New Resolution Would Allow the President To Send U.S. Troops to Ukraine
Like AUMFs before it, Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s proposed authorization would lead to less transparency in conflicts and more unilateral decision making.
Earlier this week, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R–Ill.) proposed a new military authorization that would allow the president to introduce U.S. forces to the conflict in Ukraine if Russia uses certain weapons in its ongoing invasion. If adopted, it would be the latest installment in a decadeslong trend of Congress abdicating its constitutional role in the war-making process.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to Defend America's Allies Resolution of 2022, according to Kinzinger, represents "a clear redline" that would act as "a deterrent to Vladimir Putin." Kinzinger has previously called for a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine, and on Sunday he said it isn't too soon for U.S. politicians to discuss the potential use of military force in Ukraine.
Like military authorizations of years past, Kinzinger's AUMF is quite open-ended and would give the president a concerning level of power to enter the war in Ukraine. Though Kinzinger claims the AUMF would give Biden "leverage" and "flexibility" in the fight against Putin, that would come at the expense of the constitutionally mandated role of Congress in American war making.
According to the AUMF text, once the president determines whether Russia has used chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Ukraine, he may then deploy U.S. forces as he "determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "protect the national security interests of the United States with respect to Ukraine" and "assist in defending and restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine." The president wouldn't have to receive congressional approval prior to a troop deployment; rather, he would only have to determine that "diplomatic or other peaceful means alone" wouldn't protect U.S. security interests or Ukrainian territorial integrity. The AUMF text also contains a murky sunset provision: The president's authority to use the U.S. Armed Forces to defend Ukraine will "terminate the date on which the President certifies to Congress that the territorial integrity of Ukraine has been restored."
Per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. Only after a congressional declaration of war may the president direct the U.S. Armed Forces in a conflict. Unfortunately, that process has completely fallen apart—Congress last declared war in 1942. The U.S. has been involved in conflicts every decade since then thanks to presidential overreach and an increasingly deferential Congress.
That deference has come partially in the form of AUMFs similar to the one Kinzinger has proposed. Some AUMFs have either never been used or were invoked only in the short term. But the 2001 AUMF has been used by presidents to justify dozens of military operations in at least 19 countries, all allegedly to combat the organizations and individuals behind the September 11 attacks. The 2002 AUMF saw similar mission creep; despite explicitly authorizing conflict against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Trump administration invoked it to justify its fight against the Islamic State. AUMFs have often served as a carte blanche for presidents as they engage in conflicts, and Kinzinger's proposed authorization could very well be stretched to permit prolonged action.
Putting war declarations in the hands of Congress is supposed to ensure that American involvement in armed conflicts is properly debated, with costs and benefits discussed in public view by elected representatives. AUMFs put that power in the president's hands, allowing for less transparency in conflicts and more unilateral decision making. And strangely, Kinzinger is proposing an AUMF as many of his colleagues are working to repeal the authorizations that help enable endless wars.
The AUMF resolution is premature and comes at a time when deescalation in Ukraine is imperative. Rather than compelling lawmakers to prioritize diplomacy over conflict, it would further hobble the body that has already drastically weakened its own role in America's military engagements.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
>>(R) – Ill.
lol meet my friend Token Unicorn.
He’s supposedly getting gerrymandered out of his seat this election. And good riddance. It’s just a shame his replacement won’t be any better.
Isn’t Kizinger one of the celebrated Rs since he is so anti-T?
Celebrated by who? Is that like Ogden’s Celebrated Stomach Bitters?
Nah. Just a war monger who hated Trump due to his lack of desire to start new wars.
The Token Unicorn is that Reason got his party absolutely right.
(R) – Ill.(R–Ill.) or (R*)… *Ill. would be acceptable.The Ukrainians don’t need our troops on the ground. They are doing fine on their own.
But “The Big Guy” needs his cut of all that sweet arms deal money.
Likely what pelosi was doing in Ukraine, confirming revenue chain.
The president’s authority to use the U.S. Armed Forces to defend Ukraine will “terminate the date on which the President certifies to Congress that the territorial integrity of Ukraine has been restored.”
“Since foreign troops are present in Ukraine, its territorial integrity has not been restored, and so those U.S. Armed Forces must stay.”
