New York Times: “How hawks bypassed the Constitution to fight in Syria”
There is a lot to be said for critiques of President Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria, especially shameful if he made it in response to a threat from Turkey’s despot, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. I say this, even though I was against intervention in Syria.
Yet Syria hawks seem to forget a crucial constitutional fact: Trump isn’t the only one who may seek an Authorization for the Use of Military Force or a declaration of war. Actually, this is a power the Founders vested in Congress.
The likes of Sens. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton play a cynical game. They well know that their diva routine for the media isn’t the option the Constitution gives them.
These senators could, at any time, have proposed an AUMF that would have legitimized combat operations against whoever they believe are our enemies in Syria — not just those who would ravage the Kurds but those they keep saying are our geopolitical enemies: the Assad regime, Iran and Russia. They still could. If the Hawks were right, it would be a great way to show how wrong Trump is.