[Peace] Katrina vanden Heuvel: Trump hasn’t ended endless wars. Congress must use WPR

Tue Sep 1 22:56:57 UTC 2020

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/01/trump-hasnt-ended-endless-wars-congress-must-use-war-powers-resolution/

*Trump hasn’t ended endless wars. Congress must use the War Powers
Resolution.*

Opinion by
Katrina vanden Heuvel
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/katrina-vanden-heuvel/>
Columnist
September 1, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. EDT
Add to list

Speakers at last week’s Republican National Convention lauded President
Trump as a foe of endless wars. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) praised
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/fact-checking-second-night-2020-republican-national-convention/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2>the
president for “bringing our men and women home,” while Eric Trump claimed
that his father accomplished “peace in the Middle East. Never-ending wars
were finally ended.”

Just hours later, we learned of a direct clash between U.S. and Russian
troops in northern Syria
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-troops-injured-russia-syria/2020/08/26/f49c99e4-e7df-11ea-a414-8422fa3e4116_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_4>.
Military vehicles from each country raced in an open field until a Russian
vehicle collided with a U.S. vehicle, injuring four Americans, with each
side claiming the other was to blame. Former administration official Brett
McGurk noted that “these incidents have been ongoing for months.”

How did we arrive at a situation where the two most heavily armed nuclear
powers are facing off in rural Syria without congressional authorization?

In late 2018, Trump announced a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-decision-to-withdraw-us-troops-from-syria-startles-aides-and-allies/2018/12/19/80dd8ab2-03b2-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_8>,
then quickly backed down after receiving blistering criticism from
establishment figures in both parties
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-calls-withdrawing-us-troops-from-syria-no-surprise-amid-mounting-backlash/2018/12/20/d26fdcd6-0452-11e9-b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_8>.
Less than a year later, he renewed his call to withdraw
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1075528854402256896>, citing
his “heartbreaking” calls to family members left behind by fallen
servicemembers. Again, he faced broadsides from the military
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/they-are-livid-trumps-withdrawal-from-syria-prompts-rare-public-criticism-from-current-former-military-officials/2019/10/19/d9455f08-f1ba-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_8>
 and both parties
<https://www.npr.org/2019/10/16/770445324/trump-defends-syria-withdrawal-it-s-not-our-problem>,
and again, he buckled. Instead, the president announced not only that
troops would remain in Syria but that they would do so with an express aim
to “secure the oil,” which he suggested could be exploited through a “deal
with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies.” Given long-standing
accusations against the United States of waging conflicts for oil against
countries like Iraq and Libya, Trump’s overt plan to seize the resource — a
war crime under international law — was embarrassing for more tactful
militarists. But the plan now seems to be reaching fruition: A U.S. company
has reportedly reached a deal to develop the oil fields.

In 2013, when President Barack Obama decided he wanted to strike Syria in
retaliation for its use of chemical weapons, he sought authorization from
Congress for military action, as is legally required under the War Powers
Resolution of 1973. When it became clear neither lawmakers nor their
war-weary constituents supported
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/07/military-strikes-in-syria-were-very-unpopular-four-years-ago-but-trumps-could-be-different/?itid=lk_inline_manual_9>
such
a measure, Obama rightly declined to order strikes. The Trump
administration, however, has been unconcerned with legal and constitutional
requirements that outline Congress’s essential role in sending troops into
imminent hostilities <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp>.
This is the same President Trump, after all, who has continued U.S.
participation in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen even after Congress voted to
stop it and affirmed that it was unconstitutional.

Trump acknowledges that his Syria policy meant that “we may have to fight
for the oil,” boasting that any other party seeking the oil would “have a
hell of a fight.” Asked to clarify whether Trump’s plan included directly
opposing Russian or Syrian government forces, Secretary of Defense Mark T.
Esper said, “The short answer is yes, it presently does.” The U.S. special
representative for Syria, who currently oversees Trump’s plan, was even
more direct: “My job is to make [Syria] a quagmire for the Russians."

The predictable results of this reckless policy are now coming to a head.
Nearly seven years after Congress blocked Obama from directly engaging in
military action against Russia and the Syrian government, the Trump
administration is blatantly deepening U.S. involvement in the very conflict
that Congress and the American people resoundingly rejected. If Congress
doesn’t rein in this president now, the potential for an escalation will
only increase.

Thankfully, the War Powers Resolution has a remedy for this exact
situation. Under the law, any member of Congress can force a debate and
vote on U.S. involvement in military action abroad by introducing a
privileged resolution, as was seen with the votes on ending U.S.
participation in the Saudi war in Yemen last year. It is past time for
those on the left and the right who defend our Constitution and truly
oppose endless war to use this tool to force a debate and vote on this
dangerous and unauthorized mission. The American people, and our
servicemembers, deserve to see where their representatives stand on Trump’s
unconstitutional mission to secure oil and confront Russia in Syria.

Trump has not ended endless wars as his allies claim. But under our
Constitution, members of Congress who defer to his leadership on this issue
without voting to authorize it are guilty. The authors of our Constitution
assigned the responsibility for the decision to go to war to the
legislative branch, not the executive. Now, Congress needs to assert its
powers again.

Katrina vanden Heuvel
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/katrina-vanden-heuvel/>
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation magazine, writes
a weekly column for The Post. She has also edited or co-edited several
books, including “The Change I Believe In: Fighting for Progress in the Age
of Obama” (2011) and “Meltdown: How Greed and Corruption Shattered Our
Financial System and How We Can Recover” (2009)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20200901/4a635d66/attachment.htm>