Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in April if he believed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after the 9/11 attacks gave the White House permission to strike Iran.
Pompeo deflected.
“You do not have the permission of Congress to go to war with Iran,” an irritated Paul told the secretary, admonishing him for dancing around the question.
“Only Congress can declare war,” Paul said.
There was a time not long ago when many Republicans agreed with the libertarian senator.
When President Barack Obama bombed Libya in 2011, most Republicans claimed it was unconstitutional for the president to take direct military action without consulting Congress. “The United States does not have a king’s army,” said then Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. “President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution.”
When Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry said failing to intervene militarily in Syria in 2013 would be a “Munich moment” (note, virtually every warmonger always compares avoiding conflict to the rise of Hitler), most Republicans opposed strikes and insisted the president come to Congress first. Obama said he didn’t need approval. Then he admitted he did.
It was during this time some wondered if the Republican Party was turning anti-war.
No less a Republican than future President Trump tweeted in 2013, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?”
“Obama needs Congressional approval,” he added.
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
The founders’ purpose in giving the power to declare war to Congress was to check potential hubris in the executive branch. Obama, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be able just to decide to go to war without consulting the citizens they serve through their congressional representatives. This week, after 18 years, the House finally rescinded the original post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
What if one day a radical lunatic got into a high position of power in an administration and launched America into another needless and tragic war based on little more than his personal agenda?
That’s actually what happened Thursday night when national security adviser John Bolton almost got his yearslong dream of war with Iran. Thankfully, Trump stopped it.
But we’re supposed to have a Constitution that prevents such weighty decisions from being hastily made. That’s the entire point of the thing: to delegate powers and limit our federal government. Our nation’s founding charter makes the question of war paramount and intentionally takes it out of the hands of any one or few men.
As Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said Friday afternoon, “Each of us in Congress has a duty to represent our constituents in a potential war that will affect their families.”
Offensive military action requires congressional approval, and we can’t assess the situation without more information. Once strikes begin, the administration cannot guarantee things will not spiral out of control. We must do everything possible to prevent another reckless war.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 21, 2019
“Only Congress can declare war,” Paul sternly warned Pompeo back in April. As one of the strictest constitutionalists in Washington, Paul understands why it’s so important to take going to war so seriously.
Thursday night reminded America and the world of the same thing.
Jack Hunter (@jackhunter74) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.
