My thoughts on Syria
“As commander in chief, the President already has the authority to conduct a limited strike… I believe in a strong commander in chief who takes actions as warranted and stands by them… After reviewing both the classified and unclassified evidence, I am convinced that the Syrian regime did launch a chemical weapons attack, and it is in our national interest that it faces the consequences.”
I wrote these words on September 4, 2013, after voting in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of an AUMF to give the Obama Administration authorization to launch military strikes in Syria — strikes that never occurred.
President Trump made the right decision last night. While further engagement against the Syrian regime will necessitate a Syria-specific AUMF, a timely, proportional response of this type against an air base, where the element of surprise was necessary, was warranted.
Back in 2013, many of us in Congress felt that the President’s reason for coming to Congress to ask permission to enforce the red line that he had drawn was more political than constitutional. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in September of 2014, I said:
“I don’t believe that the President needed authorization from Congress to carry out the mission as it was described to us. I voted in favor of the AUMF because I believe that to deny a president the authority to respond to a thread that he previously made would damage American leadership and credibility. The purpose of seeking congressional authorization should not to be to provide justification for NOT doing something you promised to do. In this case, the lack of action helped prolong the status quo in Syria, and has enabled ISIS to grow in strength. Further, this absence of leadership sent a powerful message to allies and adversaries alike that the United States doesn’t always mean what it says.”
Back to today. If longer-term action against the Syrian regime is warranted, and if the Trump Administration presents a coherent plan for military action, I believe that authorization from Congress will be forthcoming. Absent a Syria-specific AUMF, the Trump Administration should resist further escalation. Military engagements in the Middle East are difficult enough with Congress and the Administration on the same page. Sustained military engagements always tests the public will, which is why bipartisan congressional buy-in is indispensable.
On the subject of AUMFs, the 2001 AUMF, which is being used to authorize our continued campaign against ISIS, is ill-fitting and outdated. A new AUMF is long overdue, and I’m working with Senator Tim Kaine on bipartisan language that is more appropriate when sustained military action is needed against non-state actors. More on that in a later post.
