Flake: Authorize new war
Sen. Jeff Flake is reviving his years-long push for a new authorization for the use of military force against the terror groups Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Flake, R-Ariz., is again teaming up with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., on a new bipartisan war authorization that would repeal previous resolutions from 2001 and 2002 to better reflect today’s battlegrounds in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia.
Current military action against Islamic State, or ISIS, is conducted under an authorization of the use of military force, or AUMF, that Congress adopted immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
It’s still operative because even though Islamic State didn’t exist at the time, it is deemed an associated force of al-Qaida, which carried out the strikes on New York City and Washington, D.C., almost 16 years ago.
But Flake and Kaine argue the 2001 authorization is out of date and Congress needs a better template for the current situation, recognizing that, in the future, ISIS is likely to morph into another group and the fight could shift again.
As a freshman member of the House of Representatives, Flake voted for the post-9/11 authorization, but noted to The
Arizona Republic that many of today’s sitting members were not in Congress at the time.
“This one is specifically tailored to deal with non-state actors,” said Flake, who with Kaine sits on the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Most of the conflicts we engage in now are not against countries in which you declare war and it ends in defeat or surrender. It’s different nowadays.”
Flake and Kaine’s authorization would formally repeal the 2001 authorization and a 2002 resolution against Iraq.
“We owe it to the American public to define the scope of the U.S. mission against terrorist organizations, including ISIS, and we owe it to our troops to show we’re behind them in their mission,” Kaine said in a written statement. “It’s our constitutional duty in Congress to authorize military action, yet we’ve stood silent as administrations have stretched the 2001 AUMF far beyond its original purpose.”
Past efforts by Flake and Kaine to update the authorization have not been successful. Congress did not act even after then-President Barack Obama in February 2015 asked for an updated authorization that would provide more flexibility for “unforeseen circumstances.”
President Donald Trump hasn’t expressed an opinion, but Defense Secretary James Mattis has signaled he wants an AUMF, Flake said.
In the past, Democrats and Republicans could not come to terms on key points, such as whether U.S. ground troops should be limited.
“Both sides have been fearful of bringing something like this up, but we shouldn’t accept that,” Flake said.
Many members of Congress are content not to have ownership of foreign military actions, particularly now that “war fatigue set in years ago and most Americans don’t care about the entire issue,” other than not wanting to see American casualties, one political expert said.
Lawmakers can freely criticize if something goes wrong without having to take any responsibility.
“That’s the appeal of drones and cruise missiles: It’s warfare by remote control,” said John J. “Jack” Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California. “That’s popular because you get to blow up the bad guys without putting your own people at risk.”
But Flake and Kaine suggest Congress has been constitutionally derelict.
“We’re the people’s representatives, and the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war,” Flake told The Republic. “We’ve really abdicated that authority when we go 16 years without expressing our will. That’s not a good situation. The flip side is the administration is more effective, with regard to diplomacy or representing the country, if our adversaries and our allies know that we’re united.”
Whether their House and Senate colleagues, or the American public, will be swayed by the constitutional argument remains to be seen.
“What’s constitutionally required and what’s politically popular are two different things,” Pitney said. “Kaine and Flake take their oath of office seriously, but, unfortunately, that’s a position that doesn’t get a great deal of applause.”
Nowicki is The Republic’s national political reporter. Follow him on Twitter, @dannowicki.