House Dems push for a new AUMF before a military action against Iran is unlikely to happen

nearvideo Graham: tensions with Iran are getting more and more dangerous by the day

Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham on the Trump administration’s strategy to combat Iran’s aggression.

The United States closer to a military confrontation with Iran, now more than ever.

This also means, however, that the Congress could be the next coming up in the next few years, in the face of a new resolution to authorize the use of military force. Such a proposal could be permissions at the end of the old Congress approved in 2001 for the fight in Afghanistan, and in 2002, a blessing in Iraq to invade. Three presidents, including President Trump, has these permissions for the use of Military force (AUMFs) for a variety of military interventions for nearly two decades.

The operations went beyond the scope of Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States took advantage of these AUMFs for the deployment of military force in the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Niger. In fact, the house a defense spending plan, with a provision to delete the old AUMFs, within 240 days after the measure is always right.

Protesters signs spelling to keep the “No war” in front of the White house, Thursday, 20. June 2019, in Washington, after President Donald Trump tweeted that “Iran made a very big mistake” by shooting down a U.S. drone surveillance over the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.

Democratic leaders stressed this point, when summoned to the White house Situation Room Thursday afternoon for a briefing on Iran.

“We make it very clear to engage in sequence, the said military activities, we must have a new authorization of use of Military force,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “This is clearly in our hands.”

The question of whether the members of the Trump administration agreed that the existing AUMFs lack of justification for the attack on Iran, Pelosi replied: “no. She has nothing to say. She didn’t say Yes. She didn’t say no.”

“We told the room that the democratic position is that congressional approval must be required before the financing said in any conflict in Iran,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York “One of the best ways to avoid a klutz in the war – a war that nobody wants – is a robust, open debate and for Congress a real say are right. We have learned this lesson, in the run-up to the Iraq war.”


This is the fundamental difference here. The administration of President George W. Bush made a concerted case in the years 2002 and 2003 that Iraq housed weapons of mass destruction. In the shadow of 9/11, President Bush argued that the U.S. needed to strike Iraq preemptively to avert a catastrophic terrorist attack. As it turned out, the United States was based on faulty intelligence to appeal to the Congress and the public for the war. Less than two years later, the Congress concluded a post-mortem on the reasons for the pursuit of war. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the time. Based on what the legislature learned later, Roberts doubts, to approve the Senate resolution, the Iraq war could yeas garner 77-Senate it commanded in 2003.

This is the reason why Congress has been reluctant to change or to optimize the existing AUMFs – let alone accept new ones. The legislator knows that you get lack the votes to approve all of them together, which is a modern AUMF. That would be presidential administration left one option: go it alone. And if an administration decides not to act? The US could initiate prone to be justified for the attack and the lack of appetite repression.

Thus, a government might decide to send in military forces without Congress’s blessing. Sure, the legislature can cry that the President is against the Constitution. But at least the company of Bush, Obama, and trump can show is, some of the Congress, a tacit endorsement of the war: the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.

Even if it is a range…

In other words, had the Bush Administration not leaning on faulty information, in order to start a war, the legislature can. today, more confidence in building a case for the fight under the right circumstances But the Iraq experience was so distressing that many legislators have the belief, cobble cheap together a coalition to either of, or against, the war is missing-option. The Congress, then return to the old AUMFs. The legislature to reduce their own energy, to adopt a transfer of powers to the Executive, and incapable of action, and laws.


But no one is sure what’s coming on Iran, if at all. The Trump administration again she finds herself in a familiar place. It’s called “abyss”.

President Trump said on Thursday, “you’ll soon find out” if the US wants to strike Iran militarily.

Almost two years ago, the President warned North Korea it had better shape up or Pyongyang would be met”, the you with fire and fury as the world has never seen.”

It was not so long ago, to suggest that Trump was threatened with devastating tariffs on Mexico.

Democrats demand an AUMF. But many Republican leaders are more than willing to move to President Trump.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said it was to shoot down “unacceptable” for Iran, the American drone. But to avenge when asked what the US should do, be, McCarthy replied that “the President’s options will be in front of him.” When asked if the US should use force, McCarthy said: “I’m going to leave that to the experts in the army and those in the intel community.” McCarthy recalled that the trombone “the current authority” to wage war, if necessary, on the basis of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, that the Trump-Administration should be “measured responses.”

The Senate debate will begin next week on the annual defense policy bill. Sens. Tom Udall, D-N. M., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., long pleaded with their colleagues in the trash, the calcified AUMFs and design something new. Udall and Kaine have prepared an amendment to the defense legislation, which would require congressional approval before going to war with Iran.

Of course, this touches the age-old question. What defines “war?” Congress has only officially declared “war” five times against 11 Nations. The last such Declaration was against Romania in 1942. But what is war”?” If the US bombs Iran’s defenses or attacks Iranian planes and ships at sea, the United States, “in the war?” The US “war” in the Niger-when four American soldiers were killed in an ambush in two years? Few Americans even know the US had troops in Niger. That is why the Democrats and some Republicans require Congress approval. If the US is to be involved, and somewhere legislators are expected to choose the mine you would like. This is because the article I, section 8 of the Constitution, Congress grants the authority “to declare war.”


And, if military action is politically unpopular, or with the public, the legislature, always, why a management of the military is involved table somewhere without Congressional imprimatur.

“I can’t really say in advance what actions to take the White house,” said Pelosi after returning to the Capitol after the White house briefing. “She’s with us today.”

But advice is different from the acceptance of an AUMF or a Declaration of war. And that is something to strike for Democrats are demanding, if President decides to Trump to.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular