- Biden is being questioned by both sides of the aisle about airstrikes in Syria.
- Thursday’s airstrikes were backed by Iranian militias in response to recent attacks.
- Some legislators question the legality of strikes, while others express their support.
- Visit the Insider Business Department for more stories.
President Joe Biden is facing questions from Congress about his decision to carry out airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias in Syria, specifically regarding his authority to carry out the move.
Biden on Thursday targeted airstrikes on facilities used by Iranian-backed militias operating across the Iraqi border into Syria, in response to a series of recent attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, as well as other ongoing threats, the Pentagon said in a statement. statement said. statement.
The strikes took place just over a week after a deadly attack in which an avalanche of rockets was fired at coalition forces stationed outside Irbil International Airport, killing a U.S. coalition contractor and wounding a U.S. service member.
In response to this attack and others, two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles on Thursday dropped seven precision-guided bombs on targets, destroying nine targets in total and damaging two others, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Friday.
The Department of Defense said the airstrikes on Thursday destroyed a number of facilities at a border control point used by militants backed by Iran, such as Kait’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada and Kait’ib Hezbollah. The latter was held responsible for a deadly attack in December 2019 that set in motion events that eventually caused a dangerous increase in tensions with Iran.
The strikes carried out in Syria were focused on operational infrastructure, aimed at preventing attacks, and were not intended to inflict significant casualties.
The Pentagon said the strikes, which it said were “proportionate”, sent a “clear message” that “President Biden will act to protect the United States and coalition personnel.”
‘Congressional strikes without authorization’
Sen. Tim Kaine during a U.S. Senate Budget Committee meeting on February 25th.
Stefani Reynolds / Reuters
Lawmakers from both parties openly question the legality of strikes and the general wisdom behind them.
Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a written statement that Americans deserve to know the “rationale” for the strikes and the “legal justification” without going to Congress come.”
Kaine added: “Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutionally absent extraordinary circumstances.”
Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, tweeted“We have continued to end wars and not escalate conflicts in the Middle East. Our foreign policy must be rooted in diplomacy and the rule of law, and not retaliatory airstrikes without the consent of Congress.”
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who chairs the Senate Committee on Senate Foreign Relations on the Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counter-Terrorism, said in a statement that ‘the president undoubtedly has the right to country and to defend our country. forces of impending attack. ‘
But he added that such “retaliatory attacks, which are not necessary to prevent a threatening threat, should fall under the definition of an existing authorization of the military force.” Murphy said Congress should demand ‘clear legal justification for military action’, just as for previous administrations.
And Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, known for strongly opposed to intervention, condemned the strike as an attack on “a sovereign nation without authority”.
“What authority does @POTUS have to defeat Syria?” Paul tweeted. He suggested that someone ask White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki to point to her previous question on social media about the Trump administration’s military action in Syria.
‘Inherent self-defense powers enshrined in our constitution’
A National Security Council spokesman told Insider the White House had a rigorous process to include the strikes carried out, legal investigation.
“The president has acted on the basis of inherent self-defense powers enshrined in our Constitution and the UN Charter,” the spokesman said. “Under local law, the president took this action based on his Article II authority to defend U.S. personnel.”
Article II of the U.S. Constitution designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, and various administrations have taken actions based on a broad interpretation of this.
The spokesman said the strikes were “necessary to address the threat and in proportion to previous attacks” and in line with the right to self-defense under international law.
The Pentagon cited both Article II and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as legal justification for military action without congressional approval. “It was really a defensive strike to protect in the future,” U.S. forces and coalition partners said, Kirby said Friday.
Thursday’s strikes, the first military action under Biden, came amid mounting calls in Congress to deploy presidential forces, including the president’s authority to use nuclear weapons.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, Congress passed laws that every president since the broad authority has offered to wage war around the world. These laws – the authorization for the use of military force (AUMFs) in 2001 and 2002 – paved the way for the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and over the years the AUMF was used by several presidents in 2001 to kill at least 41 military operations in 19 countries.
After then-President Donald Trump ordered a controversial drone strike in January 2020 that killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani, the congressional legislators of both parties restricted his forces.
Later that month, the House passed a resolution to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and Kaine sponsored a resolution to prevent Trump from taking military action against Iran without Congress’ approval in both chambers, but it was eventually vetoed.
A Yemeni boy walks past a mural depicting an American drone on December 13, 2013 in the capital Sanaa.
MOHAMMED HUWAIS / AFP via Getty Images
Former President Barack Obama has also received bilingual disapproval of his approach to counter-terrorism, particularly his reliance on drone strikes.
The Obama administration has been criticized for carrying out drone strikes on dubious legal grounds. It has killed terrorist suspects in countries with which the US technically does not wage war, such as Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen. Obama also controversially ordered a drone that killed an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen.
“For too long, both parties’ authorities have interpreted their authorities in an extremely extensive way to continue the war,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. said in a statement on Friday. “It must end.”
Although there is a growing congressional movement to curb presidential forces, Biden has also received dual support for the Syrian strikes.
For example, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the leader of the House majority, said the strikes have Biden’s’ intention to prevent Iran from punishing America’s personnel and allies with impunity ‘, adding:’ It was a strong act that will surely send a message to Tehran that our country is not destabilizing actions of its forces or his proxy will not comply. “
Wisconsin Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher, among other GOP members, said Biden’s government was “right to make clear that attacks on U.S. personnel will not go unanswered.”