Cole wants Congress to take back its war powers

U.S. Rep. Tom Cole wants Congress to take back its war powers, and he has foundan unlikely ally in that fight.

On July 14, the Republican from Moore attached an amendment to an annual defense bill that “directs the president to provide to Congress a strategy and a budgetary analysis needed to defeat Al-Quaeda (sic), the Taliban, The Islamic State of Iraq and ISIS” within 30 days of when Congress passes the bill.

The amendment marks a stark departure for a Congress that has, for 16 years, allowed three presidents, both Republican and Democratic, to conduct military operations in more than a dozen countries with little oversight.

“Presidents have been able to go to war anytime, anywhere,” Cole said in an interview this week. “That’s dangerous and at odds with the Constitution.”

Three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress overwhelmingly approved an authorization for use of military force that has since been used to justify military actions in Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Djibouti, among others.

“ISIS didn’t exist at the time of the last AUMF (authorization for use of military force) and no one thought we would be in Syria,” said Cole, who joined Congress in 2003. Only two of Oklahoma’s seven members of Congress were in office during the 2001 vote.

Cole calls his amendment “a baby step but the right step” for overturning Congress’ lethargy on war authorization. He said the administration of President Donald Trump has been “a little ambiguous” on foreign policy. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has said he would support a new authorization for use of military force to fight the Islamic State.

“No administration should be able to use the military when and wherever they want,” Cole said.

The congressman said he discussed his amendment with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and negotiated its language. Cole wanted to direct the House Foreign Affairs Committee to write a new authorization for use of military force but settled for an amendment that will require the administration to present its plan to Congress.

The issue of a new authorization for use of military force does not fall neatly along partisan lines. There are some in Cole’s party who agree with him and others who disagree. Some Democrats support a new authorization for use of military force and others don’t.

The only member of Congress to vote against the authorization for use of military force in 2001 was U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat who represents Oakland and Berkeley, Calif. Lee was concerned at the time that an authorization for use of military force approved to fight terrorism in Afghanistan could be used to justify wars elsewhere. She has since led afight to replace the authorization for use of military force and rein in presidents’ war-making powers.

“We’re not exactly soul mates,” Cole said with a hearty laugh when asked about the unlikely partnership between a Republican from Oklahoma and a Democrat from California.

Lee, in a statement, called Cole “a steady and principled partner” on authorization for use of military force reform “and a committed voice for our service members and their families.”

“It is an honor to work with him and our colleagues in both parties to fulfill our constitutional obligations and repeal the 2001 AUMF,” she said.

If a new authorization for use of military force is crafted, Lee and Cole will likely split when it comes time to vote on it. Lee, an anti-war liberal, is expected to vote against. Cole, who is far more hawkish on foreign policy, says he would likely vote in favor.

Still, bipartisan agreement to write a new authorization for use of military force is progress in the eyes of Cole and Lee. The Republican said congressional leaders in both parties have stifled discussions on war and peace for fear of forcing their members to take politically damaging stances.

“I think leadership on both sides have tried to protect members from taking tough votes. These are difficult votes,” Cole said.

“Congress has a sacred responsibility,” Lee said, “laid out in the Constitution, to debate matters of war and peace. If Congress is willing to deploy brave service members to fight around the globe, at a minimum we should have the backbone to debate and vote on this decision on the House floor.”

Because the Cole amendment was approved by a voice vote, no recorded tally of ayes and nays was taken. All five members of the U.S. House from Oklahoma voted in favor of the defense bill, which contained the amendment.

Andrew Whitmer, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne, said the congressman supports the Cole amendment. Other Oklahoma congressmen avoided questions about the measure.

U.S. Rep. Steve Russell, an Oklahoma City Republican and retired Army commander, canceled two interviews he had scheduled with The Oklahoman to discuss the Cole amendment. A spokesman said Russell is “exclusively interested” in discussing his opposition to air traffic control privatization and nothing else.

Sheryl Kaufman, a spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Tulsa, said a reporter’s question about the congressman’s stance on the authorization for use of military force “is not germane” and she declined to say whether the congressman supports the Cole amendment.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Westville, did not respond to a question about the amendment.