In a historic move, the Senate voted to repeal both congressional authorizations for the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War on Wednesday, sending a powerful message a week after the 20th anniversary of the invasion.
The measure passed with a 66-30 vote on March 29 and will now move to the House. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has said he will commit it to a vote after the House Foreign Affairs Committee reviews it, per NPR.
The repeal of these authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) has bipartisan support, with the years-long initiative to do so led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Todd Young (R-IN).
“A lot has changed in the last 20 years, and yet according to our laws today, we are still at war with Iraq,” Young explained on the floor leading up to the vote, per NPR. “This isn’t just the result of an oversight, it’s an intentional abdication of this body of its constitutional role in Americans’ national security, and allowing it to continue is a strategic mistake.”
The repeal of the AUMFs would not impact the operations of approximately 2,500 U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq, per Military News. This presence is primarily limited to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and focused on training and advising Iraqi forces.
“Iraq is still under pressure from ISIS,” said retired Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie, per PBS. McKenzie led U.S. Central Command and served as the top U.S. commander for the Middle East from 2019 to 2022.
“We still help them continue that fight. We’ve done a lot of things to help them improve the control of their own sovereignty, which is of very high importance to the Iraqis,” McKenzie explained.
The AUMFs approved in 2001 and 2002 were tied to 9/11 as the main legal authority for military action.
While the 2002 AUMF launched the 2003 mission to invade Iraq, the earlier one — not repealed — waged a war against “international terrorism” and continues to justify the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and among others.
Referring to the 2002 AUMF before the Senate on Wednesday, Kaine pointed to the faulty link drawn between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and 9/11 as well as false claims that the country was stockpiling nuclear weapons.
“The 4,500 [U.S. troops] who died, the 3,100 who were wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians — what we have to contemplate is the reality that we rushed into a war,” Kaine said, per Military Times. “This body rushed into a war.”
Those who fought in the Iraq War have also been vocal in their support of the repeal.
“Veterans understand the human cost of war, and we know that the burden of conflict falls heavily on our service members and their families,” Mario Marquez, who served four combat tours in Iraq and is now the national security director of the American Legion, said at a recent news conference, per Military Times.
“Millions of servicemen and women answered a call to serve in Iraq willingly and without question, and we did so without ever knowing a definitive end to our service. However, our force is not built to remain in a perpetual state of war,” Marquez continued.
There are opponents to this move to repeal the AUMFs, including some members of the GOP who wish to instead replace them with another that specifically targets Iran-backed militias in Iraq.
“I would prefer if we’re going to repeal it, to replace it,” Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX) said, per Politico. “We’re having discussions with the speaker’s office on that, just to update it.”
“And I would also put a five-year sunset in these things [AUMFs], so that Congress is forced to take it back up,” McCaul added.
McCaul is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that will review the bill.
Yet some ultraconservative GOP members like Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) support the measure as is.
“I’m going to try to make the argument that it should be repealed,” said Gaetz, per Politico.
Were it to go through, the repeal of the AUMFs related to Iraq would represent a significant step towards Congress reasserting its constitutional authority to decide whether to go to war or not, irrespective of executive pressure.
