June 07, 2018

Congress Should Oversee America’s Wars, Not Just Authorize Them

By Richard Fontaine and Vance Serchuk

Nearly 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, a bipartisan coalition of senators has put forward legislation that promises to overhaul the legal framework for America’s worldwide campaign against terrorism. Proponents of this measure argue the existing authorization for military force—an AUMF in wonk-speak—passed back in September 2001 has become woefully outdated. The failure to modernize it, supporters say, represents a dereliction of duty by Congress.

They have a point. The text of the 2001 AUMF no longer bears much resemblance to the wars we are fighting and that we will continue to fight for the foreseeable future. As a matter of both constitutional good practice and common sense, the case for an updated statute is clear.

The problem is that, while a new authorization is legally desirable, its real-world impact is likely to be minimal—doing little more than sanctioning military operations the executive branch is already prosecuting. Lawmakers who portray passage of an AUMF as the ultimate fulfillment of their war-powers responsibilities therefore risk elevating constitutional form over national security substance—while neglecting the far more powerful but less formal tools Congress possesses to influence America’s post-9/11 wars for the better.

That is unfortunate because the need for thoughtful, energetic congressional activism has never been greater. From Afghanistan to Syria to the Sahel, multiple complex U.S. military operations are unfolding . Members of Congress are uniquely positioned to scrutinize these efforts and the strategy underlying them, identify any flaws and failures in policy, and inject innovative or disruptive new ideas into the public debate that will make success more likely.

In the mid-2000s, for instance, it was Members of Congress from both parties who were pivotal in challenging—and eventually overhauling—the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq.

Read the Full Article at Lawfare

  • Commentary
    • Foreign Affairs
    • May 20, 2022
    A Fight Over Taiwan Could Go Nuclear

    A fight between China and the United States could very well go nuclear....

    By Becca Wasser & Stacie Pettyjohn

  • Reports
    • May 19, 2022
    Long Shadows: Deterrence in a Multipolar Nuclear Age

    Executive Summary This report examines the nuclear policies and postures of the United States and its three primary nuclear adversaries: China, Russia, and North Korea. It con...

    By Stacie Pettyjohn & Jennie Matuschak

  • Podcast
    • May 16, 2022
    War Game in Taiwan: A “home game” for China, an “away game” for the U.S.

    The year is 2027 and China has decided to attack Taiwan and bring the island nation under direct control. Now the U-S has to answer: do we fight for Taiwan’s freedom? How far ...

    By Becca Wasser & Dr. ED McGrady

  • Video
    • May 13, 2022
    CNAS Gaming Lab on Meet the Press

    In a special collaboration with NBC’s Meet the Press, The Gaming Lab at CNAS executed a strategic-operational game to provide critical insight into how a potential war with Ch...

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia