Trump hasn’t ended endless wars. Congress must use the War Powers Resolution.
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, then quickly backed down after receiving blistering criticism from establishment figures in both parties. Less than a year later, he renewed his call to withdraw, citing his “heartbreaking” calls to family members left behind by fallen servicemembers. Again, he faced broadsides from the military and both parties, 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 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. 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.
Read more:
