as a resource for members
of Congress, grassroots organizations, and emerging leaders in
Washington on both sides of the political aisle and across the country
who are open to our vision and values. We participate in national
security debates taking place in Washington and around the country,
both by developing compelling messaging and communications strategies
and offering alternative policy and legislative ideas that implement
our principles of a less militarized and more cooperative foreign
policy.

* U.S. foreign policy
[[link removed]]
* military intervention
[[link removed]]
* Congress
[[link removed]]
* AUMF
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]