Congress waited six years to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution after it opened the bloody floodgates for the Vietnam War in August 1964.
If that seems slow, consider the continuing failure of Congress to repeal the “war on terror” resolution — the Authorization for Use of Military Force — that sailed through, with just one dissenting vote, three days after 9/11.
Prior to casting the only “no” vote, Congresswoman Barbara Lee spoke on the House floor. “As we act,” she said, “let us not become the evil that we deplore.”
We have. That’s why, more than 11 years later, Lee’s prophetic one-minute speech is so painful to watch. The “war on terror” has inflicted carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere as a matter of routine. Targets change, but the assumed prerogative to kill with impunity remains.
Now, Rep. Lee has introduced H.R. 198, a measure to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (This week, several thousand people have already used a RootsAction.org special webpage to email their Senators and House members about repealing that “authorization” for endless war.) Opposed to repeal, the Obama administration is pleased to keep claiming that the 137-month-old resolution justifies everything from on-the-ground troops in combat to drone strikes and kill lists to flagrant abrogation of civil liberties.
A steep uphill incline faces efforts to repeal the resolution that issued a blank political check for war in the early fall of 2001. Struggling to revoke it is a valuable undertaking. Yet even repeal would be unlikely to end the “war on terror.”
At the start of 1971, President Nixon felt compelled to sign a bill that included repeal of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. By then, he had shifted his ostensible authority for continuing the war on Vietnam — asserting his prerogative as commander in chief. Leaders of the warfare state never lack for rationales when they want to keep making war.
In retrospect, the U.S. “war on terror” has turned out to be even more tenacious than the U.S. war that took several million lives in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the 1960s and early 1970s.
Some key similarities resonate with current circumstances. Year after year, in Congress, support for the Vietnam War was bipartisan. Presidents Johnson and Nixon preached against unauthorized violence in America’s cities while inflicting massive violence in Southeast Asia. Both presidents were fond of proclaiming fervent wishes for peace.
But unlike the horrific war in Southeast Asia, the ongoing and open-ended “war on terror” is not confined by geography or, apparently, by calendar. The search for enemies to smite (and create) is availing itself of a bottomless pit, while bottom-feeding military contractors keep making a killing.
Beyond the worthy goal of repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force is a need for Congress to cut off appropriations for the “war on terror.” A prerequisite: repudiating the lethal mythology of righteous war unbounded by national borders or conceivable duration.
What may be even more difficult to rescind is the chronic disconnect between lofty oratory and policies digging the country deeper into endless war.
“We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war,” President Obama said in his 2013 inaugural address, after four years of doing more than any other president in U.S. history to normalize perpetual war as a bipartisan enterprise.
Repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force will be very hard. Revoking the power to combine lovely rhetoric with pernicious militarism will be even more difficult.
Photo by Youth Radio under Creative Commons license




12 Comments

Thank you, Rep Barbara Lee and Norman Solomon for informing us of legislation we can all support!
This is well worth calling our sen-reps daily until it is passed and implemented! Worth a call to Alan Grayson, too; let’s see if he’ll use his forum for this vital legislation.
Perhaps there’s something to be said for continuing the GWOT. I know, but follow me on this.
The new US world domination strategy includes an emphasis on supporting foreign partners rather than committing large numbers of US troops. (It also includes a well-publicized “pivot” to Asia-Pacific, which obviates any need for ground forces.)
Therefore, the U.S. doesn’t need a standing army, nor aircraft carriers (twelve billion each), nor fighter airplanes (1/3 billion each). The U.S could scrap its self-propelled howitzers, not produce any more tanks, and realize big savings in expensive accounts.
So we give them their silly GWOT while nixing the really important and expensive stuff. Whaddya think?
Repealing the AUMF and associated funding are worthy goals. Thank you for bringing forward this discussion.
However, in addition to the laws we know about, we now live in the world of secret “law” based on whatever is in the President’s mind on any given Tuesday, secret courts, and the abdication by Congress of both the authority to declare war, and the responsibility to oversee the executive branch.
As Marcy Wheeler has pointed out (here and here, for example) in the matter of targeted killing, the President hasn’t clarified whether he is claims authority under the AUMF or Article II of the Constitution.
If Congress or the public claim to “trust” an executive operating in secret, they have surrendered their commitment to the rule of law.
Passing or repealing non-secret laws won’t be sufficient. We also need to include in this discussion and effort a renewed commitment to the rule of law and a requirement that our elected officials adhere to the rule of law.
X2
If they wanted to really stop unnecessary wars they’d introduce a bill to establish a draft for the children and grandchildren of all elected federal officials. I’m pretty sure we’d only go to war in extraordinary circumstances and the wars would be over pretty quickly.
Repealing the authorization?…Ha!. Good one.
The GWOT is basically the only jobs program we have. A handful of defense contractors are the giant toddlers sucking at Treasury’s sumptuous breast. They get really annoyed when the milk slows down, cry and scratch, even sometimes biting.
Our “leaders” see no choice but to create wars to keep feeding them, and our energy policy is derived from the same perpetual destruction. Our leaders know we simply can’t understand that, so they don’t especially try man’splaining it to us.
Look! Over there…a kidnapped white girl!!! Marital impropriety over that way…nothing to see here.
We just pay whatever number is on the gas pump that day and do nothing, hurrying home to watch Amurican Idol.
X3
The cognitive dissonance of Mr. Solomon is simply amazing to behold as he informs the reader how Obama has continued to wage ceaseless war overseas while omitting the fact that he [Solomon] endorsed the very person whom he justifiably labels as a warmonger when Obama ran for president in 2012.
If the election was held tomorrow, Solomon would be one of the first “Progressives” to line up behind Obama again and encourage others to do so. It’s a little late for moral outrage, Solomon. With your help, Obama won, and he’ll do as he pleases.
Solomon lacks any kind of systematic analysis of what is wrong with our political system and just keeps beating his head against the wall.
Ultimately come crunch time Solomon always asks that we all get corralled into the blue cattle pen called The Democratic Party, known more accurately as ‘the more effective evil.’
Yeah. Solomon has had a lot to say now that the election is over. It makes me think of this.
…hmmm
Solomon seems to like doing the talk tho doesn’t he — thank you Jimbo
… X 2 … link is a good one ;->
Thank you for pointing that out. Three short months ago, Solomon was telling everyone he knew that Obama was the only rational choice. Now he and others of his ilk present themselves as “voices of dissent.”
Here’s how it seems to go:
1. Off-election years: “we’re angry as h*ll”
2. General and mid-term elections: “lesser of two evils”
Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. What a way to make a living: posing as an impassioned, moral “liberal voice” in the off-years and preying on people’s fears in the even-numbered years. What is it Hedges calls them? Oh, yeah. “A useless appendage to the corporate state.”