On Thursday, the House voted to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that was used for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The bill passed in a vote of 268 to 161, with 49 Republicans voting in favor of the repeal and only one Democrat voting against it.
The effort was led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). “Repeal can prevent our country from entering another protected protracted engagement under this outdated authority,” Lee said on Thursday. “We can’t afford to leave this in place indefinitely. For two decades, it has been in place. This is our opportunity to restore our constitutional role.”
Previous efforts to repeal the 2002 AUMF passed through the House but failed in the Senate. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressed support for repealing the 2002 AUMF and vowed to bring a vote on it to the floor of the Senate this year, a sign that the legislation has a good chance of making it to President Biden’s desk.
On Monday, the White House said it supports repealing the war authorization since it will have little impact on current US military operations. “The administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” the White House said in a statement.
The 2002 AUMF was last cited by the Trump administration to justify the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who was killed by a US drone strike in Baghdad in January 2020.
There was a renewed push in Congress to rein in the president’s war powers after Biden bombed Syria back in February. As the White House statement said, repealing the 2002 AUMF will not change much. The 2001 AUMF that was passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks is the one that is used to authorize current US wars in the Middle East.
What is wrong with “conservatives”? All Republicans should want a repeal. Just today, gab commenters mocked NK for having no food. I have no idea whether NK has been poorly managed, but trade sanctions are harmful. And famines happen in small agricultural areas.
That’s why Kim has been losing weight: He’s appealing to his people who are starving. If he’s smart, he’ll lose all the weight to keep his support.
Depends who proposes what. If Trump were president, and for the repeal, the “liberals” would have opposed him. Likewise if Biden pushed hard against the repeal, the “conservatives” would have been for it. We can’t win.
No, both the Yemen vote, and the Iranian war exemption were passed by dems, and vetoed by trump. trump had 4 years to get out of somewhere, anywhere, and refused. Escalation was his thing (someone actually listen to what he ever said ?)
True, but we were talking about the AUMF’s. And I believe Obama did eight years with both AUMF’s in effect. I don’t recall him getting out of somewhere, anywhere either and he had eight years to do so. And please, before you say Iraq, he only left there because Bush signed the status of forces agreement. He would have stayed if the Iraqis had agreed to continue to allow us to kill them with impunity.
The Yemen votes, and the Iran votes were both related to the AUMFs, in that they would have prevented their inclusion into the war authorizations. It is a pathetic system that authorizes war so generally, that there is any need for exclusions. But, there it is.
A president whom either inherits, or has congress impose an AUMF has a binary choice. Accept it, and delegate military action, or, refuse it, and risk impeachment, basically, the same option of a recruit private.
This relates to Obama’s choices. The arab spring occurred during his first 2 years in office, while both AUMFs were in place. A potus order to withdraw in the reality that most arab nations were overthrowing their governments (including Iraq) would certainly lead to impeachment. Other presidential possibilities for that time, would certainly have launched occupying invasions of Syria, Libya, and possibly others. Remember “7 ME countries in 5 years” or some such. Then, of course, Sunni insurgency which the marketing boys at Langley referred to as ISIS.
trump inherited nothing resembling the arab spring, instead, inheriting profound war weariness at home, and across the ME.
Now, before you quip the inevitable and persistent “Obama caused the arab spring and revolts”..I recommend at least to wiki the arab spring to grasp it’s myriad factors. Including, the will of ME people to achieve a equitable social system.
We are only enabling in Yemen and preventing their inclusion into the war authorizations doesn’t/won’t prevent the enabling to continue. Same with Iran. Keeping them from inclusion doesn’t/won’t stop the maximum pressure campaign.
I only brought up Obama because you brought up Trump’s failures as if they were uncommon amongst presidents. I voted for Obama the first time. He was a spineless letdown. Trump ended up being exactly what I expected.
Sorry wars, but you don’t seem to grasp the role of congress and AUMFs. By excluding Yemen, Iran, or anyone else, the potus is required to get an authorization to use war assets in those places. When Obama was presented with his “red line” in Syria, he was pressured by the US militancy to attack, and was heavily criticized in the (mostly) right wing media for not doing so. He deferred to congress to give him authorization to do so. In the time it took for right wing congress to act, Russia stepped up and brokered a wmd deal with Syria. Unfortunately, that is as good as we get in militant USA. Of course, trump invaded Syria anyway in 2017 using the 2001 authorization, and troops remain there now under Biden.
I am always willing to criticize Obama. His surge in Afghanistan was horrible, his worst action. His only saving grace, removing US troops from combat status when he was done f…ING it up.
I find it difficult to criticize his actions during the arab spring. US media likes to pretend it never happened, or that it was nothing of import. Far from it.
