An Iraq War Law Invites Presidential Overreach. Americans of Faith Are Rallying to Repeal It
Photo provided by Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.
(OPINION) These days, party lines seem like cavernous rifts as lawmakers struggle to find common ground on sorely needed infrastructure plans and climate action. During a time when Washington can’t seem to agree on anything, “ending endless wars” has become a political rallying cry for legislators across the ideological spectrum.
To the great joy of peace advocates, lawmakers are finally pushing back on the United States’ post-9/11 wars by calling out decades of executive overreach on the use of force, a trend that continues today. Democrats and Republicans alike are coalescing to repeal a dangerous law little-known to the American public: the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.
Congress passed this law, known as the 2002 Iraq AUMF or the Iraq War authorization, to enable war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. In its bid to win lawmakers’ support for military intervention, the Bush administration claimed that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, which would have violated U.N. Security Council resolutions and posed significant threats to the region if true. It was not. Nevertheless, the United States invaded Iraq, starting a war that lasted until 2011. Nearly 19 years after its passage, and 10 years after the war’s end, the 2002 Iraq AUMF remains law – open to misinterpretation and abuse.
Already, two presidents have exploited it to justify military activities that Congress never approved. President Obama cited it in 2014 as a legal justification for bombing ISIS, and President Trump used it in 2020 to justify the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. In neither case did the administration seek specific congressional approval for the strikes, and both citations of the 2002 law were rejected by legal scholars. The strikes are just two examples of the executive branch’s disregard for Congress’s war-making authority over the course of the so-called “War on Terror.”
Since the end of the Iraq War, presidents have embraced an expansive interpretation of the 2002 Iraq AUMF, using it only as legal cover to bypass Congress and launch unilateral attacks. In fact, its repeal would have no effect on current military operations because it isn’t the primary legal basis for any ongoing activities – which both the Pentagon and the White House have confirmed publicly. As long as it stays on the books, the Iraq War authorization is subject to further presidential abuse to justify strikes unapproved by Congress.
It’s high time lawmakers do their job and repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, the first step toward ending endless wars. U.S. counterterrorism wars have continued for two decades, with little congressional oversight and a price tag of at least $6.4 trillion. These wars have directly killed 800,000 people, 335,000 of them civilians, and displaced at least 37 million in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and the Philippines. Clearly, this spiraling violence hasn’t made anyone safer. To the contrary, it has spawned cycles of resentment and retaliation. Congress must repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF to put the Iraq War firmly in the rear-view mirror and prevent disastrous new wars.
Quakers, veterans and peace advocates have long called for repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF. Supported by the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), the Quaker peace and justice lobby on Capitol Hill, 125 advocacy teams in 44 states have organized almost 2,000 meetings with federal legislators and their staff since 2015. Guided by shared commitments to peace and nonviolence, Quakers and partners from other faith communities – including Methodist, Episcopalian, Unitarian, Jewish and Catholic groups – have drawn on their religious traditions to make the case for peace on Capitol Hill.
“The Torah teaches us that we are stewards of creation, and protecting life is the highest value,” says Nancy Bermon, an advocate from Lower Hudson Valley, New York. “Our old tools [for war-making] get bigger and stronger, leaving us in a destructive, endless spiral of war, consuming more and more of our resources, with Congress absent from the helm.”
For people of faith, repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF isn’t just about reasserting Congress’s war powers, it’s the morally right thing to do. Quakers in particular see it as a critical part of their vision for a world free of war and the threat of war.
“My deep conviction is that humans are not meant to be killing each other,” says Vermont Quaker Catherine Bock. “War in any form is wrong, and I feel called to do whatever I can to promote peace.”
Due to the persistence of advocates like Catherine, efforts to repeal the Iraq War authorization are picking up steam on Capitol Hill. In June, the House voted to repeal the law for the third time – by a bipartisan vote of 268-161, including a record 49 Republicans. Shortly after, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged to bring the 2002 AUMF repeal to a vote on the Senate floor by the end of the year. A Senate committee is expected to consider repeal legislation in July, and the White House officially supports repealing the law.
