US senators take first step in repealing Iraq War authorization

US Senators Todd Young and Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine (right) are joined by representatives of the American Legion as they speak to reporters in Washington on March 16, 2023, about ending the authorization for use of military force enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 16 March 2023
Follow

US senators take first step in repealing Iraq War authorization

  • The bipartisan move comes as the US marks the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War that toppled Saddam Hussein
  • Nearly 5,000 US troops were killed in the war. Iraqi deaths are estimated in the hundreds of thousands

WASHINGTON: The Senate took a first step Thursday toward repealing two measures that give open-ended approval for military action in Iraq, pushing to end that authority as the United States marks the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War.
Senators voted 68-27 to move forward on legislation that would repeal the 2002 measure that greenlighted that March 2003 invasion of Iraq and a 1991 measure that sanctioned the US-led Gulf War to expel Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. Nineteen Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure.
The bipartisan effort comes at a time when lawmakers of both parties are seeking to reclaim congressional powers over US military strikes and deployments, arguing that the war authorizations are no longer necessary and subject to misuse if they are left on the books. President Joe Biden has backed the push, and the White House issued a statement Thursday in support.
“Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current US military operations and would support this administration’s commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners,” the White House said.
It’s unclear whether leaders in the Republican-controlled House would bring the bill up for a vote. Forty-nine House Republicans supported the legislation when then-majority Democrats held a vote two years ago, but current House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opposed it.
Senate Republicans are also split on the legislation. While the 19 GOP senators voted for it, opponents argue that the repeal could project weakness to US enemies. They have pointed out that President Donald Trump’s administration cited the 2002 Iraq war resolution as part of its legal justification for a 2020 US drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani.
The October 2002 votes to give President George W. Bush broad authority for the invasion — coming just a month before the midterm elections that year — became a defining moment for many members of Congress as the country debated whether a military strike was warranted. The US was already at war then in Afghanistan, the country that hosted the Al-Qaeda plotters responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, something Iraq played no part in.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat who was in the Senate at the time and voted against the resolution, said on the floor before Thursday’s vote that “I look back on it, as I’m sure others do, as one of the most important votes that I ever cast.”
“The repeal of this authorization of use the use of military force does not mean the United States has become a pacifist nation,” Durbin said. “It means that the United States is going to be a constitutional nation and the premise of our Founding Fathers will be respected.”
The Bush administration had drummed up support among members of Congress and Americans for invading Iraq by promoting false intelligence claims about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
After the initial March 2003 invasion of Iraq, American ground forces quickly discovered that the allegations of nuclear or chemical weapons programs were baseless. But the US overthrow of Iraq’s security forces precipitated a brutal sectarian fight and violent campaigns by Islamic extremist groups in Iraq. Car bombings, assassinations, torture and kidnapping became a part of daily life in Iraq for years.
Nearly 5,000 US troops were killed in the war. Iraqi deaths are estimated in the hundreds of thousands.
In the statement of policy, the White House said Biden would work with Congress to replace the authorizations with “a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats.” It said the president want to ensure that Congress “has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing US forces, personnel, and interests around the world.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in the hours before the vote that he was glad that the repeal is a bipartisan effort after the Iraq conflict was the cause of “so much bitterness” in the past.
“Americans are tired of endless wars in the Middle East,” Schumer said.

 

 

 

 

 


Washington, March 16, 2023  Agence France Presse: Almost exactly 20 years after US forces invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the US Senate moved Thursday to revoke the law that authorized then-president George W. Bush to launch the war.
In a procedural vote that came over a decade after the war’s official end, senators from both parties strongly supported canceling the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which empowered Bush to send US forces to Iraq.
The same bill also revokes the 1991 AUMF that empowered Bush’s father president George HW Bush to attack Iraq after Saddam’s forces invaded Kuwait.
“The Iraq War has itself long been over. This AUMF has outlived its purpose and we can no longer justify keeping it in effect,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
“Every year we leave these AUMFs on the books is another year that a future administration can abuse them,” he said.
The 2002 AUMF has been mostly moribund.
But, because it allows the president to order any actions seen as threatening to Iraqi democracy, it has been used to justify several military actions in the past decade, like allowing US troops in Iraq to retaliate against Iran-allied militias that have fired rockets at bases housing US troops.
Most notably, it was cited in the January 2020 US assassination in Baghdad of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, ordered by Donald Trump.
Because of that, there have been fears that a president could use the AUMF to go to war with Iran, citing a threat from Tehran to Iraq, said Scott Anderson, an expert in national security law at Brookings Institution
“The biggest risk it presents is that people will use it more broadly,” beyond Congress’s original intent, Anderson said.
Since the beginning of his administration in 2021, President Joe Biden has urged Congress to revoke the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs.
But the legislation — which could come next week to a final vote in the Senate and then be sent to the House of Representatives — does not take action against the 2001 authorization of war in Afghanistan.
That authorization, with broad powers for the president to order military force against Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, has been used to carry on sustained actions in numerous countries including Syria, Yemen, Somalia and other parts of Africa.
In a statement Thursday on the revocations of the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs, the Biden administration said the president is ready to work with Congress to replace other “outdated authorizations for the use of military force” with “a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats.”
 


