Only 11 of the current 100 senators were in Congress when the House and Senate in January 1991 voted to authorize military force for President George H.W. Bush and evict Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein’s troops from occupied Kuwait.
The Gulf War measure, at the time the most explicit authorization of war by Congress since the Tonkin Gulf Resolution approved U.S. military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, remains on the books. As does its follow-on from nearly a dozen years later in October 2002. A bit over a year after the 9/11 attacks claimed nearly 3,000 on American soil, Congress approved a resolution that greenlighted what became the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The operation toppled Hussein’s regime but led to years of bloody resistance, upending American politics for years to come, among other consequences.
Now, senators in both parties say it’s time to end those and other Authorization for Use of Military Force resolutions. Advocates say leaving them in place complicates current diplomatic circumstances, such as having an allied government in Iraq. But critics say doing so would signal weakness to U.S. adversaries. Iran, in particular, would view the move as a sign of the U.S.’s lack of resolve in the region, per this argument.
While Democrats are largely in lockstep backing the repeal of AUMF resolutions, Republicans are more divided. It reflects cleavages and differences over foreign policy issues between traditionally conservative hawkish Republicans and populist nationalists, embodied by former President Donald Trump and his supporters.
The issue came to a head on March 8, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced a bill that would bring about an end to the Iraq and Gulf wars. It’s a move that revives efforts that have been at the center of debate for roughly two decades.
Committee members passed the bill with a 13-8 vote, setting the stage for it to be introduced to the full Senate for consideration — giving hope to lawmakers the legislation may finally take hold. If passed, the legislation would revoke a pair of authorizations for use of military force that granted the United States congressional approval to enter the conflicts in Iraq while also reducing the president’s unilateral authority to deploy troops in the area.
“Later this month, we will mark the 20th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Today, Iraq is a partner of the United States and critical to efforts to counter Iran,” said Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), one of the authors of the bill, in a statement. “Repealing these outdated AUMFs will demonstrate America’s commitment to Iraqi sovereignty. Just as important, it is vital to restoring the proper role of Congress in authorizing the use of military force and affirmatively stating when conflicts are over.”
The bill’s advancement marks a significant shift in the decadeslong debate on whether to repeal the dual AUMFs or to continue military efforts. The 1991 Gulf War lasted about six weeks. The much more controversial Iraq War concluded in 2011, when the final U.S. troops withdrew.
The House passed two resolutions in June 2021 seeking to repeal the military authorizations, but those efforts failed to make it to a vote in the deadlocked Senate. However, supporters of the legislation say they’re confident they now have enough support to overcome a filibuster and hold a vote in the coming weeks.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, told the Washington Examiner at least 65 senators are expected to back the bill, all but guaranteeing its passage in the upper chamber.
“The bigger the margin we get [in the Senate], the better the chances are [in the House],” Kaine said. “The bipartisan co-sponsors in the House are pretty ideologically broad, so that’s going to be helpful with the speaker.”
If the bill manages to make it through the Senate, it will then head to the House, where it’s unclear whether House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will agree to bring it up for a vote. McCarthy, as House minority leader in the last session of Congress, voted against the legislation. But some lawmakers have indicated confidence it could garner enough support among Republicans to pass the lower chamber.
“I think it’s an important thing for Congress to say that it doesn’t grant unlimited authority to the president in foreign affairs,” said Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), a co-sponsor of the bill. “So, I actually think it would have a chance [in the House].”
Repealing the authorizations would not disrupt current operations in the Middle East, nor would it prevent the U.S. from initiating a military response to future threats.
The White House has previously vowed to work with Congress to repeal the two AUMFs, noting they would be replaced with a “narrow and specific framework” that would allow the U.S. to deploy military action while “ending the forever wars.” However, some Republican lawmakers have said they won’t support repealing the authorizations unless there’s a definitive mechanism to replace it.
“We need something to replace it,” Sen. James Risch (R-ID) told the Washington Post. “And there’s been no effort to try to replace it.”
Other Republicans have expressed concerns that revoking the AUMFs could pose security concerns, arguing the president and Pentagon need the flexibility to move swiftly if faced with a military threat in the region.
“The president shouldn’t have to get lawyers in to argue about what can and can’t be done,” Risch said.
It’s not yet clear when the legislation will be brought forward for full consideration, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he hopes to give it a floor vote before Easter.
“It’s past time for the U.S. to put this war behind us, and I look forward to passing it on the Senate floor as soon as possible,” Schumer said in a tweet shortly after the committee’s vote.
