19 years after 9/11: Still at war with an outdated authorization

We are on the cusp of the 18th commemoration of the Sept. 11 attacks. Those of us who lived through that chilling day will doubtlessly have thoughts about where we were, who we were with and what we did. I was a 23-year-old television reporter, six weeks into a new job at the ABC station in Columbia, Missouri, covering the local response. Six years later, I commemorated the anniversary of the attacks from Iraq, where I was then serving as a Marine tank platoon commander after putting my journalism career on hold.

It goes without saying that we should remember that tragic day and continue to honor those who were lost. We should also remember the young men and women we continue to send overseas to fight in response to the atrocities perpetrated against us that day.

American troops, an increasing number of whom have no memories of that day , are deployed throughout Central Asia and the Middle East based on the two authorizations for the use of military force passed by the 107th Congress in 2001 and 2002. These laws have been interpreted by three presidents to justify sending the military to at least 18 countries since their passage. In that time, 7,052 American troops have been killed , with another 53,244 wounded . Coalition forces and contractor employees have sustained high casualties as well.

Casualty numbers have tapered off dramatically in recent years, but overseas deployments continue, despite the Trump administration’s promises to secure a peace deal to withdraw the troops. And there is little to stop whoever happens to occupy the White House from beginning a new campaign tomorrow, which is concerning no matter who the president is.

For perspective on just how absurd this would be, imagine if President Ronald Reagan launched a fresh attack against the North Vietnamese during the first year of his presidency based on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. If the president were to begin a new campaign today based on the 2001 AUMF, it would be equally preposterous.

The war in Afghanistan (2001-present) overtook the Vietnam War (with America’s involvement lasting from 1955-1973) as the longest in American history in February 2019. The United States fought in World War II for three years and eight months. That war could have been fought more than five times over in the time we have spent in Afghanistan.

Smoke pours from the World Trade Center after it was hit by two hijacked passenger planes Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City in a terrorist attack. (Robert Giroux/Getty Images)

During the course of the war on terror, Brown University’s Costs of War Project estimates Congress has obligated an estimated $5.4 trillion to cover its myriad costs. Researchers estimate the United States will spend at least another $1 trillion to care for the veterans of these conflicts over the next 40 years.

Very few of the elected officials in Washington today played a part in the passage of the 2001 AUMF. Of the 98 senators who voted for the law (two abstained and none voted against), only 18 still serve in Congress. In the House of Representatives, only 67 , or a mere 15 percent, of the current 435 members were serving at the time of the vote in 2001.

Congress has made several halfhearted efforts to take back its authority to decide matters of war and peace. The latest, a bipartisan effort in the House, would have required the White House to get Congress to sign off on any new military deployment where the United States is currently not engaged. But it never made it to the House floor for a vote.

Congress must start exercising its constitutionally mandated war powers. Accomplishing this requires an important first step: Both houses of Congress must work together to repeal the current AUMFs used to wage these endless wars.

If the members decide a threat to our national security warrants continued military action, they could replace the current open-ended authorizations with a new one, but it must be significantly more limited. Any future war authorization should include a specific sunset provision so that the authorization expires in the initial months of any new Congress, so each Congress must weigh in on the issue. Congress already does this with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Future authorizations should also specify the kind of forces to be used and limit them to a specific threat. A lesson everyone should have learned over the past 19 years is that all administrations will exploit any ambiguity in the law for their own policy aims.

Potential vetoes aside, many members of Congress are unwilling to take responsibility for our wars. In the right setting, some will even tell you as much. I sat in on a recent video chat with Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas. When asked about repealing the current AUMFs, he told the audience that many members were reluctant to back such a proposal because they feared the political backlash from their constituents.

The point here is not necessarily to put a stop to the forever wars. Restoring Congress to its rightful place in the most basic matters of national security should restrain whoever occupies the White House from entering into yet more future conflicts.

Dan Grazier is the Jack Shanahan military fellow at the Project on Government Oversight. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He left the service as a captain.

