The State Department outlined the administration’s legal justification for engaging the Syrian military in a letter to Sen. Bob Corker Wednesday. Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had written to the department in June to ask if the military had been properly authorized to engage Syrian forces.
The letter from the State Department Bureau of Legislative Affairs argues that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) enacted after 9/11 applies to the American mission in Syria.
House Republicans recently scuttled an attempt to repeal the 2001 AUMF, which surprised leaders by passing the House Appropriations Committee on a voice vote in June. The key portion of the authorization, which passed on September 18, 2001, includes broad language:
The argument that the AUMF includes fighting ISIS is relatively straightforward, if untested. ISIS began as an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was directly related to the Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda that carried out the 9/11 attacks. It therefore likely still counts as an organization responsible for 9/11.
In the process of fighting ISIS, the letter explains, American forces engaged Syrian targets only in order to protect American and allied forces.
The letter also defended the American involvement in Syria as a matter of international law, appealing to a section of the U.N. Charter that allows for “individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” The State Department explained that operation in Syria were both in defense of American security and collective security with our allies:
If Congress were to repeal the AUMF, the pPresident would have 60 days to withdraw all American combat troops from Syria unless Congress reauthorized the operation. The letter tries to head off that prospect: “[T]he Administration is not seeking revisions to the 2001 AUMF or additional authorizations to use force.”
