SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Senior Official Confirms Obama's AUMF Intentionally Ambiguous to Allow Broad War Powers
Under Secretary of Defense Christine Wormuth testified Tuesday that proposed legislation 'designed to give us some breadth and discretion as to who we go after.'
Mar 03, 2015
Another high-ranking Obama administration official confirmed on Tuesday that the White House's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the war on ISIS was left intentionally vague to allow for expansive--and potentially limitless--presidential war-making powers.
Since the AUMF was submitted to Congress last month, it has been the topic of debate within and beyond Washington, DC. Many have raised concerns about its broad terms, which impose no geographic limitations, broadly define the "enemy," allow for deployment of ground combat forces, and leave the controversial 2001 AUMF intact.
The Obama administration has waffled on just how extensive the powers granted in the proposed AUMF are. When he initially submitted the proposal on February 11, Obama claimed it "would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan."
However, White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest stated the same day that the proposed AUMF's language was left intentionally vague because "we believe it's important that there aren't overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander in chief."
And just a few weeks later, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry clarified the AUMF indeed allows for the deployment of combat forces, without clarifying concrete limitations to boots-on-the-ground.
Now, Under Secretary of Defense Christine Wormuth--recently appointed by Obama--is wading into the controversy.
At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Wormuth sought to assure hawkish congressional Representative Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) that the AUMF was intended to allow for wide-ranging presidential powers. The exchange was flagged by journalist Goerge Zornick in an article for The Nation.
Nugent stated:
We're worried about strategy. Strategy really needs to be larger than just ISIS. I mean, it really is--and I know the president doesn't want to go there--but it its radical extremism in Islam across the globe that is affecting us, and our friends across the globe. And so I'm worried with AUMF that it's just on ISIS--does that really, is that really the strategy? That's part of the strategy, but is that really where we need to be? Because you see it first-hand, across the globe. And I know that all the combatant commands talk about it, I'm sure.
Wormuth responded:
Why don't I take a crack at this quickly and then have General Austin pile on. The AUMF proposal, as I'm sure you're aware, doesn't have a geographic limitation. And that was very deliberate, to address exactly the kinds of concerns that you have. Similarly there is the associated forces, which is designed to give us some breadth and discretion as to who we go after.
Furthermore, in written testimony (pdf) presented to the hearing, Wormuth claimed that the AUMF "does authorize the full range of activities we anticipate needing in the fight against ISIL. It provides DoD with the authority and flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or Special Forces operations to take military action against ISIL leadership."
Critics have warned that, if the 2001 AUMF is any indication, ill-defined language will be abused to wage potentially global war.
Passed after the September 11th attacks, the 2001 legislation has been invoked by the Bush and Obama administrations to authorize the ongoing war in Afghanistan; covert drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; military intervention in countries from Ethiopia to Iraq; and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Another high-ranking Obama administration official confirmed on Tuesday that the White House's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the war on ISIS was left intentionally vague to allow for expansive--and potentially limitless--presidential war-making powers.
Since the AUMF was submitted to Congress last month, it has been the topic of debate within and beyond Washington, DC. Many have raised concerns about its broad terms, which impose no geographic limitations, broadly define the "enemy," allow for deployment of ground combat forces, and leave the controversial 2001 AUMF intact.
The Obama administration has waffled on just how extensive the powers granted in the proposed AUMF are. When he initially submitted the proposal on February 11, Obama claimed it "would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan."
However, White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest stated the same day that the proposed AUMF's language was left intentionally vague because "we believe it's important that there aren't overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander in chief."
And just a few weeks later, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry clarified the AUMF indeed allows for the deployment of combat forces, without clarifying concrete limitations to boots-on-the-ground.
Now, Under Secretary of Defense Christine Wormuth--recently appointed by Obama--is wading into the controversy.
At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Wormuth sought to assure hawkish congressional Representative Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) that the AUMF was intended to allow for wide-ranging presidential powers. The exchange was flagged by journalist Goerge Zornick in an article for The Nation.
