On Jan. 3, 2020, President Trump ordered an airstrike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. Soleimani was in charge of the overseas operations such as handling support for terrorist group allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen. Soleimani was a despicable human being, but the President did not have any authority to carry out the airstrike against a member of the Iranian military command.
When there are major strikes in the Middle East, the abbreviation AUMF will pop up in the explanation for the strikes. AUMF stands for Authorization for Use of Military Force. Two important ones have been passed—the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF. Both have been used as justification for conflicts they were not intended to allow.
The 2001 AUMF is short, sitting at less than a page. Passed by both chambers of Congress one week after 9/11, this AUMF allows for the president to deploy the US military “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 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.”
Since it was enacted, the White House has used this as a justification to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the AUMF has been used to justify going after other groups such as Al-Shabab in Somalia. Al-Shabab pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, but it occurred in 2012 and had no connection to 9/11. The strikes against Al-Shabab, by the definition of the AUMF, are unconstitutional.
The 2002 AUMF is longer, written at a little over four pages. Passed in October of 2002, this authorization enabled the invasion of Iraq. It stated that the president has the ability to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Some argued during the Obama administration that this justified the fight against ISIS as the group was based in Iraq. The Trump administration used this in 2018 to stay in Syria, where some senators worried that the same argument would be used to fight Iran.
After the airstrike against Soleimani, there was backlash from Congress and others who stated that there was no lawful reason for the strike. In trying to defend the action, Vice President Mike Pence said that Soleimani took part in 9/11 and used the 2001 AUMF as the statute for allowing the raid. But Iran had no part in 9/11, nor did a proxy group that Soleimani controlled as part of the Quds Force.
In June 2019, the Trump administration said that the 2002 AUMF did not allow for direct conflict with Iran, but allowed for the protection of US forces in Iraq if Iranian forces or proxies attacked. In reality, though, the 2002 AUMF only called for action to be taken against Iraq. Even then, the language is clearly written and specifically directed at Saddam Hussein and the regime he led that the U.S. has already gotten rid of.
No one can argue the fact that Soleimani’s actions have led to 603 American deaths and many more of Iraqis and others through the use of the proxy terrorist organizations by the Quds Force. However, with this assassination, the Trump administration has broken an unspoken rule. It is not acceptable to kill a member of a foreign government and then boast about their death.
This is different from the killings of Bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi because Soleimani was a member of a sovereign government, and he was another cog in the wheel. Bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi were the faces of their group, and it was obvious that their respective terrorist groups had been hurt by their deaths. For the Quds Force, they can have someone easily replace Soleimani and continue his plans.
One of a politician’s favorite talking points regarding foreign policy is the Forever Wars. These are the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that many in Congress and even President Trump himself campaigned on ending. Now, though, Trump and his supporters in Congress want to escalate the tension with Iran, and they are using the same documents that started the conflicts they want to end.
Using the two AUMFS as justification to raise tensions with Iran is unconstitutional and proves what many people already believe to be true: those who create our laws don’t care about following them if they get in the way of their actions.
The AUMFs should be repealed. By doing so, Congress can show that they want to bring the U.S. military back home, that they can stand up to the executive branch and that they too will follow the whole law, not just the parts they want to apply to them.
