Modest Proposal for Congress to Reclaim War Authority

By MARK ANDERSON

In a bipartisan battle, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been butting heads with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) over a proposed joint resolution by the latter two lawmakers to remake the infamous Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Paul views the Corker-Kaine AUMF resolution as a case of severe misdirection that opens the door for more widespread war under the guise of limiting presidential war-making powers.

Paul wrote May 7 in the American Conservative: “This ... is a deeply flawed AUMF.” He added: “For some time now, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war.”

The words “for some time” downplay that it’s been 77 years since Congress formally declared war in accordance with its original Article I constitutional authority. That was on Dec. 8, 1941, one day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Paul also wrote: “The status quo is that we are at war anywhere and anytime the president says so … It is clear upon reading the [new] AUMF … that it gives nearly unlimited power to this or any other president to be at war whenever [the president] wants, with minimal justification and no prior specific authority.”

For the record, Paul emphasized that the Corker-Kane AUMF “declares war on at least the following places and people: the Taliban, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, ISIS anywhere, al-Shabaab in Somalia and elsewhere, al-Qaeda in Syria, al-Nusra in Syria, the Haqqani network in Pakistan and Afghanistan, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, in Niger, Algeria, Libya, and Nigeria, and associated forces (as defined by the president) around the globe [all emphasis in original].”

Paul also noted that “previous AUMFs have never included ‘associated forces,’ and with good reason. Yet the [Corker-Kaine] AUMF not only codifies military action against those associated forces, but by conservative estimates authorizes war in over 20 nations.”

A look at the AUMF resolution itself and an associated press statement from Kaine’s office seems to bear that out, at least for the most part.

One of many parts that Paul sees as problematic, as spelled out in Kaine’s statement, is as follows:

“Authorizes the executive to use all necessary and appropriate force against al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and designated associated forces. The legislation does not provide authority for military action against any nation state.”

Thus, the new AUMF resolution, cosponsored by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), could be interpreted, on the one hand, as imposing limits, since wars against other nation states are evidently excluded. Yet the terrorist outfits named in the resolution—since such outfits must be located somewhere—conceivably could be pursued nearly anywhere in the world.

And while Paul agreed that the AUMF passed after 9/11 “has become too broad and needs updating,” he concluded that the new version “would forever allow the executive unlimited latitude in determining war, and would leave Congress debating such action after forces have already been committed … Congress could only disapprove of war, turning the Constitution on its head. Even worse, any resolution of disapproval could be vetoed.”

The background dynamics are equally intriguing. Paul’s fellow Republicans, as outlined in a recent Politico profile, regard him as a rebel whose views can be as objectionable, if not more so, than those of most Democrats. War is highly profitable for the investments and constituencies of most Republicans, as well as many Democrats — their self-cultivated image as peacemakers notwithstanding.

What Rand Paul offers is plain talk. Agree with him or not, you pretty much know where he’s coming from, much like Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). True, Paul caved to President Trump on confirming Mike Pompeo, the former CIA chief, as Secretary of State, but Trump knows Rand is his own person.

The irony is that real opposition to any excesses in the Trump White House could and probably should mainly come from the Republican Party itself, since Democratic opposition is too easily written off as partisan politics.

But the Republican Party’s notorious “big tent” is so huge that numerous, divergent philosophies fit underneath it. It’s a wonder that anti-war Republicans like Paul and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) are allowed in the GOP at all.

While this suggests the need for more parties, that tent has acted as a kind of political concentration camp, where enough worldviews for another 2-3 parties have been, in effect, imprisoned, lest they escape and solve some problems.

Imagine a new anti-war party where progressives and rebel-conservatives decide to shake up the two-party “duopoly” which too often functions as one “war party.” Would that be a way to regain the power of Congress to declare war the old-fashioned way?

Mark Anderson is a veteran journalist who divides his time between Texas and Michigan. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

From The Progressive Populist, June 15, 2018

Populist.com