As the war in Afghanistan approaches its 17th year, Congress has approved a new special operations commander, Lt. Gen. Scott Miller. Miller is the ninth U.S. general in the role since the war began in 2001. Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee recently questioned Miller on what his plans are to end the war or change its direction. The unsettling part of the whole conversation is knowing that’s the extent of what Congress can currently do.
Congress has been at the mercy of the president since 2001 when the Authorized Use of Military Force was passed. Unfortunately, some members of Congress are trying to limit their powers even further, through an updated AUMF. The bill, proposed by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., will create even broader powers for the executive branch.
Three days after the September 11th attacks, Congress passed AUMF, with only one “no” vote, granting the president authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against” those responsible for the terrorist attacks.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who cast the only legislative vote against AUMF in 2001, stated to the House floor before the bill was passed: “…we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.”
Lee could not have been more correct. The 2001 authorization led to our involvement in countries throughout the Middle East such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. But presidents continue to push the scope of AUMF, leading military action across the world in Djibouti, Kenya, Niger, Georgia, and the Philippines.
The glaring issue with the original bill is the lack of congressional knowledge and dialogue. In October of last year, an incident occurred in Tongo Tongo, Niger resulting in the death of four American soldiers. American forces, accompanying Nigerien military personnel, were ambushed by militants linked to the Islamic State.
Upon learning of the Niger ambush, several members of Congress declared they were unaware of any military presence in the country.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., commented, “I didn’t know there was 1,000 troops in Niger… We don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world, militarily, and what we’re doing.”
Most members of Congress would be unaware, then, of the $110 million airfield in Agadez, the largest city in central Niger, currently under construction.
It’s a strange day when American soldiers are falling victim to terrorist organizations in countries where members of Congress, and the public, had no idea tax dollars were being spent.
Sen. Kaine believes his proposed update will strengthen congressional oversight saying, “For too long, Congress has given presidents a blank check to wage war. We’ve let the 9/11 and Iraq War authorizations get stretched to justify wars against multiple terrorist groups…”
While Kaine’s statement is correct, his proposed solution to the problem will only continue to give the president more power and Congress less. This is evident in the language of the bill, where it states the authorization “provides uninterrupted authority to use all necessary and appropriate force in the current and continuing armed conflict against the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, and associated forces.”
Much worse than 2001, the new AUMF actually lists current “associated forces.” While on the surface it appears this would limit the scope of the president, a closer look shows this is a permission slip to unending war. The list includes al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Shabaab, al Qaeda in Syria (including al Nusrah Front), the Haqqani Network, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb.
As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., put it, “…the Kaine/Corker AUMF not only codifies military action against those associated forces, but by conservative estimates authorizes war in over 20 nations.”
The bill does not stop there. It allows the president to determine new associated forces and notify Congress “not later than 48 hours after.” Legislators will then have the option of disagreeing. As if the proposal is an attempt to throw away Congress’s power, the disapproval of new associated forces can be vetoed. Paul points out this means two-thirds of Congress would need to disapprove of war, rather than approve.
If the U.S. is to go to war, it should be done by Congress, not the executive branch, which has proven too eager. This is evident in the massive amount of continued military operations across the world. With the war in Afghanistan reaching another point of stagnant continuation, it’s time to limit the president’s power, not make it easier for the president to wage more forever wars.
Andy Slaven studied political science and environmental studies at Northern Michigan University, where he graduated in December. This fall he will begin his studies at Marquette University Law School. He is also a Media Ambassador for Young Americans for Liberty
