A US Marine of 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade runs to safety moments after an IED blast in Garmsir district of Helmand Province in Afghanistan on July 13, 2009.

The Senate on Wednesday turned back an attempt to repeal the current authority for U.S. military force in the 16-year-old Afghanistan war and the fight in Iraq.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, an anti-war crusader, had offered an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal war authority granted in 2001 and 2002. He argued Wednesday that the current war authorizations are outdated and that Congress needed to "grab power back" from the executive branch, which he said has been using the war authorizations for "unauthorized, unconstitutional and undeclared war."

Paul had threatened to essentially slow down the legislative process for passing the fiscal 2018 NDAA unless there was a floor debate on the war authorizations. The NDAA sets forth the Pentagon's budget and major programs for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.

But by a 61-36 vote, the Senate voted to table the Paul amendment — in effect killing — the attempt to repeal the war authorizations.

Overall, there are more than 300 amendments proposed for the Senate's NDAA. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) completed its markup of the NDAA in June.

Debate on other amendments to the annual national defense bill will continue this week on the Senate floor but also may run into next week. The NDAA proposes a total defense spend of nearly $700 billion.

Democrat Sen. Jack Reed, ranking member of SASC, rose to speak against the Paul amendment. He said voting for it would have had "practical and almost immediate consequences" to U.S. service members in the field, allies as well as emboldened adversaries.

Similarly, Republican Sen. John McCain, the SASC chairman, argued against the Paul amendment and said it wasn't necessary to rush the issue to the floor.

"Haven't we had enough of bringing things to the floor without hearings, without amendments, without debate," McCain said. "I'm confident that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues would agree to approve the use of military force against the vicious, brutal enemy we face in ISIS and associated forces."

McCain also argued that repealing the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations without simultaneously passing a new one "would be premature, would be irresponsible and it would threaten U.S. national security."

The AUMF, or Authorization for Use of Military Force, was first used in 2001 by President George W. Bush when the U.S. deployed forces to Afghanistan.

If the Paul amendment had prevailed, though, it could have forced President Donald Trump to wind down ongoing military operations against the Taliban and terrorist groups in Afghanistan, as well as the fight against ISIS in Iraq, Syria and other countries. That said, there would have been a six-month window for Congress to consider new war authorizations.

"After 16 years, it's difficult to determine the purpose in Afghanistan," Paul said during the debate.

The Kentucky senator went on to say the U.S. also is involved in wars in at least six other places, including Yemen but as of yet there's been no vote in Congress to authorize it. He also cited the U.S. military involvement in wars in Somalia and Libya.

"These wars are costing trillions of dollars," Paul said. "I think it's time to start thinking about the problems we have here at home. It's time to think about the $20 trillion debt we've got."

Also, Paul said "a $150 billion tab" for hurricane damage in Texas is another domestic priority rather than spending money on the undeclared wars abroad.</s>Three cheers for my former boss Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

Last night he sat silently on the floor of the United States Senate attempting to force the Senate to vote on his amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Force (AUMF). The time is now for those authorizations to end.

There is no doubt that the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was justified after the Taliban government harbored the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. President Barack Obama did the right thing on May 2, 2011 when he sent Seal Team 6 into Pakistan to find and kill the leader of the terrorist organization that carried out these attacks. That should have been the end of the war in Afghanistan.

Two presidencies later, Congress still has authorizations for the use of force against Afghanistan and Iraq on the books. Congress needs to reassess whether it’s justifiable to continue to have these authorizations in place. President Donald Trump had a chance, but he botched his explanation of why our troops need to be increased in Afghanistan. Trump mapped out a strategy for something other than victory. It seems unlikely that the American people would support any policy that puts American troops in harm’s way for anything other than a complete victory.

Until the supporters of endless wars can explain why we need a continued increased presence in Afghanistan, we need to get out. The AUMF for 2002 authorized troops to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” The government of Iraq does not currently pose a threat to the United States. The 2001 AUMF authorized the president to fight “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.” Does anybody really believe that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are relevant today?

Senator Paul Tweeted last night “Tonight, the Senate is attempting to move forward with the Defense Bill. I am seeking an amendment to end the AUMF in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Senator Paul then Tweeted that “Where is the anti-war left demanding the wars end? Where is the constitutional conservative right demanding Congress reclaim its war powers?”

Senator Paul is right to point out that the establishment of both the Democratic and Republican parties don’t want to have this debate. Republicans don’t want to admit that continuing the nation-building wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was a failure. Democrats fear being exposed for being war supporters, with a hawkish Hillary Clinton as their standard bearer in the last election and a charlatan President Barack Obama who lied his way into office with empty promises of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are still in both countries.

