Carte Blanche: Unlimited War Powers
The title of this column is Carte Blanche, a French term that can be translated as 'blank check'. The concept is both literal and all-encompassing; if you tell someone building your home that they have carte blanche to get it built as quickly as possible, you've removed any constraints on the process. However, just because they can make it quickly doesn't mean it will last. Since the end of World War II, Presidents have sought even greater war powers from Congress. The belief was always much the same. To defend America and its citizens from threats, wherever they may be in the world, whether they are legitimate or perceived. What has followed over the last eighty years is a roadmap of abuse, destruction, and rampant destabilization, all in the name of safety, draped in the banner of American democracy. It will not take a deep dive on Wikipedia or a prolonged Google search to see that the world hasn't found a new abundance of safety or democracy. Yet, with tensions brewing in Venezuela, the Trump Administration seems keen to rely on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed in 2001. It has all but abandoned its constitutional authority and duty to prevent the nation from going to war unjustly and without consequences.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
Article 2, Section 2 - US Constitution
The framers, having fought to liberate the country from the direct rule of a monarch, did their best to fashion safeguards to prevent one person from unilaterally using the country's military forces, however they saw fit. It was expressly stated in the Constitution that while the President is the Commander-in-Chief, all war powers ultimately rest with Congress. How did we get where we are today with Presidents ordering strikes and invasions as they see fit? In 1964, the US Navy had two destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin that reported being fired upon by North Vietnamese patrol boats. President Lyndon Johnson went to Congress and asked for permission, not for an escalation of force, but for the power to defend American troops in Southeast Asia. The authorization was overwhelmingly passed, but Congress did so with the unspoken belief that any escalation in combat operations or troop deployments for the purpose of engaging in military campaigns would still require their consent. Unfortunately, this would not be the case. By the time anyone realized how much power both President Johnson and Nixon would wield in Southeast Asia through unilateral troop mobilizations and carpet bombing, it was too late. Political polarization meant Congress was slow to act, and by then, millions had been killed and wounded. In an effort to prevent this from happening again, the War Powers Act of 1973 was passed, requiring the President to inform Congress within 48 hours of military action, and prohibiting armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days. While it wasn't a full reclamation, it was better than the alternative.
The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, was a cataclysmic event in our nation's history. Out of both fear and a thirst for revenge, Congress gave the President uncontested authority to use the US Military to strike back. What makes the resolution such a terrible concession is not just that the power granted has proven unchecked, but also that it allows the President to decide who the enemy is:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines 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.
That is now the very same justification being used in the actions being undertaken to attack vessels in the Caribbean and as a casus belli for actions against Venezuela, a nation that has neither attacked the US nor threatened to do so without provocation. A constant with each Presidential administration since its passage is defining whoever they found convenient as either a terrorist organization or a supporter of terrorism. Narco terrorism is the newest canary in the coalmine for those within the government seeking a new conflict. This will cost billions of dollars, millions of lives, and leave the world worse for wear. US military officials and planners are already presenting plans to President Trump for possible military strikes and, no doubt, the potential invasion of another sovereign nation. What comes next is up to Congress.
There is a path forward that doesn't require the nation to commit itself to the folly of those who will never have to bear the consequences of a war in a country that hasn't attacked the US or its allies. It is well past time for Congress to retake what the Constitution granted it and shoulder the responsibilities that go with those duties. Representative Gregory W. Meeks (D), NY, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has introduced legislation to repeal the 2001 AUMF. Congressman Meeks is adamant in this belief:
"For too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional prerogative over issues of war and peace to the Executive Branch, allowing administration after administration to engage the United States in forever wars. My legislation would repeal and replace the broad and open-ended 2001 AUMF, replacing it with one that is specific to known terrorist hotspots, and includes a sunset provision. As Members of Congress, it is our Constitutional responsibility to make decisions on matters of war. It is past time we fully embrace that solemn duty and reclaim our Article 1 authority."
If Congress doesn't act, the Trump Administration will not be the last to use the broad definitions and authorities Congress granted over twenty years ago to justify foreign policy aims. There is a clear path forward to ensure greater international stability and to roll back the Executive Branch's overreach. When governments and the use of force are constrained, the world isn't subject to the whims of those whose aims are not the safety and well-being of the people but desired end states. War should once again be the exception, not the rule.