Congress Offers Bipartisan Blank Warmaking Check to Donald Trump

Posted on by

Yves here. We are far from alone to take notice of the bizarre contrast between the non-stop attacks by the press, Democrats, and quite a few Republicans on Trump’s erratic temperament and his deficient moral compass, yet Congress is perfectly happy to confirm and even strengthen his warmaking and surveillance powers.

By Major Danny Sjursen, a U.S. Army officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, . He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at and check out his podcast “,” co-hosted with fellow vet Chris ‘Henri’ Henriksen. Originally published at

It may be too late. The president of the United States is now a veritable autocrat in the realm of foreign policy. He has been since at least 1945, when the last congressionally declared war finally ended. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen (among other places) were all waged via executive fiat or feeble, open-ended congressional authorizations for the use of military force, aka AUMFs. So it has been with increasing intensity for 73 years and so, most likely, it will remain.

Along with many , this military officer has repeatedly the no-longer-new normal of congressional acquiescence to presidential power to no avail. When, in September 2017, Republican Senator Rand Paul sought to repeal (and replace within six months) the existing 2001 AUMF, which had authorized the president to use force against the perpetrators and enablers of the 9/11 attacks, he could barely 35 votes. Given that any president, Republican or Democrat, would veto such a curtailment of the essentially unlimited executive prerogative to make war, that’s still some 32 votes short of a Senate override. In hopelessly divided Washington, that’s the definition of impossibility.

Fear not, two brave “centrist” senators, Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Tim Kaine, are riding to the rescue. Their recently bill to repeal and replace the existing AUMF promises to right seven decades of wrong and “establish rigorous congressional oversight,” “improve transparency,” and ensure “regular congressional review and debate.”

In reality, it would do none of those things. Though Senator Kaine gave a resounding speech in which he admitted that “for too long Congress has given presidents a blank check to wage war,” his bill would not stanch that power. Were it ever to pass, it would prove to be just another blank check for the war-making acts of Donald Trump and his successors.

Though there have certainly been many of their piece of legislation, most miss the larger point: the Corker-Kaine bill would put a final congressional stamp of approval on the inversion of the war-making process that, over the last three-quarters of a century, has become a de facto constitutional reality. The men who wrote the Constitution meant to make the declaration of war a supremely difficult act, since both houses of Congress needed to agree and, in case of presidential disagreement, to be able to muster a supermajority to override a veto.

The Corker-Kaine bill would institutionalize the inverse of that. It would essentially rubber stamp the president’s authority, for instance, to continue the ongoing shooting wars in at least countries where the U.S. is currently dropping bombs or firing off other munitions. Worse yet, it provides a mechanism for the president to declare nearly any future group an “associated force” or “successor force” linked to one of America’s current foes and so ensure that Washington’s nearly 17-year-old set of forever wars can go on into eternity without further congressional approval.

By transferring the invocation of war powers to the executive branch, Congress would, in fact, make it even more difficult to stop a hawkish president from deploying U.S. soldiers ever more expansively. In other words, the onus for war would then be officially shifted from a president needing to make a case to a skeptical Congress to an unfettered executive sanctioned to wage expansive warfare as he and his advisers or please.

How to Make War on Any Group, Any Time

Should the Corker-Kaine bill miraculously pass, it would not stop even one of the present ongoing U.S. conflicts in the Greater Middle East or Africa. Instead, it would belatedly put a congressional stamp of approval on a worldwide counter-terror campaign which isn’t , while politely requesting that the president ask nicely before adding new enemies to a list of “associated” or “successor” forces; that is, groups that are usually Arab and nominally Muslim and essentially have little or no connection to the 9/11 attacks that produced the 2001 AUMF.

So let’s take a look at just some of the forces that would be preemptively authorized to receive new American bombs and missiles, Special Operations forces raids, or whatever else the president chose under the proposed legislation, while raising a question rarely asked: Are these groups actually threats to the homeland or worthy of such American military efforts?

Al-Qaeda (AQ) proper naturally makes the list. Then, of course, there’s the Afghan Taliban, which once upon a time sheltered AQ. As nearly 17 years of effort have shown, however, they are militarily unbeatable in a war in their own homeland that is never for Washington. In addition, there are no significant al-Qaeda forces left in Afghanistan for the Taliban to potentially shelter. AQ long ago dispersed across the region. The age of plots drawn up in the caves of the Hindu-Kush is long over. In addition, the focus of the Taliban remains (as it always was) highly local. I those guys for 12 months and, let me tell you, we never found any transnational fighters or al-Qaeda vets. The vast majority of the enemies Washington mislabels as “Taliban” are poor, illiterate, unemployed farm boys interested, at best, in local power struggles and drug running. They rarely know what’s happening just one valley over, let alone in Milwaukee.

