The final vote to end two Iraq war authorizations removes a major procedural hurdle as the Senate decides to limit debate.
The United States Senate has backed a measure expected to pave the way for a vote to revoke two authorizations for war in Iraq.
On Monday, the chamber voted 65 to 28 to limit debate on whether or not to end two “Authorizations for the Use of Military Force” (AUMFs) — one from 1991 that coincided with the Gulf War and a second from 2002, approved in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That support surpassed the minimum of 60 votes needed to move the legislation forward. The final vote for repeal is expected later this week.
Monday’s vote takes place as the US commemorates the 20th anniversary of the 2003 Iraq War. All 28 votes against Monday’s measure came from Republican senators.
Typically, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has exclusive authority to declare war. But with the two Iraq War authorizations, Congress granted the presidency indefinite permission to use force in the region.
That, some argue, has allowed the presidency to have too much leverage over military action. It has also led to criticism that these “zombie” authorizations have fueled “forever wars” that are no longer justified.
In the minutes before Monday’s vote, New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez called the measure a means of exercising the chamber’s “most solemn duty”: to decide “when and under what circumstances” to “endanger” Americans.
“It is a recognition that Congress not only has the power to declare war, but should also have the responsibility to end wars,” Menendez said in his speech, urging his fellow senators to pass the measure of war. Monday to approve.
Menendez also called the war permits “outdated and outdated”. He argued that US President Joe Biden has “sufficient authority to defend against threats” without them, pointing to recent military airstrikes in Syria.
“If we’re going to debate whether we should give the president additional powers, we’ll have to have that debate separately. But it shouldn’t be under cover to keep old authorizations on the book, authorizations that are not necessary to deal with any current threat,” Menendez said.
But several of his Republican colleagues in the Senate took to the floor to advocate for the war clearances for Iraq to be preserved, on the grounds that a repeal could limit the US’s ability to take action in the Middle East.
For example, Texas Senator John Cornyn argued that while the political situation in Iraq has changed, threats to US interests remain. He also cited Iraqi security as a motivation.
“US troops are no longer there to deal with the threats from Iraq. We are here now to counter the threats to Iraq. So are threats from Iran, the main state sponsor of international terrorism,” Cornyn said in his speech.
“Despite the fact that Iraq is now our partner, it does not mean that it is time to give up our security interests in the region. America still has very real opponents in the Middle East who would harm us and our allies given the chance.”
Meanwhile, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham gave a fiery speech saying that revoking the war permits would embolden American opponents.
‘This is what you do. With this you give the signal that we are leaving. We withdraw. That as a nation we don’t have the will to bring this to a successful conclusion. Nothing good will come of this,” he said, ending his speech by calling the prospect of a repeal “one of the most ill-conceived ideas after 9/11.”
Following the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Twitter that the chamber would vote on final passage of the repeal later this week.
“Americans want to see an end to endless wars in the Middle East,” he wrote.
(TagsToTranslate)News
