As speculation mounted on Monday night that President Donald Trump may soon order a strike in retaliation for a deadly suspected chemical attack carried out over the weekend by the Syrian government, Republican senators expressed support for such a strike and said it would not require congressional approval.
“‘If the administration goes against [Assad], which I hope they will, I think it will be something very surgical,” said Foreign Relations committee chairman Bob Corker. “That is not something that, to me, warrants an AUMF.”
Most of his colleagues find themselves in agreement—and in a similar position they were in just over a year ago, when Assad attacked his own people with a chemical attack, killing dozens in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump responded to the atrocity at the time with a strike on a Syrian airfield.
“The president responded decisively when Assad used chemical weapons last year,” said Arizona Republican John McCain in a statement after the weekend attack. “He should do so again, and demonstrate that Assad will pay a price for his war crimes.” McCain also suggested that Trump’s recent signaling of support for the withdrawal of American troops from Syria may have emboldened Assad. Around 2,000 American troops are in the country.
The attack in the rebel-held suburb of Douma over the weekend killed dozens of people and has been roundly condemned by the international community. Trump initially responded in a tweet, promising there would be a “big price to pay” for Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his supporters.
A few GOP House members who oppose the use of military force absent congressional approval aired their disagreement with a potential strike on Monday. Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie said such a move would be unconstitutional, and Michigan Republican Justin Amash tweeted a quote on the subject from George Washington: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring War with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorised such a measure.”
Under the War Powers Act, the president must inform Congress of military action within two days of taking the action and is theoretically limited to a 60-day window in deploying troops without congressional approval. Most American military activities related to terrorism abroad are carried out under the broad 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) passed after the attacks of 9/11.
While a strike against the Syrian regime has the potential to spark a renewed conversation about the role of Congress in authorizing force abroad, previous incidents have been met with inaction on the part of lawmakers.
Senator Corker does expect to release information related to his proposal to update and replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs with a new authorization sometime this week ahead of a planned April 19 committee markup of the legislation. The bill is still being negotiated, but Corker says it strikes a balance in making sure that the administration has enough freedom to wage war successfully, while also ensuring Congress has a robust oversight role.
Corker and his colleagues said the AUMF would not pertain to the Syrian regime, focusing only on the war on terror. “There’s been no discussions of any consequence relative to writing an AUMF for the Syrian regime,” Corker told reporters Monday night.
But should those discussions take place?
“I don’t think so at this point,” said Corker.