Then there’s al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a particularly vicious AQ franchise in Yemen. These are genuine bad actors and, for a while during the Obama administration, were considered the top terror to the U.S. Still, that’s not who the American military actually fights in Yemen most of the time. U.S. Air Force fuelers provide in-flight service, U.S. analysts provide updated targeting intelligence, and U.S. megacorporations sell guided bombs to the Saudis, who mostly bomb Shia Houthi rebels (and often civilians) unaffiliated with — in fact, opposed to — AQAP. Worse still, the campaign against the Houthis actually AQAP by sowing chaos and creating vast ungoverned spaces for it to move into. The Houthis aren’t on the Corker-Kaine list yet, but no doubt (amid increasing military tensions with Iran) Mr. Trump would have little trouble adding them as “associated forces.” Are they brown? Yes. Do they worship Allah? Sure. Throw ‘em on the list.

Al-Shabaab in Somalia is also included. Its nasty militiamen do make life miserable in Somalia and have occasionally for attacks on U.S. targets. There’s no evidence, however, that U.S. military operations there have ever stabilized the region or improved long-term security. Meanwhile, al-Shabaab tries to young Somali-American youth in immigrant communities like cities like Minneapolis. Their main gripe: the U.S. military presence and drone strikes in East Africa. And on and on the cycle goes.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), which operates in North Africa, is another “associated force” that’s taken on the AQ moniker, though with a distinctly local flavor. AQIM operates in several countries. Does the Corker-Kaine bill then imply that the U.S. military may conduct strikes and raids anywhere in North Africa? Odds are that it does. Again, though AQIM is violent and problematic for local African security forces, they’ve never successfully the United States. As professor and Africa expert Nathaniel Powell has , more often than not U.S. military operations in the Maghreb or the Sahel (just south of the Sahara desert) tend only to exacerbate existing conditions, motivate yet more Islamists, and tangle Washington up in what are essentially local problems and grievances.

Finally, there’s al-Qaeda in Syria, as the bill labels them. This is the crew that used to be known as the al-Nusra Front. The Islamic State, or ISIS, eventually brokeoff from AQ and has even fought al-Nusra Front militants on occasion. No doubt, U.S. interests are never served when any al-Qaeda franchise gains power and influence. Still, there’s little evidence that the former al-Nusra Front, which is losing the civil war inside Syria, has either the staying power or capacity to attack the U.S. homeland.

Add in this: the U.S. military in Syria has rarely attacked al-Nusra, focusing instead on ISIS or occasional strikes at the regime of Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad. In addition, in the past, America’s Saudi allies have this and other radical Islamist groups and some U.S. aid has even inadvertently the hands of al-Nusra Front fighters in the mess that passes for the Syrian civil war.

And don’t let me get started on those “successor forces” — think ISIS and its brands around the world — a term so vague as to ensure that any Islamist organization or country, including Iran, could, by a stretch of the imagination, be as a target of the U.S. military.

Lumping these various groups under the umbrella of “associated” or “successor” forces ignores the agency and specificity of each of them and so provides any president with a blank check to fight anyone he deems loosely Islamist the world over. And if he cares to, he can just add any new gang he chooses onto the list and dare the Senate to muster 67 votes to stop him.

Consider it a remarkable formula for forever war.

The Dangerous Evolution of Article II of the Constitution

When you get right down to it, all the debate over AUMFs is little more than a charade. It hardly matters whether Congress ever updates that post-9/11 document. When, for instance, President Trump recently soaring against the Assad regime in response to an alleged chemical attack on a suburb of Damascus, neither he nor his advisers even bothered to suggest that the strike fell under that AUMF. Instead, they simply claimed that Trump was exercising his presidential prerogative under Article II, , of the Constitution, which makes him commander-in-chief.

In such moments, right-wing presidents and their advisers have no compunctions about turning the standard liberal argument about the Constitution on its head — that it’s a “living document” subject to the exigencies of changing times. Of course, it’s not exactly an obscure fact of history that the framers of that document never meant to grant the chief executive unilateral authority to start new conflicts — and “strictly constructionist” conservatives know it. The Founders were of standing armies and imperial overreach. After all, when they wrote the document they’d only recently brought their own revolt against imperial England and its vaunted army of redcoats to a successful conclusion. So, to construe the Constitution’s commander-in-chief clause, which gave the president the authority to oversee the generals in an ongoing war, as letting him declare wars or even expand them qualifies as absurd. Nonetheless, that’s just what recent presidents have claimed.