UN must ‘carefully’ heed Lebanese views as it weighs post-UNIFIL options, peacekeeping chief says

Updated 14 sec ago
Follow

UN must ‘carefully’ heed Lebanese views as it weighs post-UNIFIL options, peacekeeping chief says

  • Jean Pierre Lacroix tells Arab News he heard nothing while visiting the country that cast doubt on the political will of authorities to disarm Hezbollah and implement UN resolution
  • Frequency of Israeli attacks ‘has been quite high and has been increasing,’ he says, warning that some of them could have had ‘very tragic consequences’

NEW YORK CITY: The UN must take its lead from authorities in Lebanon as it weighs its options for international support after the UN’s peacekeeping mission in the country ends, the head of UN peace operations said on Friday.
The views of Beirut must be central to any future arrangement, he stressed.
“We have to listen carefully to the Lebanese authorities,” Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN under-secretary-general for peace operations, told Arab News during a virtual press conference from Saudi Arabia, in reference to discussions about what UN support for the country might look like when the UN Interim Force in Lebanon’s peacekeeping mandate ends.
He was speaking during a regional tour that has taken him to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel, during which he met senior political and military officials as well as members of the UN peacekeeping force on the ground.
UNIFIL will continue to operate in Lebanon until its current mandate expires on Dec. 31 this year, with all forces remaining in place until then, Lacroix said. “There is no predrawdown mandate,” he added.
The UN Security Council voted in August last year to grant one final extension to the UNIFIL mandate through the end of 2026, despite Lebanon’s objections. It came as Israel and the US pressed for an end to the decades-old peacekeeping mission, established in 1978, and amid a renewed push to enforce Resolution 1701.
The resolution ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. It also underpins their current truce, and calls for the Lebanese state to assert exclusive control over security in the south of the country and to disarm all non-state armed groups.
Lacroix said the relationship between UNIFIL and Lebanese authorities was “excellent,” and cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces remained strong. He praised what he described as the political will in Beirut to advance the full implementation of Resolution 1701, citing in particular the recent announcement by Lebanese authorities outlining the first phase of their efforts to establish operational control south of the Litani River. He also acknowledged that significant work remains to be done.
Asked about the disarmament of Hezbollah, Lacroix told Arab News he had heard nothing during his visit that casts doubt on the political will of Lebanese authorities to achieve this, while acknowledging that there are differing assessments among interlocutors about the pace of progress and the risk of rearmament.
“The bottom line for us is that there is momentum,” he said, adding that the UN’s role was to support Lebanese efforts through both its peacekeeping mission and political engagement.
The Security Council has asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to present options for post-UNIFIL support for Resolution 1701 by June 1. Work on that is ongoing, he said, and includes consultations with Lebanese and Israeli authorities, as well as members of the Security Council.
While Lebanese leaders have expressed concern about the end of UNIFIL’s mission and interest in maintaining some form of UN presence in the country, Lacroix said any successor arrangement would be decided by the Security Council.
He declined to speculate about the form or size of any future force. Several factors would need to be assessed, he said, including the security environment and the level of international support for the Lebanese Armed Forces.
However, he repeatedly emphasized the need for greater backing of the Lebanese army from international partners, describing such support as “more important than ever.”
Lacroix described the “appalling” widespread destruction he had witnessed during his visit to southern Lebanon along the Blue Line that separates the country from Israel. Many villages had been heavily damaged and Lebanese civilians were still unable to return to their homes, he said, warning that this complicates the prospects for rehabilitation and reconstruction.
He also raised concerns about the safety of UN peacekeepers as their operating environment had become increasingly dangerous. While relations with local communities were generally good, he said UNIFIL had faced a growing number of hostile incidents involving the Israeli army.
“The frequency of (Israeli attacks) has been quite high and has been increasing,” he said, warning that some of them could have had “very tragic consequences.”
He said he had raised this issue directly with Israeli officials, and called for action to be taken to prevent further incidents, stressing that all parties have a responsibility to ensure the safety of peacekeepers.
Turning to Syria, Lacroix said the Israeli military presence in the UN-monitored area of separation has become the main challenge for peacekeepers, as Israeli forces occupy 10 positions in a zone reserved under a 1974 agreement for UN troops only. Daily liaison with Israeli forces had helped limit the effects on civilians, he added.
“Our objective remains a return to full implementation of the 1974 agreement,” Lacroix said, and he welcomed US-mediated talks between Israel and Syria.
He also addressed the effects of budget cuts on UN peacekeeping missions. Financial shortfalls had forced missions, including UNIFIL, to reduce patrols and prioritize certain areas, he said, limiting their ability to support national forces and protect civilians.
Jordanian officials have expressed support for Lebanon’s efforts and are providing assistance, he added, including training for members of the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Lacroix said he had yet to meet Saudi officials but expected to discuss Lebanon with them during upcoming talks. He also noted Saudi Arabia’s role in discussions about a possible international conference to support the Lebanese army.