Thankfully there is one Senator who takes the constitution seriously. Sen. Paul is demanding a vote to restore the power of Congress to declare war. Article I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. They need to take that seriously.

To add insult to injury, the National Defense Authorization Act is a mess. It contains several provisions that have caused the Trump Administration to object. According to a contributor at Red State, there is a provision buried in the bill that forces companies to hand over source codes to the federal government if the companies want to continue business with the feds. The bill is a train wreck. Using it to debate the wars seems like a good use for that legislative vehicle.

Why can’t the Senate allow Rand Paul to use this bill to start a national debate on the war powers of Congress, and whether increasing troop levels in Afghanistan is a good or bad idea? Not many Americans are aware of the dispute between Trump’s team and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who lead the drafting of the bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). Even fewer know about the obscure provision attempting to nationalize source codes in a way that will hurt national defense. Yet every American has an opinion on Afghanistan and the wisdom of invading Iraq. Let’s debate it!</s>The U.S. Senate on Wednesday turned back an attempt to repeal the current authority for American military force in the 16-year-old Afghanistan war and the fight in Iraq, CNBC reported.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, an anti-war crusader, had offered an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal war authority granted in 2001 and 2002. He argued Wednesday that the current war authorizations are outdated and that Congress needed to “grab power back” from the executive branch, which he said has been using the war authorizations for “unauthorized, unconstitutional and undeclared war.”

Paul had threatened to essentially slow down the legislative process for passing the fiscal 2018 NDAA unless there was a floor debate on the war authorizations. The NDAA sets forth the Pentagon’s budget and major programs for the next fiscal year, which starts October 1.

But by a 61-36 vote, the Senate voted to table the Paul amendment — in effect killing — the attempt to repeal the war authorizations.

Democrat Sen. Jack Reed, ranking member of SASC, rose to speak against the Paul amendment. He said voting for it would have had “practical and almost immediate consequences” to U.S. service members in the field, allies as well as emboldened adversaries.

Similarly, Republican Sen. John McCain, the SASC chairman, argued against the Paul amendment and said it wasn’t necessary to rush the issue to the floor.

“Haven’t we had enough of bringing things to the floor without hearings, without amendments, without debate,” McCain said. “I’m confident that an overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues would agree to approve the use of military force against the vicious, brutal enemy we face in ISIS and associated forces.”

McCain also argued that repealing the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations without simultaneously passing a new one “would be premature, would be irresponsible and it would threaten U.S. national security.”

The AUMF, or Authorization for Use of Military Force, was first used in 2001 by President George W. Bush when the U.S. deployed forces to Afghanistan.

If the Paul amendment had prevailed, though, it could have forced President Donald Trump to wind down ongoing military operations against the Taliban and terrorist groups in Afghanistan, as well as the fight against ISIS in Iraq, Syria and other countries. That said, there would have been a six-month window for Congress to consider new war authorizations.

“After 16 years, it’s difficult to determine the purpose in Afghanistan,” Paul said during the debate.</s>The US Senate has voted 61-36 to kill the amendment, proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) which would repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Afghanistan and Iraq."It would mean that we would immediately need to start winding down" US forces abroad, said Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), who also opposed Paul's amendment.Paul had vowed to delay the passage of the $700-billion dollar National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if he didn't get a vote on repealing the AUMF.The Kentucky Republican noted that his protest was for the soldiers, adding that "hypocrites" are happy to "pretend concern over our constitutional duty to declare war" but are happy to "block any vote on ending any of our 7 current wars."To fight the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorist group, the Trump administration relies on authorization for the use of military force that was approved by Congress in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks.The measure was specifically designed to give the president powers to go after "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."Last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told lawmakers the 2001 authorization provides sufficient authority to wage war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.Critics argue it's a legal stretch at best, as the Islamic State group did not exist 16 years ago and that the US now uses the legislation to carry out military operations in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and other countries.A separate authorization, which in 2002 approved the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is also still in force.The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, prohibits US troops from being sent into combat for more than 90 days unless Congress has approved authorization for military force.The war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001 as a US response to the 9/11 attacks, is the longest war in US history.</s>The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a measure to repeal authorization for the Bush-era wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Senate voted 61-36 in favor of killing Senator Ron Paul's Amendment #871 to HR 280, which would have repealed the authorization for use of US military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure would have ended the authorizations for use of military force after six months.

