Strengthening Checks and Balances
|
Analysis

Congress Must Reclaim and Reassert War Power

The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the president, should be the branch deciding when our nation goes to war.

Collage of the U.S. Capitol, the White House, the seal of the U.S. president, and a group of soldiers.

(Illustration: Ren Velez / POGO; Photos: Getty Images)

As the poorly handled Afghanistan withdrawal played out before our eyes in late 2021, the American public was understandably left with some devastating questions: What was it all for? Was it worth it? Who is responsible? Will anyone be held accountable?

Setting aside for the moment the narrower question of the withdrawal itself, the bigger questions about how the United States decides matters of war and peace remain. According to the Constitution, it is clearly Congress that is supposed to decide whether the country goes to war. And, under the War Powers Resolution enacted by Congress in 1973, there are specific conditions and criteria which must be met before the president can act to deploy the military.

But more than 20 years of war in Afghanistan showed us the weaknesses in the current war powers framework. The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan early in the Biden administration is the culmination of years of Congress both actively refusing and passively surrendering its vital power over the authorization and oversight of military operations. Based on bombshell revelations that came to light in “The Afghanistan Papers” in 2019, high-ranking officials from across the military and civilian Department of Defense leadership had known and kept secret from the public a damning truth: Afghanistan was an unwinnable quagmire. 

These revelations raise critical questions about Congress’s role in keeping that war going, offering two equally untenable options. Either Congress was in the dark about how badly the Afghanistan operations were being managed, or Congress also knew but collaborated in lying to the American people about it.   

The affront to the public resulting from lies and obfuscations about Afghanistan (as well as those that underpinned the invasion of Iraq) are bad enough. What is even worse are the astronomical costs of the post-9/11 wars (including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among others), which include the horrifying human costs of more than 900,000 direct deaths and between 4.5 million and 4.7 million direct and indirect deaths and an estimated $8 trillion in bloated budgets. Given where we find ourselves, it is necessary to question how we got here. 

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress immediately enacted an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), giving then-President George W. Bush permission to undertake military operations in pursuit of al-Qaida and the Taliban. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. commenced an invasion of Afghanistan. As soon as 2002, Congress enacted another AUMF, this one paving the way for the invasion of Iraq, an act that has come to be viewed by many Americans as a mistake. Since the original passage of the 2001 AUMF focused on al-Qaida and the Taliban, that same authorization has been used to undergird operations in more than a dozen places other than Afghanistan and against organizations and entities other than al-Qaida and the Taliban.

That vote to enact the 2002 AUMF for the invasion of Iraq was the last time Congress has voted affirmatively to authorize the deployment of the military, despite ongoing operations in numerous places and against numerous targets in the ensuing two decades. As POGO has pointed out before, it is shocking and alarming how very few members of Congress who voted on either or both of the AUMFs are still serving today. This means that Congress has largely remained on the sidelines as the original wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as their illegitimate offshoot operations, have ground on and metastasized for decades. If Congress has not had a meaningful role in the use of the military over the last two decades, neither have the American people. 

As the 119th Congress sets about prioritizing issues to tackle over the next two years, it must include war powers reform at the top of the list.

The good news is that there are some members of Congress who take this problem seriously and are trying to do something about it. Former Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) was among the first to highlight this problem and call for repealing the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, as well as being the lone vote against the original enactment of the 2001 AUMF. More recently, both the House and Senate have passed bipartisan bills to repeal the 2002 AUMF. Additionally, there have been recent bipartisan legislative efforts that would support Congress in reclaiming its war powers. 

As the 119th Congress sets about prioritizing issues to tackle over the next two years, it must include war powers reform at the top of the list. A new congressional session and a new presidential administration present the perfect opportunity for a rebalancing of the powers of the legislative branch. 

Our system of government is intended to be a three-headed entity, with each branch flexing and asserting its powers in order to balance against the others. Congress, as the Article I branch, was intended to be the first among equals. If Congress is going to heal itself, it should start with clawing back war powers. 

Related Content