What they like to say is that times have changed, that warfare is now too swift for an eighteenth-century recipe involving Congress, and that, in such abbreviated circumstances, presidents need the authority to apply military force at will on a global scale. The thing is, Congress has already recognized this potential reality and codified it into law in the 1973 . This fairly sensible, though generally ignored, piece of legislation requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military deployment and remove the troops after 60 days unless legislation officially sanctions the escalation. Presidents tend to be meticulous about the first requirement and then — like Congress itself — pay no attention to the second.

Obviously, Bashar al-Assad’s regime had nothing to do with 9/11 and so falls under no imaginable interpretation of that 2001 AUMF. Therefore, President Trump has on his own essentially launched a new conflict, with a new enemy, in western Syria. He’s “notified” Congress of the latest missile strikes, of course, and that’s that.

Salvation Will Not Come From the “Bipartisan” Center

Early are that the Corker-Kaine bill is unlikely to pass the Senate (no less the House) and, if it did, wouldn’t have a hope in hell of outlasting a presidential veto. You know that the system is broken, possibly beyond repair, when the secretary of defense — one “Mad Dog” Mattis — is the only figure around Donald Trump to have argued for getting a congressional stamp of approval before launching those missiles against the Assad regime. Think of it this way: a retired general, the official top dog of destruction in this administration, was overruled by the civilian leadership in the White House when it came to an act of imperial war-making.

In other words, we’re through the looking glass, folks!

As a thought experiment: What would it actually take for a supermajority of both houses of Congress to curtail a president’s unilateral war-making power? Liberals might have thought that the election of a boorish, uninformed executive would embolden moderates on both sides of the aisle to reclaim some authority over the lives and deaths of America’s soldiers. It didn’t, nor did such passivity start with Donald Trump. Mainstream liberals certainly treated the presidency of George W. Bush as if it were the worst disaster since Richard Nixon, Watergate, and Vietnam. Even so, they never had the guts to cut off funds for the obvious, ongoing folly in Iraq. Mostly, in fact, they first a resolution supporting that invasion and then heckled pointlessly from the sidelines as Bush waged a dubiously legal, unwinnable war to his heart’s content.

Conservatives absolutely hated Obama. They questioned his very legitimacy and even his citizenship (as did , of course) — or at least stayed conveniently silent while the far right of the GOP caucus did so. Still, Republicans then essentially did nothing to curtail his unilateral decision to to a kind of frenzy across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa and oversee a . Rarely, for example, in the bazillion hearings the Republicans sponsored on the deaths of an American ambassador and others in Benghazi, Libya, did anyone call for a serious reappraisal of executive war-making authority.

Despite the paltry Corker-Kaine bill, expect no respite or salvation from Congress, which is, in truth, at the heart of the problem. To move the needle on war-making would take grassroots pressure similar to that applied by the Vietnam-era antiwar movement. But such a movement looks highly with the , few citizens engaged in foreign policy issues, and even fewer seeming to notice that this country has now been involved in still-spreading wars for almost 17 years.

To recapture military authority from an imperial president and inject sanity into the system, “We the People” would have to break out the pink pussy caps, gather the young and their — Parkland-style — and bring the sort of energy now going into domestic crises to issues of war and peace. Suffice it to say, I’m not hopeful.

Whether noticed or not, whether attended to or not, there is, however, a grave question before the American people: Is the United States to remain a democracy (of sorts) within its borders, but a war-making empire beyond its shores? Certainly, it’s most of the way to such a state already with its “all volunteer” imperial military and unrestrained war presidency.

Just about everything is in place for an (elected) executive emperor to move his imperial chess pieces wherever he pleases. Nothing in the Corker-Kaine cop-out of a bill can or will change that. In truth, it doesn’t even pretend to.

When it comes to war, the president reigns supreme — and so, it seems, he shall remain.

Hail, Caesar!

[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10 comments

  1. The Rev Kev

    Maybe it is time to hold a Convention to make changes to the US Constitution, an Article V Convention in fact, and update it to the 21st realities of power politics. Just change it around and streamline it so that it actually reflects how it is being used to make everything legal like. The short way would be to vote in a 28th Constitutional Amendment where it would state that National Security takes precedence to all other laws in the Constitution when expedient to do so. That is what I would call the blank cheque approach and would serve to make everything legal if invoked. This 28th Constitutional Amendment could even have its own name such as the Deep State Amendment. Who would make findings on where & when this amendment would apply? Why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) would of course. They just wouldn’t be able to publish what findings they make.
    The longer way would be to change the Constitution to the 21st century to reflect how things are actually done. Take war powers as mentioned in this article. Make it so that the President has the absolute power to make war wherever and when ever he wants without needing either the Senate or Congress just like it happens now. In fact, it might be easier then if the US armed forces swore an oath of allegiance to the sitting President rather than the US Constitution. You know, just like they did in old Europe. Maybe do away with limits to how many terms a sitting President can serve. After all, there was no two-term limit to the President for the first 160 odd years in US history so why did they start? But you get the idea of all this. The same could be done with surveillance powers as well. Just change the US Constitution to make it reflect how things are done nowadays. Then the Democrats, Republicans, the Senate, Congress, the Supreme Court, Pentagon would be all happy and satisfied then.

