The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday advanced legislation to repeal decades-old authorizations for U.S. military missions in the Middle East, a first-time step in a larger effort in Congress to reclaim lawmakers’ war powers from the executive branch.
A bipartisan majority of the panel voted 14 to 8 in favor of repealing authorizations Congress passed in 1991 and 2002 to approve of hostilities against Saddam Hussein’s erstwhile regime, first to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and later to depose him. That legislative coalition all but guarantees that when the measure comes to the Senate floor — which Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has promised will happen this year — it will pass.
Proponents hope that this initiative lays the groundwork for withdrawing other long-pending authorizations for the use of military force, or AUMFs. But their next target, the 2001 authorization that Congress passed to green light the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, will be a thornier undertaking as it is the legal justification underpinning hostilities against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, even if they did not exist back then.
Earlier this year, the House passed separate measures to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations. The parallel efforts would have to be reconciled before they are sent to President Biden for final approval, which is expected.
Democrats push Biden on returning war-powers authority to Congress
Repeal of the authorizations will make no difference to the United States’ security posture on the ground, according to senior Biden administration officials who testified before the committee Tuesday, saying the 1991 measure is defunct, and the 2002 measure has not been cited as the sole legal justification for any military venture in years.
The 2002 measure “is woefully outdated, in terms of our diplomatic relationship with Iraq,” Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told lawmakers, adding that it would be a “sign of strength” and “moving forward in history” to repeal the Iraq War authorization.
“Repeal says we have succeeded,” she added. “I agree [the 2002 AUMF] should be put upon the shelf.”
Still, the road to repeal — while seemingly assured — is expected to be fraught politically. The Senate measure, a resolution spearheaded by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) with the help of Sen. Todd C. Young (R-Ind.), is a marriage of one noncontroversial measure and another that has inspired heated dispute. No discernible opposition remains to repealing the 1991 Gulf War authorization, a conflict that ended more than 30 years ago. But a majority of Republicans contend that the 2002 Iraq War authorization should remain on the books to address potential future threats in an unstable region.
“I’m loath to remove any tool that gives us leverage at a time the Iranian regime is increasing its posture against us, without a replacement,” Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who co-led the GOP’s campaign to interview government officials about repealing the authorizations, questioned whether the recent presidential decisions to withdraw U.S. combat troops from the Middle East and Afghanistan might make the 2002 AUMF relevant in the future in ways it is not today.
“Would we under Article II have the legal authority to go in, if we’re not there and threatened?” he asked. Article II of the Constitution establishes the president as commander in chief of the armed forces; in that guise, presidents are assumed to have the right to dispatch military force without Congress’s consent when the United States or its vital interests come under attack.
Bipartisan bill aims to assert Congress’s power over arms sales, emergencies and military operations
Not all Republicans accepted that logic, however. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) challenged his colleagues to explain why they thought it would be a bad thing if a future president had to seek a new war authorization from Congress to counter new threats.
“A vote to keep this is really a vote to allow something as big as the Iraq War was at its maximum,” Paul said, reminding his colleagues that, in hindsight, many people view the Iraq War was “a mistake.”
“People say we might not vote for it — that would be good if we didn’t vote for another Iraq war!” he said. “But if there is another need for a war, come and vote. When we have been attacked, we voted overwhelmingly.”
That the debate over Kaine’s proposal continues to be contentious portends an even more difficult road ahead as Congress turns its attention to other war authorizations that critics believe have been stretched to justify military action.
On Tuesday, the State Department’s Sherman said that “revising the 2001 AUMF is appropriate,” and congressional architects of the repeal effort would like to see it shelved by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack next month. But almost all proponents and opponents of the repeal agree that it cannot be taken off the books without a ready replacement — and thus far, those negotiations have not reached a conclusion.
Congress in coming days is scheduled to recess for its traditional summer break, and is not expected to return until after the anniversary.
A bipartisan majority of the panel voted 14 to 8 in favor of repealing authorizations Congress passed in 1991 and 2002 to approve of hostilities against Saddam Hussein’s erstwhile regime, first to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and later to depose him. That legislative coalition all but guarantees that when the measure comes to the Senate floor — which Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has promised will happen this year — it will pass.
Proponents hope that this initiative lays the groundwork for withdrawing other long-pending authorizations for the use of military force, or AUMFs. But their next target, the 2001 authorization that Congress passed to green light the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, will be a thornier undertaking as it is the legal justification underpinning hostilities against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, even if they did not exist back then.
Earlier this year, the House passed separate measures to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations. The parallel efforts would have to be reconciled before they are sent to President Biden for final approval, which is expected.
Democrats push Biden on returning war-powers authority to Congress
Repeal of the authorizations will make no difference to the United States’ security posture on the ground, according to senior Biden administration officials who testified before the committee Tuesday, saying the 1991 measure is defunct, and the 2002 measure has not been cited as the sole legal justification for any military venture in years.
The 2002 measure “is woefully outdated, in terms of our diplomatic relationship with Iraq,” Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told lawmakers, adding that it would be a “sign of strength” and “moving forward in history” to repeal the Iraq War authorization.
“Repeal says we have succeeded,” she added. “I agree [the 2002 AUMF] should be put upon the shelf.”
Still, the road to repeal — while seemingly assured — is expected to be fraught politically. The Senate measure, a resolution spearheaded by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) with the help of Sen. Todd C. Young (R-Ind.), is a marriage of one noncontroversial measure and another that has inspired heated dispute. No discernible opposition remains to repealing the 1991 Gulf War authorization, a conflict that ended more than 30 years ago. But a majority of Republicans contend that the 2002 Iraq War authorization should remain on the books to address potential future threats in an unstable region.
“I’m loath to remove any tool that gives us leverage at a time the Iranian regime is increasing its posture against us, without a replacement,” Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who co-led the GOP’s campaign to interview government officials about repealing the authorizations, questioned whether the recent presidential decisions to withdraw U.S. combat troops from the Middle East and Afghanistan might make the 2002 AUMF relevant in the future in ways it is not today.
“Would we under Article II have the legal authority to go in, if we’re not there and threatened?” he asked. Article II of the Constitution establishes the president as commander in chief of the armed forces; in that guise, presidents are assumed to have the right to dispatch military force without Congress’s consent when the United States or its vital interests come under attack.
Bipartisan bill aims to assert Congress’s power over arms sales, emergencies and military operations
Not all Republicans accepted that logic, however. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) challenged his colleagues to explain why they thought it would be a bad thing if a future president had to seek a new war authorization from Congress to counter new threats.
“A vote to keep this is really a vote to allow something as big as the Iraq War was at its maximum,” Paul said, reminding his colleagues that, in hindsight, many people view the Iraq War was “a mistake.”
“People say we might not vote for it — that would be good if we didn’t vote for another Iraq war!” he said. “But if there is another need for a war, come and vote. When we have been attacked, we voted overwhelmingly.”
That the debate over Kaine’s proposal continues to be contentious portends an even more difficult road ahead as Congress turns its attention to other war authorizations that critics believe have been stretched to justify military action.
On Tuesday, the State Department’s Sherman said that “revising the 2001 AUMF is appropriate,” and congressional architects of the repeal effort would like to see it shelved by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack next month. But almost all proponents and opponents of the repeal agree that it cannot be taken off the books without a ready replacement — and thus far, those negotiations have not reached a conclusion.
Congress in coming days is scheduled to recess for its traditional summer break, and is not expected to return until after the anniversary.