我们即将迎来9·11恐怖袭击事件18周年纪念日。那些亲历过那令人毛骨悚然的一天的人，无疑会回想起当时自己身在何处，与谁在一起，以及做了什么。那时我23岁，是一名电视记者，在密苏里州哥伦比亚市的ABC电视台工作了六周，负责报道当地的应对措施。六年后的今天，我在伊拉克纪念了9·11事件周年。当时我暂时搁置了新闻事业，在那里担任海军陆战队坦克排排长。

毋庸置疑，我们应该铭记那悲惨的一天，并继续缅怀逝者。我们也应该铭记那些为了回应那天发生在我们身上的暴行，而被我们派往海外作战的年轻男女。

越来越多的美军士兵对那一天毫无记忆，他们根据美国国会第107届分别于2001年和2002年通过的两项授权使用武力的法案，部署在中亚和中东各地。自这两项法案通过以来，三位总统都曾对其进行解读，以此为由向至少18个国家派遣军队。在此期间，已有7052名美军士兵阵亡，另有53244人受伤。联军部队和承包商雇员也伤亡惨重。

近年来伤亡人数已大幅下降，但海外部署仍在继续，尽管特朗普政府承诺达成和平协议以撤军。而且，几乎没有什么能够阻止任何一位入主白宫的人明天就发起新的军事行动，无论总统是谁，这都令人担忧。

为了更直观地理解这有多么荒谬，不妨想象一下，如果罗纳德·里根总统在其任期第一年就依据1964年《北部湾决议》对北越发动新的军事行动。如果总统今天依据2001年《授权使用武力法案》发起新的军事行动，那同样是荒唐可笑的。

2019年2月，阿富汗战争（2001年至今）的持续时间超过了越南战争（美国参与的越南战争从1955年持续到1973年），成为美国历史上持续时间最长的战争。美国在二战中作战了三年零八个月。如果我们在阿富汗耗费的时间足够打五次以上的二战了。

2001年9月11日，纽约世贸中心遭到两架被劫持的客机撞击，浓烟滚滚。（罗伯特·吉鲁/盖蒂图片社）

在反恐战争期间，布朗大学战争成本项目估计，国会已拨款约5.4万亿美元用于支付战争的各项开支。研究人员估计，未来40年，美国至少还需要花费1万亿美元用于照顾这些冲突的退伍军人。

如今华盛顿的民选官员中，参与2001年《授权使用武力法案》（AUMF）通过的寥寥无几。在98位投赞成票的参议员中（两人弃权，无人投反对票），如今仅有18位仍在国会任职。在众议院，现435名议员中，只有67位，即仅占15%，在2001年投票时仍在任。

国会曾多次尝试收回其在战争与和平问题上的决策权，但都收效甚微。最近一次是在众议院，由两党共同提出，要求白宫在美军目前未参与任何军事行动的情况下，必须获得国会批准才能进行新的军事部署。但该提案最终未能提交众议院进行投票表决。

国会必须开始行使其宪法赋予的战争权力。要实现这一目标，首先需要迈出重要的一步：国会两院必须共同努力，废除目前用于发动这些无休止战争的授权使用武力法案（AUMF）。

如果议员们认为国家安全受到威胁，需要继续采取军事行动，他们可以以新的授权取代目前无限制的授权，但新授权必须大幅限制。任何未来的战争授权都应包含明确的日落条款，使其在新一届国会成立后的最初几个月内失效，这样每届国会都必须就此问题进行权衡。国会已经在《外国情报监视法》中实现了这一点。

未来的授权还应明确规定使用何种武力，并将其限制在特定威胁范围内。过去19年的经验教训表明，历届政府都会利用法律中的任何模糊之处来实现自身的政策目标。

撇开潜在的否决权不谈，许多国会议员不愿为我们的战争承担责任。在合适的场合，有些人甚至会直言不讳地承认这一点。我最近参加了一次与德克萨斯州民主党众议员华金·卡斯特罗的视频会议。当被问及废除现行的《授权使用武力法案》（AUMF）时，他告诉与会者，许多议员不愿支持这样的提案，因为他们担心会遭到选民的政治反弹。

这里的重点未必是要彻底结束无休止的战争。恢复国会在国家安全最基本事务中应有的地位，应该能够阻止任何入主白宫的人卷入更多未来的冲突。

丹·格雷泽是政府监督项目（Project on Government Oversight）的杰克·沙纳汉军事研究员。他曾在美国海军陆战队服役，并被派往伊拉克和阿富汗。他以陆军上尉军衔退役。