• QUESTION

   week 4   

  GSC 506 – Week 4

  War on Terror AUMF and Moral Injury

  Prof Jeff Kubiak

  [email protected]

  In this lecture we are going to examine the relationship of

  the president to the congress with regards to war powers

  using a specific case, the war on terror. But we’ll take our

  analysis one step further by looking at the nature of the

  political environment today and the potential costs of an

  imbalance between the branches.

  1

  Themes

  • The 2001 AUMF – short and sweet
  • Passing a new one? Pros and cons
  • Congress’ role and the health of the force and

  the polity

  2

  2001 AUMF

  SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED

  FORCES.

  (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all

  necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or

  persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,

  or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

  or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent

  any future acts of international terrorism against the United States

  by such nations, organizations or persons.

  3

  2001 AUMF

  SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED

  FORCES.

  (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all

  necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or

  persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,

  or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

  or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent

  any future acts of international terrorism against the United States

  by such nations, organizations or persons.

  Compared increasingly frequently to the Gulf of Tonkin

  Resolution, the 2001 AUMF is a check that has been cashed

  many times by the three different presidents. The 60 words

  that comprise the AUMF have since 2001 been used to

  justify at least 37 military operations in 14 countries,

  including not just the war in Iraq, but also the fight against

  ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

  4

  Growing Support

  • Growing bi-partisan support for re-looking at the AUMF;
  • 2015 President Obama requests AUMF ref Syria
  • Repeal 2001 AUMF as it has run its course
  • Replace with new AUMF that is specific to our current

  fight(s)

  • Add a sunset clause

  Barabra Lee, D- Rep from California, has been on a mission

  to repeal the 2001 AUMF since she cast the single Nay vote

  in Sept 2001. The approval of her proposed amendment to

  repeal the AUMF by the House Appropriations committee in

  June was a stunning indication that is a growing bipartisan

  sense that Congress needed to exercise its voice in our

  current wars.

  Most of Congress were not even in office in 2001; sons are

  now fighting the war their fathers were sent to fight when

  this AUMF was first signed into law.

  Clearly today’s fight, especially in Iraq and Syria, is much

  different that the invasion of Afghanistan contemplated

  under this authority. The merits of this fight, and for that

  matter many others that are ongoing or largely completed,

  have not been taken up in a serious fashion by the Congress

  because the Pres has not felt compelled to get Congressional

  reauthorization.

  5

  Sunset clause – 3, 5, or even 10 years as with funding bills

  passed under reconciliation, would provide more

  opportunities for this important debate to take place.

  5

  Pros and Cons

  • Cons
  • Repealing 2001 AUMF without replacement
  • Partisanship in Congress makes healthy

  debate on topic this important impossible

  • Political risk
  • Taking blame for future attacks
  • Challenging your party’s president

  Passing a new AUMF in the Senate could very well be a

  problem given the filibuster rule.

  Divisive nature of the policy will destroy moral of troops in

  the field and bring into question US resolve in the eyes of

  our allies

  6

  Pros and Cons

  • Pros
  • Reclaim Congress’ role in deciding which

  objectives are worth killing and dying for

  • Curb possible abuse of Presidential power
  • Provide unified national position on US

  efforts to defeat ISIS and associated groups

  Value of the object

  7

  Moral Forces

  • Clausewitz
  • Intangible component of a fighting force

  capability

  • Soldier – responsibility and fear
  • Commander – clear vision in the fog of war

  Soldier – moral and physical courage, both the acceptance of

  responsibility and the suppression of fear.

  Commander – Clausewitz – “In the dreadful presence of

  suffering and danger, emotion can easily overwhelm

  intellectual conviction, and in this psychological fog it is so

  hard to form clear and complete insights that changes of

  view become more understandable and excusable. Action

  can never be based on anything firmer than instinct, a

  sensing of truth.”

  8

  Moral Injury

  “disruption in an individual’s confidence and

  expectations about one’s own or others’ motivation

  or capacity to behave in a just and ethical manner”

  • Is public ambivalence to war a contributing

  factor to moral injury?

  • Is lack of clarity as to what kind of war we are

  in a contributing factor?

  “Within the context of military service, particularly regarding

  the experience of war, “moral injury” refers to the emotional

  and spiritual impact of participating in, witnessing, and/or

  being victimized by actions and behaviors which violate a

  service member’s core moral values and behavioral

  expectations of self or others. Moral injury almost always

  pivots with the dimension of time: moral codes evolve

  alongside identities, and transitions inform perspectives that

  form new conclusions about old events.” “disruption in an

  individual’s confidence and expectations about one’s own or

  others’ motivation or capacity to behave in a just and ethical

  manner”

  9

  In the ambiguous and complex combat environment of

  intrastate wars, wars in which the US objective is often more

  political than military, the role of the military can be very

  unclear. With that lack of clarity comes a decrease in the

  moral forces talked about by Clausewitz for both soldiers

  and commanders. Congress has a very important role in

  shaping the assessment of what I called the normative

  legitimacy of a war policy…the answer to the “is it worth it?”

  question. With questions about “is it worth it” lingering

  regarding our wars in Afghanistan and against ISIS, what

  pushes the discussion back to the national political agenda,

  i.e. a conversation between the Congress and the President,

  to bring the needed clarity?

  10

Related Samples