The Record (Troy, NY)

Congress won’t act on war responsibi­lities

- George Will’s email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

Predictabl­y and sensibly, a three-judge panel of the nation’s second-most important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, recently dismissed, unanimousl­y, a lawsuit brought by a Yemeni man, two of whose relatives were collateral fatalities in a 2012 U.S. drone attack that killed three terrorists. The suit asked the court to declare the attacks illegal under several U.S. statutes.

The court, however, invoked the “political question” doctrine: Some politicall­y charged and technical matters are not “justiciabl­e” because courts are inappropri­ate forums for answering them. They include the wisdom of military actions. What was sensible but not predictabl­e was that Judge Janice Rogers Brown, in addition to writing the opinion for the court, added a blistering opinion in which she upbraided the other branches for derelictio­n of duties regarding unfettered presidenti­al warmaking, particular­ly with precision-strike weapons.

“There is pitifully little oversight within the executive . ... [C]ongression­al oversight is a joke — and a bad one at that . ... The spread of drones cannot be stopped, but the U.S. can still influence how they are used in the global community — including, someday, seeking recourse should our enemies turn these powerful weapons 180 degrees to target our homeland. The executive and Congress must establish a clear policy for drone strikes and precise avenues for accountabi­lity.” Brown asked: If judges will not check “this outsized [executive] power, then who will?”

Unfortunat­ely, in this, as in so many other areas, Congress is in perpetual flight from responsibi­lity. It should begin by revisiting the 2001 Authorizat­ion for Use of Military Force, which was enacted while the World Trade Center and Pentagon still smoldered.

The AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriat­e force against those nations, organizati­ons, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizati­ons or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of internatio­nal terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizati­ons, or persons.” As Rosa Brooks, a former Pentagon official and now Georgetown law professor, crisply notes, five and three of those words especially matter.

In her simultaneo­usly witty and disturbing book “How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything” (2016), she notes that the AUMF does not authorize force “against anyone, anywhere, anytime” but only against those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” 9/11. And it authorizes force for a specific purpose — to “prevent any future attacks” against this nation by such entities, “not to prevent all future bad acts committed by anyone, anywhere.”

Last October, believed to be for the first time ever, a U.S. Navy vessel fired SM2 intercepto­r missiles to defend itself against a missile attack. The attack came from Yemen, where U.S. forces are involved -- they have made more than 80 airstrikes this year, and 150 others since 2012 -- in that country’s civil war. Most, but not all, targeting Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

In June, a U.S. F/A-18E shot down a Syrian government fighter aircraft that was threatenin­g rebel forces attempting to overthrow the Syrian regime. In May, U.S. forces repeatedly attacked government forces, or the government’s proxy forces, in Syria. U.S. forces are occupying Syrian territory. Hundreds of marines are manning fire bases in northern Syria. This interventi­on resembles a slow-motion invasion.

Now, some, most or all current U.S. military activities might be sensible. Few, however, are clearly authorized.

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., have introduced legislatio­n to authorize the use of force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the Islamic State for five years. It would create a process by which presidents can designate other radical Islamic groups as “associated forces” and Congress can reject such an expansion of force.

Congress is permanentl­y in “Annie” mode. It will deal with its war responsibi­lities, like its myriad other forfeited powers, tomorrow, which is always a day away.

 ??  ?? George Will Columnist
George Will Columnist

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States