Should Congress Expand the 2001 AUMF?

In the wake of 9/11, Congress provided the President power to strike those responsible, with the explicit goal of preventing future attacks against the United States. Some members of Congress now want to update that legislation, removing the connection to September 11th and authorizing a broad war against terrorist groups worldwide. Legislation moving through the House sponsored by Representative Buck McKeon (R-CA), based on H.R. 968, provides a significant expansion of authority to use military force and shifts the focus away from preventing an attack and toward an unachievable military defeat of terrorist groups. This expansive new definition for the use of force is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

Expansion of Presidential Powers

The original authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) following 9/11 (P.L. 107-40) authorized the President to use force against ‘those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Rep. McKeon references the 2001 authorization and then defines nations, organizations, and persons to be “part of or substantially supporting, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”¹ This language grants the President expansive power to conduct broad military operations without any prior input from Congress simply through a presidential finding that a country or organization engaged in such actions.

The need for the McKeon’s ‘affirmation’ is unclear. The Administration does not feel constrained by the 2001 authorization in targeting al Qaeda, with the Pentagon’s General Counsel recently testifying that it is “sufficient to address the existing threats that I’ve seen.”² Nor has Congress claimed that either the Bush or the Obama Administration’s military actions against terrorist threats have fallen outside the 2001 authorization.³

Moving Away from Preventing Attacks

A key objective of the 2001 authorization was to “prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States.” Rep. McKeon’s legislation does not include such language. Rather, it moves America’s efforts away from preventing attacks and toward a full military engagement with terrorist groups, some of which do not target the United States.

Most disturbingly, the McKeon language does not specify which coalition, leaving it to the Executive Branch to determine the scope of that authorization. If the coalition were defined as NATO, it could serve as a basis for authorizing unlimited action in Libya. It possibly authorizes U.S. military action against groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, who could be defined as engaging in hostilities against Israel, an ally. It also could include Iran, who supported insurgent operations in Iraq that targeted Americans.

Even when applied to Afghanistan, the McKeon bill risks further pitting the United States in conflict against the “accidental guerillas” that associate with al Qaeda for support in their regional conflict and in reaction to foreign intervention but who have little or no interest in al Qaeda’s global mission of attacking the United States.⁴

The legislation also specifically names the Taliban, an addition from the 2001 authorization. The U.S. is targeting the Taliban because it offered safe haven to al Qaeda in Afghanistan before September 11th and has refused to end its affiliation with the organization. Without a direct tie to U.S. security interests, the language risks embroiling the U.S. in an endless civil war in Afghanistan.

Conclusion

Rep. McKeon’s attempt to “clarify” the 2001 authorization gives the President broad authority to conduct military campaigns without congressional input or limitation. If Congress has determined that efforts to prevent attacks against the United States have extended past the 2001 authorization, it should have a full debate about whether modification to existing authorities is necessary and on how to move forward. However, no hearings have been held to determine the impact or scope of this legislation. Congress should jealously guard its war powers rather than turn additional authorities over the President without significant consideration.

The United States remains firmly committed to disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda to prevent future attacks. Through the 2001 authorization, the President has all the authority he needs to achieve those goals.