The ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) spent Sunday condemning the $733 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed last week as “dangerous” and “reckless.”
McCaul’s dissatisfaction with amendments that limit overseas warfare was
apparent during debate on the NDAA, and on Sunday his particular focus
was on two amendments that would sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations
for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
The 2002 AUMF covered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the
removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Proponents of eliminating this
provision note that Saddam is long dead, and Iraq is an ally, which
means it is obsolete.
The 2001 AUMF was a bigger issue, as the argument for sun-setting it is
that the language has been stretched to cover almost any war. The debate
on the amendment made clear this was intended to be replaced by
Congress before it expires outright.
Rep. McCaul, however, claims that the cancellation of a bill that can
cover myriad US wars would “illegalize” a number of US wars, and
effectively the entire global war on terror. That is true, if a new AUMF
wasn’t adopted, but there was time provided for a creation of a new
one.
Rep. McCaul Slams House NDAA, Claims It Would ‘Illegalize’ Terror War
Bill would sunset 2001, 2002 AUMFs, intending to replace them
Join the Discussion!
We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.
For more details, please see our Comment Policy.
