Antiwar groups call on Congress to crack down on Biden’s military forces after Syria strikes

A coalition of left and right from anti-War and pro-military control groups has sent a message to members of Congress: Let President Joe Biden seek authorization before launching deadly strikes such as those in February.

Last month, the Biden administration bombed two facilities in eastern Syria used by Iranian-backed militias in retaliation for recent military attacks on U.S. troops in nearby Iraq.

Lawmakers from both parties – but especially Democrats – denounced the strikes almost immediately, saying the US is not at war with Syria and that Congress does not approve of an attack on militants backed by Iran.

“Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutionally absent from extraordinary circumstances,” said then-Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a longtime advocate for strengthening Congress’ role in authorizing military operations.

The Biden administration, of course, disagrees. It argued that power of attorney was threatened by Iranian-backed US troops and that Biden had the right under Article II of the Constitution to use force to defend the troops.

But the justification was not good for those who had long wanted Congress to assert its role in deciding on America’s wars. And now they are appealing to Congress to do something about it.

In a letter to Congress shared exclusively with Vox, two dozen organizations across the political spectrum – from progressive foreign policy groups to conservative think tanks – called on lawmakers to adopt a new resolution of the armed forces’ to make clear to make that the executive branch’s strikes in Syria. on February 25, 2021 is not authorized, nor will it be similar action. ”

‘If Congress does not act to punish and ban these illegal acts, this precedent can be set to defend unauthorized military action, virtually anywhere in the world, against almost any group, and at virtually any time, as long as a government declares that the US interests are threatened by the targeted group at some point in the past or in the future, ”reads the letter.

The letter, which is expected to be sent to lawmakers only this week, is likely to add to the growing pressure in Congress to limit the president’s war powers – a pressure the White House has so far indicated it supports.

What the letter of the Resolution on Armed Forces says

As of Tuesday, the letter has 24 signatories: Action Corps, Antiwar.com, the Center for International Policy, CODEPINK, Concerned Veterans for America, Defense Priorities Initiative, Defending Rights and Dissent, Demand Progress, Environmentalists Against War, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in space, historians for peace and democracy, foreign policy only, the Libertarian Institute, MADRE, National Iranian American Council Action, Peace Action, Peace Direct, Peaceworkers, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Roots Action, STEM Strikes for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Women for Arms Trade Transparency, and the Yemeni Alliance Committee.

Together, this left-right grouping – organized by Demand Progress, Just Foreign Policy and Concerned Veterans of America – claims that the Biden government’s lawsuit for the strikes is flawed.

Under Article II of the Constitution and the Armed Forces Act of 1973, the signatories write, the legal authorities of the president to take military action without first receiving formal approval from Congress “apply only to a narrow situation where the the extreme nature of the threat makes it impractical or impossible to convene Congress in a timely manner that enables the necessary defensive actions. ”

Erik McGregor / LightRocket via Getty Images

The signatories say there was nothing “threatening” or “extreme” about the threat to U.S. troops of militants backed by Iran when the Biden government launched the Syria strike on February 25. Although the Pentagon said U.S. troops in Iraq had already been targeted in three separate rocket attacks that month, the last one – the attack in Erbil that killed a Philippine contractor and injured several U.S. troops – went into action ten days before the U.S. .

The letter claims that it ‘demonstrates[s] that there was enough time to allow Congress to exercise its duty to authorize military action. ”

The letter also notes that after the US strike in March, there was another attack on US troops – the one at the al-Asad air base in western Iraq – which many people believe was backed by the same proxy Iran.

But rather than seeing it as evidence that U.S. troops had launched the impending attack by the civilian force, the signatories of the letter claimed that the U.S. strike provoked the attack.

They cite a recent Just Security article by Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School and former Pentagon attorney, arguing that ‘self-defense is not really self-defense, but if it does pose a threat’.

However, it is still officially unknown who launched the attack on the Al-Asad air base in March and whether it was carried out in response to US retaliation or as part of the week-long campaign against US troops.

For these and other reasons, however, the signatories maintain that the strike was “unauthorized, illegal and unconstitutional” and demand that lawmakers “immediately institute military force resolutions to ban future unauthorized attacks of this kind.”

‘Their shameless claim to the authority of Article II to strike any group in any country may set a precedent that the purpose of [AUMF reform], ”Said Hadiya Afzal, organizer of Just Foreign Policy, which organized the letter attempt. “Congress must consistently defend its military and reject unauthorized military action – regardless of who is in the White House.”

The question now is whether lawmakers will listen to what the cross-ideological group has to say. The most likely outcome is that the letter will spark a growing argument over military forces over the next few months.

A war power debate has already begun in Congress

Several presidential administrations rely on two powers for the use of military force – known as AUMFs – to carry out military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria. The 2001 version made the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan green after 9/11, and the repeat of 2002 gave Congress the blessing of invading Iraq – a partner at the time Sen. Bid it voted.

Since then, Republican and Democratic governments have broadly interpreted the authorization as the U.S.’s permission to hunt down terrorists around the world, including the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. Presidents, however, still said they had the greatest authority to use the military as necessary in their role as commander-in-chief.

On the other hand, however, Biden has indicated that he will support an effort in Congress to revoke the authorization and replace it with an updated – and probably more limited – version.

“We are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorization for the use of military force currently in the books is replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure that we can protect Americans from terrorist threats. “while the eternal wars are ended,” said the White House. press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement on March 5 to Politico later posted to Twitter.

The announcement comes just two days after Kaine and Senator Todd Young (R-IN) introduced a bill that would repeal the 2002 AUMF and a 1991 measure that paved the way for war with Iraq. “Congress has the responsibility to not only vote for the authorization of new military action, but to revoke old authorization that is no longer needed,” Kaine said in a statement.

But some critics have said that new, more targeted powers will still allow Biden or any future president to bombard whenever and wherever they see fit. This is partly why rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), for example, reinstated his War Powers Resolution shortly after the White House said Biden was open for an AUMF discussion.

“This is a big step, but Congress must also prevent any president from shirking the constitutional obligation to gain congressional authority before turning American forces into hostilities – which my legislation would do,” he said in a statement. said.

Some of the groups that signed the letter, such as Demand Progress and Just Foreign Policy, supported DeFazio’s move. As of now, there is no indication that his resolution will pass through Congress or even be brought up for debate, but it shows that there is already a serious military force.