- Biden is facing questions from both sides of the corridor about air strikes in Syria.
- Thursday’s air strikes were conducted against Iran-backed militias in response to recent attacks.
- Some lawmakers question the legality of strikes, although others have expressed support.
- Visit the Insider Business section for more stories.
President Joe Biden is facing questions from Congress about his decision to carry out air strikes against Iran-backed militias in Syria, specifically in relation to his authority to conduct that action.
On Thursday, Biden directed air strikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militias operating on the Iraqi border in Syria in response to a series of recent attacks against the US and coalition forces in Iraq, as well as other persistent threats. , the Pentagon said in a statement.
The attacks took place just over a week after a deadly attack in which a rocket barrage was fired at coalition forces stationed outside Irbil International Airport, killing a US-led coalition contractor and wounding a US military, among others. others.
In response to this and other attacks, two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles dropped seven precision-guided bombs on targets on Thursday, completely destroying nine targets and damaging two others, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said. on Friday.
The Defense Department said Thursday’s air strikes “destroyed several facilities” at a border control point used by Iranian-backed militias like Kait’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada and Kait’ib Hezbollah. The latter was held responsible for a deadly attack in December 2019 that sparked events that ended up triggering a dangerous escalation of tensions with Iran.
The attacks in Syria focused on the operational infrastructure, with the aim of preventing future attacks, and were not aimed at causing significant victims.
The Pentagon said the attacks, which it deemed “proportional”, sent a “clear message” that “President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel”.
‘Strikes without Congressional authorization’
Senator Tim Kaine speaks during a hearing of the US Senate Budget Committee on salaries in large corporations at the Capitol in Washington, DC, February 25, 2021.
Stefani Reynolds / Reuters
Legislators from both parties openly question the legality of strikes and the general wisdom behind them.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a written statement that Americans deserve to know the “justification” for strikes and the “legal justification without coming to Congress.”
Kaine added: “Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional, without extraordinary circumstances.”
Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, tweeted: “We rush to end wars, not to increase conflicts in the Middle East. Our foreign policy needs to be rooted in diplomacy and the rule of law, not in retaliatory air strikes without Congressional authorization.”
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who serves as chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, in a statement acknowledged that “the president unquestionably has the right to defend our nation and our forces of impending attack. “
He argued, however, that such “retaliatory attacks, not necessary to prevent an imminent threat, should fit the definition of an existing Congressional authorization for military force”. Murphy said Congress should demand “clear legal justifications for military action”, just as it did with previous governments.
And Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, known for being fiercely opposed to intervention, condemned the attack as an attack on “a sovereign nation without authority”.
“What authority does @POTUS have to attack Syria?” Paul tweeted. Pointing to the previous question from White House press secretary Jen Psaki on social media about the Trump administration’s military actions in Syria, he suggested that now someone should ask him the same question.
‘Inherent powers of self-defense enshrined in our Constitution’
A National Security Council spokesman told Insider that the White House “had a rigorous process to include a legal review of the attacks carried out.”
“The president acted in accordance with the inherent powers of self-defense enshrined in our Constitution and the UN Charter,” said the spokesman. “As a matter of domestic law, the president took this action in accordance with his Article II authority to defend US personnel.”
Article II of the United States Constitution designates the president as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, and several administrations have taken action based on a broad interpretation of this.
The spokesman said the attacks were “necessary to face the threat and proportional to previous attacks”, and in accordance with the right to self-defense under international law.
The Pentagon cited Article II and Article 51 of the United Nations as a legal justification for military action without Congressional approval. “This was really a defensive attack to protect the future” for US forces and coalition partners, Kirby said on Friday.
Thursday’s attacks, the first highly publicized military action under Biden, came amid growing calls from Congress for the powers of the presidential war to be controlled, including the president’s authority to use nuclear weapons.
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed laws that offer all presidents, from ample authority, to waging war around the world. These laws – the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs) – paved the way for the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and, over the years, the 2001 AUMF has been used by several presidents to justify by least 41 military operations in 19 countries.
After then President Donald Trump ordered a controversial drone attack that killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani, in early January 2020, congressional lawmakers from both parties acted to restrict their war powers.
Later that month, the House passed a resolution to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and Kaine sponsored a resolution to prevent Trump from taking military action against Iran without Congressional approval that was passed in both chambers, but was ultimately vetoed.
A Yemeni boy passes by a mural depicting a US drone on December 13, 2013 in the capital Sanaa.
MOHAMMED HUWAIS / AFP via Getty Images
Former President Barack Obama also faced bipartisan disapproval for his approach to counterterrorism, particularly his reliance on drone attacks.
The Obama administration has been criticized for conducting drone attacks on dubious legal bases, eliminating suspected terrorists in countries with which the United States is not technically at war, such as Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen. Obama also controversially ordered a drone attack that killed an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen.
“For a long time, the governments of both parties have interpreted their authorities in an extremely expansive way to continue the war,” said Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. said in a statement on Friday. “This should end.”
Although there is a movement in the expanding Congress to limit the powers of the presidential war, Biden has also received some bipartisan support for the attacks in Syria.
For example, Democratic Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader in the House, argued that the attacks demonstrated “Biden’s determination to prevent Iran from targeting America’s people and their allies with impunity”, stating that “it was a strong act that will certainly send a message to Tehran that our country will not tolerate destabilizing actions by its forces or their representatives. “
Republican MP Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, among some other members of the Republican Party, said that the Biden government was “right to make it clear that the attacks on American officials will not go unanswered”.