Still, some lawmakers remain apprehensive about repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF, even though most publicly support Congress taking on a more active oversight role of U.S. military activities. Republicans, in particular, have expressed doubts about repealing it, largely due to concern that getting rid of the law would somehow tie the president’s hands, inhibiting his ability to respond to attacks on U.S. forces. However, the Constitution names the president the Commander in Chief, granting him the authority to use force to defend the nation and repel a sudden attack. Repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF would have no effect on the president’s ability to protect national security because it has nothing to do with this defensive power, enshrined in the Constitution itself.
Ahead of a vote on repealing the authorization, leading House Republicans called for consultation with the Departments of State and Defense, the intelligence community, the Iraqi government and U.S. allies. But the Constitution vests the legislature with the sole power to authorize the president to conduct both total war and more limited uses of force. Lawmakers should consult with government entities and allies before authorizing the use of force, and repealing this open-ended authorization would ensure such consultation happens before troops are sent into yet another disastrous war.
Unfortunately, there remains a great deal of confusion on Capitol Hill between the 2002 Iraq War Authorization and the earlier, 2001 AUMF, which was adopted in the days immediately following 9/11 to allow war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That law has been stretched far beyond its intended purpose and is now being used to justify wars against groups that did not even exist on 9/11. While repealing the 2002 Iraq War Authorization would have no impact on current military operations, repealing the 2001 AUMF would require an end to the wars that we have waged in 19 countries over the past two decades.
Due in part to this misunderstanding, some Members of Congress oppose repealing the 2002 law without a replacement, citing concerns about our ability to protect against threats from Iraq. Yet the administration is not using the 2002 law to fight against groups like ISIS or Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. President Biden cited his authority under Article II of the Constitution for strikes against groups that have been targeting U.S. forces in Iraq, and he is using the authority of the 2001 AUMF to fight against other terrorist groups in Iraq.
The zombie authorizations that keep being abused to justify new wars against new enemies without specific congressional approval must be terminated. Should President Biden judge it necessary to enter into any new hostilities, other than to defend against armed attack, he should request formal authorization so Congress can debate and vote on it. There is no decision more consequential than whether to send people to fight and die in war, and that’s why the Constitution placed this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of Congress, the branch of government most directly accountable to the American people. Members of Congress have abdicated their war powers over the past 20 years, resulting in endless wars that have devastated millions of people’s lives. Now, lawmakers must rectify their mistakes – and those of their predecessors – by repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF and reasserting their constitutional war powers.
The pursuit of peace – a world free from war and the threat of war – does not end with repealing the 2002 Iraq AUMF. The far more dangerous 2001 AUMF remains in effect, and efforts to remove it have faced far stiffer resistance. However, repeal of the 2002 law would be an important first step toward reconsidering the United States’ current war-based, military-first approach to perceived threats. Thankfully, Quakers, their interfaith partners, and other peace advocates will continue to press lawmakers to exercise the responsibilities vested in them by the Constitution.
“My faith emphasizes the power of nonviolence to effect dramatic social change,” says Paul Graseck, a Quaker from Rhode Island. “Believing that there ‘is that of God’ in each one of us, I recognize that we can appeal to that element in human beings to achieve a more peaceful world. My faith in the perfectibility of human beings is the bedrock on which I stand when seeking to build a better world.”
Sentiments like these are what makes FCNL’s lobbying efforts so powerful. Even in a political environment as bitterly partisan and divided as the current one, Quakers and other faith-based peace advocates are able to talk to legislators on both sides of the aisle with authenticity and compassion. The turning tide on the 2002 AUMF is a testament to the power of grassroots advocacy done right and compelling evidence that people of faith can help guide our country onto a more ethical and effective course.
Julia Gledhill, a Colorado College graduate, is a program associate for militarism and human rights at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. She advocates for foreign policy centered on diplomacy and human security through her work with coalition partners, members of Congress, and FCNL’s grassroots network.