It’s a rare day that constitutional conservatives ought to applaud far-left Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee. But today is that day.
The House of Representatives voted Thursday afternoon on an amendment the two sponsored that repeals the 2002 Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It’s an amendment that deserves applause even from conservatives, as it’s a first step toward reasserting Congress’s proper war powers and limiting the potential of future executive abuse.
It would also require that, in light of President Trump’s killing of Iranian general and terrorist Qassem Soleimani, the president obtain proper congressional authorization if any protracted military conflict with Iran emerges before funds can be used. Seeing as how costly and difficult a war with Iran would be, this measure is well-warranted, as the president should have to go through the proper process before launching any such full-blown conflict if it does ever come to that.
.@RepBarbaraLee and I are saying:
1. Any current AUMFs do NOT cover a war with Iran.
2. We should repeal the 2002 AUMF anyway, because that was a disaster.
3. The President *must* come to Congress before he takes any offensive military action, or uses any Pentagon $$. pic.twitter.com/RNXz8V4l81
— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) January 30, 2020
What is the 2002 authorization?
It granted the president authorization to use limited military force in Iraq to protect the United States and take down Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. It was based in large part on the U.S. government’s assertion that Hussein had at his disposal “weapons of mass destruction,” which we know now was not really the case. The authorization covered a goal we have already achieved (Hussein was killed in 2006) based on a faulty premise.
It stretches incredulity to argue that such a resolution can be used to authorize instances of military engagement such as Soleimani’s killing (an Iranian, not Iraqi) now, in a completely different situation in Iraq. Yet that’s one of the justifications administration officials have cited. If we truly need to take military action in Iraq today, the president needs to seek proper modern authorization to do so.
There are, of course, several other arguments that can be made as to why Trump’s strike on Soleimani was within his proper authority. But citing the 2002 authorization is not one of them, and claims otherwise are a prime example of why Congress should not leave this outdated authorization on the books at the disposal of future presidents, ripe for abuse.
Thankfully, many constitutional conservatives understand this. Conservative veterans group Concerned Veterans for America came out in support of the 2002 authorization repeal, as did its sister organization Americans for Prosperity.
Amen, Mr. President. I will vote “yes” on repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF.
Also, after operating for 18-years under the 2001 AUMF, which is being used to justify U.S. military activities in more than a dozen countries, including Yemen and Somalia, we should debate a new, modern… https://t.co/SxJgASz47f
— Rep. Chip Roy (@RepChipRoy) January 29, 2020
Additionally, about a dozen House Republicans, including Reps. Chip Roy, Matt Gaetz, and Thomas Massie voted in support of repeal, and stalwarts in the Senate such as Sen. Rand Paul have long advocated for reform on this issue.
Meanwhile, staunchly pro-Trump Freedom Caucus leaders Reps. Andy Biggs and Warren Davidson support the repeal, writing in a Washington Examiner opinion piece that “successive Congresses have preserved the broken bipartisan status quo by refusing to debate the authorization, while continuing to fund more wars in more places.”
We need more strong conservative leaders to take a stand against the endless wars and Middle East adventurism that has cost taxpayers trillions and sent thousands of American heroes to early graves. Repealing the 2002 Iraq war authorization is just the start.
