How Congress Can Reclaim Its Proper Constitutional Role in Making Foreign Policy
Category: News & Politics
Via: gregtx • 3 years ago • 11 commentsBy: Dan Caldwell & Reid Smith 12 hrs ago (MSN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It has been nearly two months since the 20-year mission to reshape Afghanistan collapsed in a matter of days. In the subsequent weeks, several congressional committees have convened to hold hearings on the failures and falsehoods that contributed to the stunning disintegration of governance preceding the fall of Kabul. There are plenty of culprits to blame, including Congress itself, which for years has been content to accept military brass's rosy pronouncements about Afghanistan while ignoring the growing evidence that our mission there was failing.
If we are to prevent more such disasters in the future, the 117th Congress must reassert its constitutional authority in matters of foreign policy, reclaiming the power to authorize, fund, and ultimately bring an end to hostilities when wars are won or no longer serve American interests.
In this spirit, Senators Mike Lee, Chris Murphy, and Bernie Sanders recently introduced a bipartisan bill called the National Security Powers Act. In October, Representatives Jim McGovern and Peter Meijer debuted a companion bill in the House called the National Security Reform and Accountability Act.
As reported in the Washington Post, these bills would "give Congress a more active role in approving arms sales, authorizing the use of military force and declaring national emergencies, in an across-the-board effort to claw back national security power from the executive branch." Taken together, the legislative package would revive Congress' ability to shape American foreign policy in the wake of Afghanistan's collapse.
Congress has been slowly building toward this moment. In recent years, legislators have become increasingly willing to pick fights with successive administrations when Congress is not consulted before military action is taken abroad. These fights have been fought over war powers, the sale of arms to authoritarian states, and the repeal of outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs). The latter fight is gaining momentum on the heels of a House vote on legislation repealing the 2002 Iraq War AUMF, which also enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But repealing obsolete AUMFs will only do so much to narrow the scope of executive war powers. Broader course correction — consistent with the Founders' constitutional design — demands more comprehensive reform.
James Madison famously remarked that "in no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." Despite this wise counsel, and the Framers' decision to make Congress the executive's coequal in matters of foreign policy, lawmakers have consistently yielded their most solemn prerogative to the White House, to the point where presidents of both parties have felt comfortable relying on congressional deference when commencing military action without legislative authorization.
After the "imperial presidency" of the Vietnam era, Congress sought to reinforce constitutional guardrails with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But that law's constitutionality was questionable, and it failed to achieve its intended objectives. To the contrary, the "legislative veto" that it gave lawmakers was struck down in an unrelated Supreme Court ruling that turned Congress's "war powers" upside down. The result was that legislators had to summon a supermajority to override a presidential veto on matters of executive war-making.
The past 20 years have illuminated a new dimension of congressional complacency: acquiescence to executive action based on standing authorizations. A week after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force sanctioning military action against "those nations, organizations, or persons who [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . or harbored such organizations or persons." Since that time, presidents have used the 2001 AUMF as a license to conduct more than 40 operations in 19 countries, many of them wholly unrelated to the perpetrators of 9/11.
The comprehensive fix recently introduced in the House and Senate would clarify key terms, require Congress to affirmatively approve American involvement in armed conflicts abroad, and systematize funding cutoffs consistent with Congress's power of the purse. It would also establish requirements that future AUMFs cover clearly defined missions with specific objectives and that they be subject to regular reauthorization.
Dan Caldwell is a senior adviser to Concerned Veterans for America and the foreign-policy-campaign manager for Stand Together. Reid Smith is the director of educational outreach for foreign policy at Stand Together and the Charles Koch Institute.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
It’s been going on since the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately most congressional involvement in foreign policy prior to that was trying to hamstring GOP Presidents in their trying to win the Cold War as many on the left still believe the wrong country won it, and now want the other commie nation to win the new one.
[Deleted]
The US effort in Afghanistan failed because the US could not/would not and was unable to demonstrate to the Afghan people that the US effort itself was not rife with corruption. Erik Prince and all the rest.
No, the reason we failed was the same reason the Russians and every other foreign power that has attempted to take Afghanistan has failed. Too many factions that can't coexist within the same country. Not to mention outside influences that kept the opposition safe and alive.
When Russia was trying to rule Afghanistan they had to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda; both of which were propped up by the US sending them arms and aid. The government they installed was never accepted by the Afghan people; it was always viewed as being a corrupt entity influenced by a foreign power.
While the US and NATO tried to put in place a democratic form of government and allow the people to decide their leaders; they still imposed the original president and make up of the government. The government was never going to be fully accepted by the Afghan people as it was beholden to US/NATO money, arms, and training. Not to mention it was weak and corrupt as hell; and everybody knew it. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the rest were allowed to hide in Pakistan and harass the border of Afghanistan. The US/NATO never took Pakistan to task for allowing both entities to operate freely within their country.
Think the Taliban are going to have an easy time ruling? They are already having problems keeping order outside of the large cities; even with the data and weapons we stupidly left behind for them to use. Things are already settling back in to a pre US/NATO invasion routine. However, with ISIS/ISIL and ISIS-K now operating freely in Afghanistan, as well as Al Qaeda; we are at an even greater risk of another terrorist attack.
The only one that will decide the fate of Afghanistan are the Afghans. Give them a few centuries- they might work it out.
And the US supplying 'Stinger Missiles' too. We're lucky the Russians didn't do that to us.
And how many politicians made money off Erik Prince and all the rest?
American taxpayer dollars. And you're OK with that?
Yeah, I can understand why America wants to improve its "warmaking powers", after all, warmaking is something they're good at and it's so important for maintaining the American economy by keeping the arms manufacturers busy. So giving the power to a body that seems to have difficulty getting any beneficial legislation happening without taking days (months?) wouldn't be a problem while the hypersonic ICBM's are in he air aimed at America's big cities.
Your post is conflicted.
I should have put "/s" (or is it "s/") beside it or play it straight and say WOULD be a problem. I do wonder, though, if the word "warmaking" is really just a euphemism for "warmongering".