Nugent stated:
We're worried about strategy. Strategy really needs to be larger than just ISIS. I mean, it really is--and I know the president doesn't want to go there--but it its radical extremism in Islam across the globe that is affecting us, and our friends across the globe. And so I'm worried with AUMF that it's just on ISIS--does that really, is that really the strategy? That's part of the strategy, but is that really where we need to be? Because you see it first-hand, across the globe. And I know that all the combatant commands talk about it, I'm sure.
Wormuth responded:
Why don't I take a crack at this quickly and then have General Austin pile on. The AUMF proposal, as I'm sure you're aware, doesn't have a geographic limitation. And that was very deliberate, to address exactly the kinds of concerns that you have. Similarly there is the associated forces, which is designed to give us some breadth and discretion as to who we go after.
Furthermore, in written testimony (pdf) presented to the hearing, Wormuth claimed that the AUMF "does authorize the full range of activities we anticipate needing in the fight against ISIL. It provides DoD with the authority and flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or Special Forces operations to take military action against ISIL leadership."
Critics have warned that, if the 2001 AUMF is any indication, ill-defined language will be abused to wage potentially global war.
Passed after the September 11th attacks, the 2001 legislation has been invoked by the Bush and Obama administrations to authorize the ongoing war in Afghanistan; covert drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; military intervention in countries from Ethiopia to Iraq; and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Another high-ranking Obama administration official confirmed on Tuesday that the White House's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the war on ISIS was left intentionally vague to allow for expansive--and potentially limitless--presidential war-making powers.
Since the AUMF was submitted to Congress last month, it has been the topic of debate within and beyond Washington, DC. Many have raised concerns about its broad terms, which impose no geographic limitations, broadly define the "enemy," allow for deployment of ground combat forces, and leave the controversial 2001 AUMF intact.
The Obama administration has waffled on just how extensive the powers granted in the proposed AUMF are. When he initially submitted the proposal on February 11, Obama claimed it "would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan."
However, White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest stated the same day that the proposed AUMF's language was left intentionally vague because "we believe it's important that there aren't overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander in chief."
And just a few weeks later, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry clarified the AUMF indeed allows for the deployment of combat forces, without clarifying concrete limitations to boots-on-the-ground.
Now, Under Secretary of Defense Christine Wormuth--recently appointed by Obama--is wading into the controversy.
At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Wormuth sought to assure hawkish congressional Representative Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) that the AUMF was intended to allow for wide-ranging presidential powers. The exchange was flagged by journalist Goerge Zornick in an article for The Nation.
Nugent stated:
We're worried about strategy. Strategy really needs to be larger than just ISIS. I mean, it really is--and I know the president doesn't want to go there--but it its radical extremism in Islam across the globe that is affecting us, and our friends across the globe. And so I'm worried with AUMF that it's just on ISIS--does that really, is that really the strategy? That's part of the strategy, but is that really where we need to be? Because you see it first-hand, across the globe. And I know that all the combatant commands talk about it, I'm sure.
Wormuth responded:
Why don't I take a crack at this quickly and then have General Austin pile on. The AUMF proposal, as I'm sure you're aware, doesn't have a geographic limitation. And that was very deliberate, to address exactly the kinds of concerns that you have. Similarly there is the associated forces, which is designed to give us some breadth and discretion as to who we go after.
Furthermore, in written testimony (pdf) presented to the hearing, Wormuth claimed that the AUMF "does authorize the full range of activities we anticipate needing in the fight against ISIL. It provides DoD with the authority and flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or Special Forces operations to take military action against ISIL leadership."
Critics have warned that, if the 2001 AUMF is any indication, ill-defined language will be abused to wage potentially global war.
Passed after the September 11th attacks, the 2001 legislation has been invoked by the Bush and Obama administrations to authorize the ongoing war in Afghanistan; covert drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; military intervention in countries from Ethiopia to Iraq; and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram prison.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.