America has a casual relationship with war. Major campaigns like Afghanistan are only part of America’s global military footprint. Even after the last U.S. troops have left Afghanistan, U.S. forces will remain players in dozens of conflicts across the globe. This comes at unnecessary cost, in troop lives lost and taxpayer dollars spent. Unintended consequences, like civilian casualties, fuel further conflict, making us less safe, not more.
Since 2018, U.S. forces have conducted air and drone strikes in seven countries and engaged in combat or potential combat in 12. In nearly 80 countries, the United States has conducted counterterrorism training and assistance, which is often more dangerous and hands-on than it may sound.
If each of these activities required the explicit approval of Congress, I have no doubt we would have far fewer military engagements today.
And that is what should have happened. Under the U.S. Constitution, and reinforced by the 1973 War Powers Act, Congress holds the legal authority to sign off on use of military force. But, as I wrote in April, successive administrations have avoided this congressional check by defining military activities as something less than war, or claiming they fall under overly broad congressional authorizations from two decades ago.
A new bipartisan bill aims to close both of these loopholes. The power of the National Security Powers Act (NSPA), introduced last week by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., lies in the simple tools of clarity and specificity.
The War Powers Act was the last congressional attempt to rein in executive authority to go to war. Passed in reaction to President Richard Nixon’s overreach during the Vietnam War, it imposed notification requirements and a 60-day termination clock for military activities not authorized by Congress.
But the devil is in the definition — or, rather, the lack of one. Under the War Powers Act, Congress’ oversight role is only triggered when U.S. forces engage in “hostilities,” or situations where hostilities are likely to occur. The executive branch solution has been simply not to call a wide variety of military engagements — like dropping 2,000-pound bombs — “hostilities.”
White House lawyers have made the case for years that nothing short of exchanging fire actively with hostile forces meets the mark. Such a narrow definition provides a loophole to congressional oversight that you could drive an army through. This is how President Barack Obama’s administration in 2011 justified an extensive bombing campaign in Libya under executive authority alone. And yet, calling that campaign hostile would seem a low bar.
Dropping bombs and much more would trigger congressional oversight under the proposed NSPA definition, which makes clear that hostilities include any situation involving use of lethal or potentially lethal force by or against U.S. forces. This would ensure that the national representatives closest to the American people have concluded that dangerous military engagements overseas are in the interest of our national security.
The second critical change proposed by the NSPA is that it requires use of force authorizations be specific about what they authorize. This would prevent the proliferation of small wars under a single vague authorization, such as we have seen in the past 20 years. One congressional authorization about 60 words long authorized the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. It has been used as legal cover for dozens of small wars since. Our military has conducted campaigns under that authority against enemies, like al-Shabab and ISIS, that could not have been imagined when it was passed.
Under the NSPA, authorizations must state clearly where a mission will take place, what mission objectives are and which specific countries or armed groups are the enemies. Additionally, authorizations are only good for two years, forcing each new Congress to decide whether to sign off on continuing military action. Reauthorization requests must state how much an operation has cost U.S. taxpayers to date. These details mean our lawmakers know exactly what they are signing off on, why and at what expense.
The president would still have a mandate to use force in self-defense, but self-defense is also more narrowly defined than how it has been applied in practice. The NSPA applies this authority to “sudden attack” or concrete threats of a sudden attack. If the danger isn’t present and a threat isn’t imminent, there is no reason not to bring in Congress to play its oversight role.
Congressional oversight is the mechanism that brings public scrutiny and debate to our military engagements. It democratizes the use of our military force. If you think Congress should have a say over where, when and how our troops are put in harm’s way, or even if you just think more of that budget might be better spent here at home, contact your congressional representatives and let them know. This bill is our best chance in a generation to end our casual relationship with war.
Elizabeth Shackelford is a senior fellow on U.S. foreign policy with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.