In other words, the debate over the 2002 measure isn’t nearly over, and it’s just the start of a massive war-powers-reform debate.
In the first step toward a potential realignment of war powers from the presidency to Congress, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted last night to repeal the 2002 resolution that authorized the Iraq war.
The repeal bill was proposed by Representative Barbara Lee, a longtime opponent of granting the White House expansive powers to enter into conflicts without explicit congressional approval. In a 28–19 vote, all of the panel’s Democrats supported the measure, in addition to Republican Representatives Ken Buck and Peter Meijer.
But there’s more GOP support for repeal of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq in the House. I spoke with Representative Mike Gallagher, who is not on the Foreign Affairs Committee, this week about his own war-powers-reform proposal (which he cosponsored with Meijer and two Democrats, Abigail Spanberger and Jared Gold). That bill would repeal the 2002 AUMF, in addition to the 1991 Gulf War authorization and an Eisenhower-era resolution that broadly authorizes the use of force in the Middle East.
This repeal effort, though, faces headwinds in the Senate. Democrats have the upper hand in the chamber, but it’s not clear that they’ll be able to clear the 60-vote threshold to repeal the 2002 authorization. While a handful of GOP senators — such as Todd Young, who has partnered with Tim Kaine on a measure to repeal the 2002 and 1991 authorizations — have sought to reform the war-powers status quo, it’s not clear that enough will support Lee’s bill.
For certain hawks, that might come as a relief. Representatives Joe Wilson and Jim Banks told National Review last week that repealing the 2002 AUMF would come at the expense of the U.S. government’s ability to combat Iranian military activity in Iraq. They point to the Trump administration’s invocation of the resolution in a memo justifying the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.
Still, not even those worried about maintaining legal justification for countering Iran-backed militias wish to keep the 2002 resolution on the books indefinitely. “We must do this as part of a comprehensive replacement to provide clear authorities against the terrorists who still plot to kill Americans at home and abroad,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Michael McCaul, in a statement following last night’s vote. “Rushing this stand-alone repeal after just two days and without even talking to our military leaders sends a terrible message to our adversaries around the world.”
Regardless of where the 2002 repeal effort goes, broaching the topic of the 2001 AUMF that has essentially authorized the entire Global War on Terror will kick off an intense debate. It’s far more expansive than the 2002 authorization, and the advocates of eliminating the Iraq AUMF justify their position on the grounds that doing so wouldn’t disrupt ongoing military operations, which can still be justified under the 2001 measure.
Some hawks, such as Gallagher, will advocate carefully tailored revisions that grant more congressional buy-in, such as requiring that it be renewed every so often. But others might seek restrictions on the countries in which U.S. forces can operate or the tactics that they may use on the battlefield, or even seek its outright repeal. Such a radical approach would likely be a nonstarter for many members of Congress.
In other words, the debate over the 2002 measure isn’t nearly over, and it’s just the start of a massive war-powers-reform effort.