"I don't think the resolution in 2001 has anything to do with the seven different wars that we're involved in now," Paul, who introduced the repeal bill, told MSNBC earlier in the day.

The Bush-era US operations supported by its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been later widely criticized at home and abroad. The US-led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003, without a UN mandate, after accusing then Iraqi leader Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. Hussein's overthrow is believed to be one of the reasons for the emergence of Daesh terrorist group in Iraq.

The United States and its allies launched a military operation in Afghanistan in 2001 following 9/11 terror attacks. The mission in Afghanistan ended on December 28, 2014, while a year later NATO announced its new mission in the country, called Resolute Support, to train and assist the Afghan security forces.

The US war in Afghanistan is the longest war the country has ever been engaged in: there has been a US military presence in the Central Asian country for nearly 16 years. Armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been “the most expensive wars in US history,” according to Linda Bilmes of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, who estimated in 2013 that $4 to $6 trillion in expenses had been racked up over the course of the conflicts.</s>WASHINGTON ― The Senate on Wednesday rejected a proposal to repeal the sweeping authorizations for war passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The first effort at curtailing the executive branch’s war-making powers in 15 years went down on a 61-36 vote. A substantial number of Democrats joined Republicans in defeating the measure, which is significant given Congress’ years-long reluctance to go on record on the matter of war.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the author of the amendment, threatened to hold up passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets forth the Pentagon’s budget, unless the Senate voted on repealing the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) for the wars against al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State and the Taliban. The repeal would not have taken effect until six months after the amendment’s passage, however, to give Congress time to pass a new authorization for the use of military force.

“I don’t think one generation should bind another generation to war,” Paul said during an interview Wednesday on MSNBC. “I don’t think that the resolution in 2001 has anything to do with the seven different wars we’re involved with now.”

White House legislative director Marc Short said Monday the administration does not support the push for a new authorization for the use of military force because it already has adequate legal authority to wage war against terror groups based on the 2001 authorization.

The Afghanistan War is the nation’s longest-running war. American troops have been stationed in the Middle Eastern country for more than 16 years, with no end to the mission in sight. President Donald Trump signed off on sending an additional 4,000 troops there last month.

“Why would we vote to repeal our authority to defeat al Qaeda? All that we do to defeat al Qaeda and ISIL rests on this AUMF,” McConnell said Wednesday on the Senate floor, referring to another name for the Islamic State militant group.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he worried Paul’s amendment would “be read in many places as a signal the Senate has essentially declared in six months we are going to de-authorize military actions.”

Wednesday’s vote also drove a wedge between Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who joined forces to draft a new war authorization earlier this year. Flake said he wanted to move the effort through the normal committee process. Kaine, however, supported Paul’s amendment “as a way to accelerate” debate and markup of a new authorization for the use of military force in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.</s>There was a Senate vote on Rand Paul’s amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act earlier today. The amendment would have repealed the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs after six months. The Senate voted to table (i.e., kill) the amendment 61-36. Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada were the only other Republicans voting nay with Paul to keep the amendment alive. 31 Democrats and 2 independents made up the bulk of the members voting nay. Eleven Democrats voted with the Republican majority to kill the amendment. Three senators did not vote.

Some of the opponents of the amendment professed to be willing to consider a new, updated authorization, but said that a new authorization couldn’t be crafted in the six-month window afforded by the amendment:

But opponents of the measure argued repealing the two war resolutions on such a quick timeline would endanger military operations in Afghanistan and against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and send mixed signals to U.S. troops and allies overseas. “I did not expect that 16 years later we would still be engaged in the evolution of that fight that began on 9/11,” said Senate Armed Services ranking Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island. “But we cannot, I think, simply stop, threaten to pull back our legal framework with the expectation that in six months we will produce a new and more appropriate authorization for the use of military force.”

Frankly, the complaint that there isn’t enough time to draft and debate a new AUMF is absurd. There is more than enough time to do it if the members considered it a priority, and by hiding behind such thin excuses it is obvious enough that they don’t think it should be one. The original 2001 AUMF was drawn up in a matter of days, so it shouldn’t be so difficult to manage to find a suitable replacement for it in half a year. Indeed, the only way that Congress might be forced to act on this is if the existing AUMFs expired, so leaving them in place just encourages members to abdicate their role in the process. When opponents of Sen. Paul’s amendment claim that there isn’t time to come up with a replacement for the 2001 AUMF, they are really saying that they can’t be bothered to spend their time on it. That’s a weak and unacceptable excuse for shirking their responsibilities.

