Sen. Rand Paul wants to revoke the administration’s ability to re-invade Iraq at will, and he’s getting tacit support from a seemingly unlikely ally — the White House.
Paul will introduce legislation on Tuesday to repeal the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq. But it marks one of the few times the White House and the Kentucky Republican — who is known for his strong anti-interventionist streak — agree on a defense issue. They’ve sparred over the past year on the administration’s use of drone strikes, the handling of Syria, and the National Security Agency’s intelligence-gathering programs.
“The Administration supports the repeal of the Iraq AUMF since it is no longer used for any U.S. Government activities,” said Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, in a statement to Foreign Policy, which received an advanced copy of the legislation. “We understand that some in Congress are considering legislation related to the Iraq AUMF, and we will certainly examine these proposals as they come forward.”
An administration official noted that repealing the Iraq AUMF was not a priority for the administration because it would be largely symbolic. Paul’s push comes more than two years after the administration announced the end to the Iraq War in late 2011.
But the White House’s hands-off approach to Paul’s legislation could help him gain Democratic supporters. A similar proposal by Paul in 2011 failed by a 30-67 vote.
If Paul’s proposal is successful, the administration could strike back against terrorist activity in Iraq because of the resurgance in al-Qaida-linked violence. Under the AUMF signed by President George W. Bush in 2001 the military can take action nearly anywhere al-Qaida or an al-Qaida-linked group is located.
What We're Following See More »
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."
"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."
"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.