“And so what if those foreign troops happen to be US ones?”
Let Kinzinger enlist and be a one person expeditionary force.
Unlikely. Even if he were all kitted up couldn’t even kick MY ass, he might want to make a test run, and go into L.A. gan territory alone, and after dark.
Can you imagine SleepyJoe running a war?
Who will carry the rainbow flag into battle?
We are not up for this right now. The Afghanistan withdrawal is proof of that. Democrats are just too incompetent.
Don’t have to imagine, we can look at Afghanistan under the adults.
these fucking “I stand with Ukraine” psychos want to kick of a global war.
I usually figure the motives of the globalists/commies are pretty easy to see but in this case I just dont see it. WHY do these psychos want a full scale world war?
They don’t know that Ukrainian schools don’t endorse trans rights
Adam Kinzinger should be knighted an honorary Democrat.
Again, (R – Ill.) should confuse no one.
Between Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes and Judy Baar Topinka, even if they’re acting as good faith Republicans and entirely of their own volition, they should really be viewed Democratic assets.
Kinzinger’s term is coming to a permanent end. He can propose any hairbrained idea he has without repercussion.
Uh…….No.
No….. Just. No.
He’s really named Kissinger but it got misspelled on Ellis Island.
No, Kissinger was evil. This is just stupid.
At leas tthey didn’t name him after a ballet dancer’s outfit.
That’s a big nope.
But more more mean tweets, right?
Earlier this week, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R–Ill.) proposed a new military authorization that would allow the president to introduce U.S. forces to the conflict in Ukraine if Russia uses certain weapons in its ongoing invasion.
Expect a mysterious “chemical attack” to be reported by the New York Times within the week.
Will there be (yellow) cake served?
The only way our troops will be sent there is if there is demonstrable proof that the Russians are not educating their newly conquered territory about CRT or Trans Rights
Kinzinger’s claim to fame prior to this was as one of the most prominent Never-Trumpers in Congress. I guess Trump just didn’t satisfy his warboner enough.
Since the media portray Trump as a Putin fan, this is the next step in proving he hates Trump
Why did I not even have to research this to guess a Republican pushing for WWIII in Europe would be a never-Trumper?
Because the pro-war wing of the Republican party were pretty much the only ones to decamp. The rest could look at the good and the bad and come to a decision and most stayed despite some grumbling; the pro-war camp are SIV for military hegemony.
Oh hey, it’s the “How To False Flag Your Way Into World War III” Act that I talked about!
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/free-speech-under-attack-from-all
Is there a bus anywhere close? This guy needs tossing.
Nobody likes Kinzinger
But he’s super cereal!
Here is the thing no one is thinking about. Russia for its bungling still is pretty well armed and honestly they will get a chance given the nature of moving military forces around, logistics, miscommunications and so on…to hit the US hard, maybe a destroyer or god fobid a Carrier in the Black or Med. They will remember we helped the Ukrainians kill their troops and sink their Black Sea Flagship and boasted about it (that is a no no when you support a proxy war). The Russians will hit us conventionally and then the shit will hit the fan with Biden and his children running foreign policy. It just takes one luck missile hit to do serious damage to a naval vessel. I hope not but the Ruskies have very long memories. Unless Putin is overthrown I suppose.
Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!
Just putting more tangles in our own hair. Let’s stay out for once.
“The territorial integrity of Ukraine has been restored.“ haha. Never. The man is a dumkopf. But hey! He’s in Congress and must be smarter than . . . Nobody, actually.
Tell me I’m wrong. Shave his head and tell me he’s not the evil twin of the banjo player in ‘Deliverance’?
It’s a bad idea to engage in direct military intervention in Ukraine because it sets the precedent that a non-NATO member can expect military intervention from the US and NATO without the responsibilities of being a NATO member.
As those Reason videos put it – it’s a great idea, with the best of intentions; what could possibly go wrong?
It isn’t like their is going to be unconditional war declared against Russia with US troops occupying post war Russia.
But then again, Eastern Europe is filled with hot gash
That land is going to be useless once it’s nuked.
*Great Anglo Empire
The US deep state is a lackey of the most evil people who have ever existed, the Fabian British deep state