The result of the Senate vote was disappointing, but Sen. Paul deserves credit for making the vote happen in the first place. At least now Americans have a better idea where their senators stand on the question of permitting endless war without Congressional authorization.</s>The Senate voted 61-36 in a procedural motion to kill Paul's amendment, which would have repealed the two Authorizations for Use of Military Force after six months, giving Congress a window to draft a new, updated war authorization.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican, has argued that the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations -- which were passed to authorize military action against Al Qaeda and in Iraq -- are hopelessly out of date as the military focuses on fighting ISIS across the Middle East, a group that didn't exist at that time.

While Paul's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was unsuccessful, he said it was a victory just to get the Senate to debate and take a vote on the war authorizations.

"It's the first time in 15 years to actually debate what our role is in declaring an initiation of war," Paul told reporters just before the vote. "The problem with waiting for the AUMF first, for a new authorization, is we've been waiting 16 years, and it's not coming without somebody giving somebody a kick in the seat in the pants."

The vote did not break down along party lines. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois were among the Democrats joining Paul in his effort to sunset the current war authorizations. All of the Democrats generating buzz about a potential 2020 presidential run, including Warren, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, voted with Paul. Thirteen Democrats voted with most Republicans to defeat the measure Just two Republicans other than Paul, Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada, voted for the amendment. Paul was also opposed by both Republicans and Democrats, including the two leaders of the Senate armed services committee, Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island. "To rescind the AUMF that authorizes action against these forces -- and to leave nothing but uncertainty for our deployed forces and for our allies -- is simply irresponsible, and it breaks faith with our volunteer force," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. The Trump administration -- and the Obama administration before it -- argued they have sufficient legal authority to carry out US military operations against ISIS and Al Qaeda, and that a new one is not needed, although the Trump administration has indicated it isn't outright opposed to the effort to pass a new one. Wednesday's vote was the second time this year that Congress has taken action targeting the 2001 war authorization, which was passed just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In June, the House appropriations committee approved an amendment from California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee to sunset the 2001 war authorization. Lee was the only member in the House to vote against the authorization when it passed in 2001. But congressional leaders have been weary of passing a new war authorization, and House Republicans stripped Lee's amendment out of the defense appropriations bill when it was passed on the floor. In the Senate, Paul forced a vote on his amendment by threatening to object to all other amendments on the NDAA, the massive defense policy bill the Senate is considering this week. Had Paul done so, it would have effectively killed any other amendment votes. Paul's effort isn't the only one ongoing in the Senate to pass a new war authorization. Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake have introduced a war authorization that the Senate foreign relations committee may consider, which would also sunset the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations with a new five-year authorization for US military operations against ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated" forces. But Kaine and Flake split on Paul's amendment. Kaine said he supported Paul's effort, arguing that it was "way past time for Congress to take this up and for everybody to be on the record." Flake, however, argued that he supported Paul's goal, but not his method of repealing the current war authorization without a new one in place. "I cannot support my colleague's effort to repeal the 2001 AUMF in 6 months because of the very real risk associated with repealing such a vital law before we have something to replace it with," Flake said. Senate foreign relations chairman Bob Corker said he agreed with Paul that Congress needs to take action on a new war authorization, but said he was opposed to the substance of Paul's effort. "Doing away with the legal basis under which we're going against ISIS today, before we've implemented and put in place another one, to me is not prudent," Corker said.</s>The Senate has rejected a measure from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to sunset two war bills and force a debate on what war powers President Trump should have.

Senators voted 61-36 Wednesday to table an amendment from the Kentucky Republican to get rid of the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Paul wanted to attach a six-month sunset of the two war bills to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that is moving through the Senate. The 2001 AUMF was approved the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, while the 2002 AUMF authorized the Iraq War.

Paul warned that voting against his resolution was voting to let the president do “whatever he wants.”</s>The US Senate has voted to kill the amendment proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) which would repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Senate can’t repeal the AUMF without replacing it with a new authorization, said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).

“It would mean that we would immediately need to start winding down” US forces abroad, said Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), who also opposed Paul’s amendment.

Paul had vowed to delay the passage of the $700-billion dollar National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if he didn’t get a vote on repealing the AUMF.

“We have been there for 16 years. It is time for [the wars] to end. It is time for Congress to vote on whether or not they should end,” Paul said on Monday.

The Kentucky Republican noted that his protest was for the soldiers, adding that “hypocrites” are happy to “pretend concern over our constitutional duty to declare war” but are happy to “block any vote on ending any of our 7 current wars.”
The United States Senate blocks an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act that would have repealed the war authorizations for the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan.