Lawfare Daily: The Past, Present, and Future of War Powers with Brian Finucane and Matt Waxman
Sep 12, 2024
auto_awesome
Brian Finucane, an expert on war powers, and Matt Waxman, a national security law scholar, delve into the complexities of U.S. military authority. They discuss the Biden administration's justifications for military actions in the Middle East without new congressional approval. The pair highlights the historical context of these actions, the ongoing tension between executive and legislative powers, and the urgent need for congressional reform to clarify war powers. Additionally, they explore the implications of this dynamic for future military engagements.
The Biden administration's military actions in the Middle East since October 7 lack new congressional authorization, raising legal scrutiny over their justification.
Historical engagement trends, including the fight against ISIS, inform the present complexities of U.S. military operations against Iranian-backed groups.
The ongoing debate highlights the need for reform of the War Powers Resolution, emphasizing Congress's role in military oversight and accountability.
Deep dives
US Military Involvement and Congressional Authority
The podcast discusses the Biden administration's military deployments in response to the October 7th attacks, which involved direct hostilities without congressional authorization. US forces have been engaged in conflicts with Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, Syria, and against the Houthis, highlighting a significant shift from previous military engagements that usually sought authorization. The legality behind these actions has been scrutinized, especially considering that the administration has not provided clear legal justifications for bypassing Congress. This situation emphasizes the ongoing debate about the War Powers Resolution and its effectiveness in regulating military force usage by the presidency.
Historical Context and Recent Conflicts
The discussions highlight a historical context stretching back to US military involvement in the Middle East since 2014, including the fight against ISIS. The podcast notes a breakdown of previously observed truces with pro-Iranian groups post-October 7, resulting in resumed attacks on US positions, particularly as retaliatory actions related to the Gaza conflict. Even though the Houthis were relatively inactive toward US forces in prior years, they began attacking commercial shipping in solidarity with Hamas, prompting a military response from the US. This demonstrates how previous engagements influence present conditions and the complexities of US military posture in the region.
Disagreement on War Powers and Authority
A debate arises regarding the interpretation and current effectiveness of the War Powers Resolution, with one guest emphasizing that bipartisan support for war powers reform exists but remains politically challenging. While both guests agree on the need for a more robust congressional role, one argues against any new legislative frameworks, suggesting that Congress needs to better utilize its existing oversight capabilities. They agree that the War Powers Resolution has become less enforceable, pointing out its shortcomings and the need for reform to tighten its provisions. This tension underscores differing views on how to balance presidential military authority with legislative oversight effectively.
Weaknesses in Congressional Engagement and Oversight
The podcast examines the historical weaknesses in congressional engagement during military conflicts, often leading to a lack of political responsibility among lawmakers. Both speakers highlight the reluctance of Congress to take hard votes on war-related issues, which diminishes its role in military decision-making. The conversation suggests that without assertive engagement, Congress inadvertently allows presidents to operate unilaterally, shifting responsibilities away from legislative bodies and into the executive branch. Improving oversight mechanisms is emphasized as key to addressing this imbalance and ensuring that Congress acts more responsively to military engagements.
Proposals for Reforming War Powers
In discussing potential reforms, the podcast advocates for both an immediate and long-term approach to improving congressional oversight of military actions. One approach includes narrowing key terms in the War Powers Resolution, thus ensuring more stringent adherence to established timelines for congressional authorization. Additionally, the conversation indicates a need for the repeal of outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), like the 2002 AUMF tied to Iraq, and improving the reporting frameworks to Congress. These proposals aim to foster greater accountability and encourage a more deliberative approach to the decision-making processes surrounding military conflicts.
Without new congressional authorization for its post-Oct. 7 operations in the Middle East, the Biden administration has sought to legally justify its military activities in the region based on the president’s constitutional authority and the application of existing statutory authorities to operations against new adversaries. These executive branch arguments are the outgrowth of similar arguments presidential administrations have made over the last few decades, largely related to the requirements in the War Powers Resolution.
The International Crisis Group recently analyzed these arguments and related issues in a new report, “Bending the Guardrails: U.S. War Powers after 7 October.” Tyler McBrien and Matt Gluck of Lawfare spoke with Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and an author of the report, and Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School, about the Crisis Group’s report. They discussed the history relevant to the current war powers moment, how the Biden administration has continued to justify its operations without new legislative authority, and the possibility of war powers legal reform moving forward.