Corker, Flake stress need for new authorizations for use of military force to fight terrorism

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) on Monday convened a hearing that examined the Trump administration’s views on the importance of retaining current authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) to combat terrorism, and the appropriate oversight role for Congress if it chooses to update them.

Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a member of the committee, heard testimony from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis during the hearing that focused on the 2001 and 2002 AUMF.

Corker and Flake both support new AUMF resolutions.

“Numbers of members both on and off this committee have raised questions about the executive’s authorities with respect to war making, the use of nuclear weapons, and, from a diplomatic perspective, entering into and terminating agreements with other countries,” Corker said during opening remarks at the hearing, the third this year on AUMF.

Advanced technology that makes the use of unmanned drones and war from a distance possible, Corker added, has increased the ability of presidents to initiate significant military actions without large numbers of troops on the ground.

The 2001 AUMF following 9/11 focuses on the use of military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The president’s authority to use military force against Iraq was reinforced by the 2002 AUMF.

Congress has been united in its support of lethal force against terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, Corker said, and the AUMF should be updated to reflect the current conflict and to reassert the constitutional role of Congress.

Flake said that operating on the basis of a 16-year-old AUMF is “simply not tenable.”

“Congress needs to weigh in, we have to make sure that our adversaries and our allies and most importantly our troops know that we speak with one voice,” Flake said. “In the Senate we aspire to be more than a cog in the feedback loop, this is the body with Article I authority to declare war and to authorize the use of military force.”

“Previously, Flake voiced concern about passing an amendment to repeal the 2001 AUMF in September before a new AUMF to replace it is approved.” He also introduced a bipartisan AUMF against ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Taliban in May with U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA).

Tillerson testified that new AUMF authorities need to be in place before older ones are repealed to avoid operational paralysis within the military and to ensure that global allies don’t question the United States’ commitment to defeating ISIS.

“… Any new authorization should not be time-constrained,” Tillerson added. “Legislation which would arbitrarily terminate the authorization to use force would be inconsistent with a conditions-based approach, and could unintentionally embolden our enemies with the goal of outlasting us. Any oversight mechanism in a new AUMF also would have to allow the United States the freedom to quickly move against our enemies without being constrained by a feedback loop.”

A new AUMF also cannot be geographically restricted, Tillerson said, because the administration needs statutory authority to use military force against enemies that don’t respect geographical boundaries.

Corker noted the need for a new AUMF to gain bipartisan support.

“We must also be mindful that moving an AUMF without significant, bipartisan support could send the wrong message to our allies and our adversaries that we are not united and committed to victory,” Corker said. “So far, Congress has been unable to bridge the gap between those who see a new AUMF as primarily an opportunity to limit the president and those who believe constraining the commander-in-chief in wartime is unwise.”