You seem to not invest in the constitutional system we have. These congressional votes are the way out, unless you know an alternative. It’s one thing to criticize our reps, yet, even in California, I am beset with warmongering voters all around. That is the map with the big red arrow sa.ying “You Are Here”.
I would like to propose a friendly correction and it’s not your fault to feel that Trump invaded Syria. I am not defending Trump. Before Trump, Obama deceived the American people and invaded Syria illegally. Despite assurances that there will be “no boots on the ground,” Obama established US bases inside Syria (Yes, I am old enough to remember). He left office with at least 503 US troops in Syria (figures lie and liars figure). There was a lot of smoke and mirrors provided by the MSM to cover for Obama, the Nobel Prize for Peace winner (sarcasm). See the reference regarding the number 503 of US troops in Syria covered up in this article with a pile of BS:
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
Sorry for the delayed response…do you honestly think that there were not at least 500 spec ops in Syria starting at least since the first gulf War? Almost 30 years ago ? I will gladly criticize Obama any foreign policy fiasco, but the idea that he introduced troops to Syria is ridiculous. Look up “flank”.
I’m interested in why you think there were at least 500 spec ops in Syria since at least the first Gulf War. Syria was on “our” side in that war. I did know one guy who claimed to have done an “in and out” mission to confirm or falsify intel claiming that Assad was allowing Saddam to stash some aircraft at an airbase, but if there was a continuing presence there prior to the early 2000s, it seems like it was a pretty well-kept secret.
The Syrian border is only 220 miles from Baghdad. Seems like a pretty large, wild flank to ignore as the army turns into Kuwait.
Being “on our side” only makes my alleged deployment more likely, as the US deploys troops all over the world in countries on our side. Further, there would assets wherever possible to retrieve possible downed aircrew.
Of course, I don’t “know” this, anymore than I “know” where any troops and mercenaries are deployed now.
Obama certainly continued operations in Syria and elsewhere, but the continued assertion that he introduced US assets in Syria is ludicrous.
Thanks for the response. Obama was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I’m confused as to what you are saying. Does the president need authorization to allow the Saudis to continue the blockade? Or to continue the maximum pressure campaign on Iran?
“I am always willing to criticize Obama. His surge in Afghanistan was horrible, his worst action.’
No his worst action was when he was talked into the Libya disaster because he was spineless. His seemingly joyous use of drones is right up there also along with not having the balls to close GITMO. At least his Afghanistan stupidity was right there in his campaign promises and something I actually thought was just red meat he was throwing out there for those jingoists he was trying to get votes from.
I recognize obamas’ failures, but invasion with US troops in New areas is not one of them. As I consistently repeat, spec ops and spooks have been in Syria since Bush 1.
Yemen remains a disaster. I figure US support to be in targeting Intel, tech maintenance and the worst, naval support of the blockade. I don’t differentiate mercenaries paid by the US, from US military assets. Yes, Biden has not disengaged that I can see.
Agreed. Obama gave us Syria, Yemen, and Libya. He also assassinated US citizens. Sarcasm: I think that’s why he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
“The 2001 AUMF that was passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks is the one that is used to authorize current US wars in the Middle East.” What are you saying? Wow! That makes perfect sense then to explain why Biden “authorized” Congress to repeal the 2002 AUMF. Positive optics showing him willing to give up something meaningless, while still being a warmonger? It sounds like a perfect publicity stunt. The Neocons have nothing to worry about with Biden.
Are you sure this is meaningless?
They admitted that none of our current “military activities” are associated with the 2002 AUMF. Do you really think Biden would be in favor of repealing it otherwise? When they repeal the 2001 AUMF without replacing it then we can talk about meaningful steps.
trumps drone attack on the Iranian general/diplomat was done under the 2002 AUMF. Every cancellation of war authority is a good thing.
Besides, why expect them to cancel the 2001 horror when they barely got the 2002 one out of here. Less Republicans is progress.
If they can now get a Yemen bill through, get out of Afghanistan, perhaps the 2001 can be challenged in Bidens’ first (maybe only) term.
Yes, Trump’s assassination of the Iranian general was done under the 2002 AUMF which was totally irrelevant to what that AUMF was about. So you think if we keep the 2001 AUMF around, Biden, or a future president wont use that AUMF for something it wasn’t authorized for? I would agree that every cancellation of war authority is a good thing but we only need one to continue on and I believe the 2002 AUMF cancellation is being done with that in mind. Appease some of the anti-war crowd while keeping “all options on the table”.
Well, first, the 2001 AUMF is an abuse it’s own self, from the start. I ask again tho, how can congressional will to repeal it come about, when simpler repeals, such as the 2002, Yemen and Iran are such a struggle ? I think you might ask gop voters why that is.