Some in Congress Fear White House Will Claim Expanded War Powers After Syria Attack - WSJ

WASHINGTON—Many lawmakers have expressed support for the recent missile strikes against Syria, launched without congressional approval, but a number harbor concerns that the White House believes it now has broad authority to undertake further, riskier attacks that could lead to full-blown war.

They say the Trump administration has expressed an expansive view of presidential authority to wage war without Congress, and fear Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing and overseeing military action has been sidelined.

“I’m not as much concerned about this particular strike as about the implications of him doing it without Congress in the context of Iran or North Korea,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican.

New national security adviser John Bolton has in the past advocated pre-emptive military action against those countries to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, though the White House is now laying the groundwork for talks, not war, with North Korea.

In closed-door briefings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers that the administration has authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution—which names the president “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”—to carry out strikes against Syria, according to lawmakers who attended the meeting. But they declined to tell skeptical members in both parties under what circumstances a lack of congressional authority would constrain military action.

Republican leaders have brushed off concerns about congressional authorization and are reluctant to open a fresh debate on Capitol Hill about the president’s war powers.

American, British and French forces last week launched airstrikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in reprisal for a purported chemical weapons attack that killed at least 43 civilians and injured hundreds more. Beyond that, the U.S. is engaged in counterterrorism operations against Islamic State, based on a congressional authorization passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack—long before the group existed.

House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters last week that President Donald Trump has the authority for the strikes under existing law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he supported “both the action and objective” of attacking the Assad government.

Other lawmakers said that while the limited airstrikes were authorized, the administration would need Congress’s express permission for more sustained action or the use of ground troops.

“This was a one-time shot against Assad for doing something that I think civilized nations don’t do,” said Don Bacon, a retired Air Force general and Republican congressman from Nebraska, adding that it didn’t require the approval of Congress ahead of time.

Pentagon officials denied Tuesday a New York Times report contending that Mr. Mattis pushed internally for congressional approval of the strikes in Syria. That would have effectively halted plans to conduct the airstrikes because the operation would likely have become entangled in legislative debate.

“I have no idea where that story came from,” Mr. Mattis said as a meeting with Qatar’s defense minister began at the Pentagon Wednesday. “I found nothing in it that I could recall from my own last week’s activities.”

But according to multiple U.S. officials, Mr. Mattis voiced the most concern about the operation, both publicly and privately, saying it risked escalation with Russia and Iran, two players on the Syria battlefield.

Mr. Massie, the Kentucky lawmaker, said Congress should pass a measure stating that Mr. Trump cannot go to war in Iran or North Korea without first seeking authorization.

The constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, an action it hasn’t taken since World War II. But Congress has passed legislation authorizing military action short of a formal declaration of war—in Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia, as well as against pirates and slave traders.

Congress passed the War Powers Act during the Vietnam War in part to constrain a president’s ability to commit the country to a long-term conflict without congressional approval. The law requires congressional notification of any military action and requires withdrawal of troops after 60 days unless Congress authorizes them to remain.

Since then, presidents of both parties have launched military action without first getting authority from Congress, arguing they have constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to commit forces.

George H.W. Bush sought congressional approval only after invading Iraq in the Gulf War. Bill Clinton launched an air campaign against Kosovo in 1999 and continued it even after Congress decided not to authorize it. A lawsuit by more than two dozen members of Congress challenging the strikes was dismissed by a federal court. Barack Obama conducted an extended air campaign in Libya without seeking congressional authorization, arguing that limited strikes didn’t rise to the level of hostilities.

“Congress has itself to blame,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, who supported the goals of the Syria strikes but said the president should have sought congressional permission before launching them. “We have been completely missing in action when it comes to asserting our congressional role in the war-making authority, and that has encouraged president after president to feel he can take action without congressional approval.”

Even as rank-and-file lawmakers are eager to reassert congressional authority over military action, the appetite among top leaders in Congress is limited. A bipartisan group of senators this week reached an agreement on a modest update to the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against terrorism, to include groups the U.S. is already fighting, like Islamic State. But Republican congressional leaders are reluctant to bring it up for a vote, arguing that the president has all the authority he needs.

“My own view is, the administration clearly has the authority to do what they have been doing,” Mr. McConnell said on Fox News this week. “My own view is that the existing authorizations for the use of military force are adequate. I believe that’s the view of the administration as well.”

—Gordon Lubold contributed to this article.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/some-in-congress-fear-white-house-will-claim-expanded-war-powers-after-syria-attack-1524083519