    Reply
    1. Tyronius

      Have you noticed what’s happened to every citizen movement in the last half century that’s gained momentum and threatened to hold the Federal Government accountable for anything?

      The Rubicon has been (quietly) crossed. We may as well be throwing snowballs into Hell.

      The author said, ‘I’m not hopeful.’ I’m not, either. America has become the embodiment of everything the Founding Fathers feared.

      Don’t get me wrong; limits would be great and I applaud your efforts. Who’s going to bell the cat? Americans will realize the error of their ways only when it becomes visible at home and as 9/11 showed, likely not even then.

      Reply
      1. Jim Haygood

        Americans will realize the error of their ways only when it becomes visible at home.

        Quite so. Like all empires, America’s post-1945 global empire does not extract enough plunder from its vassal states to pay for itself. It’s a pure deadweight loss that’s slowly suffocating the US economy by depriving it of social and infrastructural investment.

        We are the Soviet Union now, and as occurred in that recent failed empire, one day the imperial structure will visibly collapse as our vassal states simply walk away, no longer impressed by America’s hollow, bankrupt authority and its irrelevant yankee occupation troops.

        Reply
        1. JBird

          The Presidency hasn’t taken anything from the Congress.

          Congress still has the money power of the purse, it still makes the law, and it is supposed to be the senior branch of government. However, instead of governing, which takes thoughtful foresight, planning, unglamorous work, and the risk of making mistakes (which would inevitably happen) the political establishment has let the government run on itself, letting someone, anyone run the government while they play a perpetual game of Election.

          Reply
    2. Damson

      The Continuity of Government Act pretty much does that already.

      It hardly matters which cracked actor sits in the White House – the real drivers of the war machine are elsewhere.

      Reply
  2. Alex

    What is puzzling for me is that in the times of supposedly strict congressional oversight in 19th century the US waged quite a lot of wars, including purely aggressive ones with Mexico and Spain, not to mention operations in Latin America

    Reply
    1. Disturbed Voter

      The Legislative Branch isn’t innocent. Neither is the Judicial Branch. Our faults don’t lie in the stars, but in ourselves. Over-focus on Executive Privilege is what got Cassius and Brutus in trouble. The whole Senate needed assassinating, not just the Dictator.

      Reply
    2. JBird

      Yes, the United States did have many small undeclared war, but they were just that, small, limited and short term conflicts using only the always small, even tiny, standing army in militia and the slightly more impressive navy. Any really serious conflicts with other countries( Great Britain, Mexico, Spain, Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany again, Japan, and Italy) had a declaration of war.

      Through the Spanish-American War, the various States’ militaries were in some ways more important than the actual Federal army although the Army was the required base or framework. Until 1916-1919, and 1942-1946, and from 1951 onward, the regular United States Army was almost a joke. The Navy was better because it is hard to protect merchant vessels or prevent attacks from the oceans without an ongoing professional navy. The Barbary Corsairs was the reason why it was recreated after all.

      The major wars required not only Congressional approval but also a vast increase in approved spending. No approval, no funding. No funds, no war after a very short time.

      Reply
  3. Chauncey Gardiner

    How coincidental… Israeli MPs just gave Netanyahu power to wage war without a cabinet vote. Israel’s PM now needs only the approval of his defense minister to begin new conflicts. Coupled with the appointments in the Trump administration over the past few months, it’s not hard to connect the dots as to where this is leading.

    Good-by checks and balances. We hardly knew ye.

    Reply
    1. Damson

      The ex-bouncer, Avigor Lieberman and the indicted-for-corruption, dependent-on-Occupied Terroritories (sic) PM…. single-handedly controlling ‘foreign policy’ (also known as Death and Destruction To All in The Israeli Neighbourhood ‘)…

      What could possibly go wrong?

      As Trump is fully in the Zio-pocket, it’s only a matter of time before media is’ revealing ‘Irans’ WMD’.

      Already starting at Breitbart – of course.

      Reply

Leave a Reply