How Does the Global War on Terror End?â??

According to the Trump White House, the U.S. is officially fighting wars in seven countries. Known formally as the “Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding the United States’ Military Force and Related National Security Operations,” the unclassified section of the White House’s report says America is conducting military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Niger.

But the 2002 AUMF was meant to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, specifically al-Qaeda or its affiliates. Yes, the U.S. is still fighting al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda affiliates, but America is also fighting ISIS, elements in Niger deemed to be affiliated with ISIS, the Houthi rebels in Yemen (backed by Iran), the Assad regime (backed by Russia and Iran), and the Haqqani network and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the 2002 AUMF can include any radical Sunni group similar to al-Qaeda, ideologically speaking. Then, just maybe, ISIS, the Haqqani network, and the Taliban can be lumped together and covered by the 2002 AUMF.

To top it off, neither of these Shia groups would threaten the American homeland or are “terrorists” in the traditional sense of the word. The Syrian government—murderous though it may be—has no international ambitions of mayhem and world domination. The same is especially true for the Houthi rebels, who are but one side in Yemen’s messy civil war that stems from at least decades-old divisions in that country.

Why then is the U.S. in Yemen? Because of the aforementioned struggle between Shia and Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia has intervened in Yemen to suppress the Houthi revolt. The Shia Houthis are now (though not at the outset) supported by Shia Iran. Iran views the Houthis as a convenient proxy with which to bog down their chief competitor, Sunni-led Saudi Arabia. And the U.S., because we view the Saudis as allies and fancy Iran to be a threat, is aiding the Saudi’s meddling, including by directly assisting their brutal bombing campaigns.

Although Iran might wish it, the Houthis are not exactly Iranian proxies. The underdogs against a well-funded Saudi force, of course, the Houthis gladly accept help from Iran. Putting the Houthis and Iran in the same ideological boat is fraught, too. To wit, the Houthis do not even belong to the same sub-branch of Shia Islam that Iran does, as they disagree vehemently about the number of spiritual and political successors to the prophet Muhammad.

A better argument for America’s continued support of the Saudi effort is made when supporters of the Yemen war argue that the Houthis—along with Iran—would threaten the strategically important Mandeb Strait if they were allowed to gain control over their section of a split Yemen. But the U.S. and our allies can guide a partition that would allow the Sunni-Yemenis to keep the land adjacent to the Gulf of Aden and the all-important Mandeb Strait, and save thousands of lives to boot. That’s realpolitik and a far more humane, moral approach in practice. There is also precedent for this, as Yemen has a long history as two separate states than it does living in bloody unity.

The alternative is an ongoing humanitarian disaster, which has resulted in the killing or maiming of over 10,000 civilians, including many children, and the starvation of untold thousands more.

In an effort to debate America’s support of Saudi Arabia’s war, a bipartisan group of Senators—Mike Lee (R-UT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT)—used a measure from the 1973 War Powers Resolution that allows the Senate, when a conflict was not originally authorized by Congress, to “remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen,” unless the U.S. was fighting al-Qaeda or associated groups (which is allowed under the 2002 AUMF).

After a big push of opposition to the resolution by leadership in the Senate, the resolution failed last week, 55 to 44. That is a terrible mistake. Abusing the AUMF passed 16 years ago undermines American national security.

Today, we are spending more on defense than we did at the height of the Cold War. Reagan’s defense spending hit a peak of under $650 billion in 1987 (in today’s dollars adjusted for inflation). Throughout the Obama years, the Pentagon budget never dipped below that $650 billion mark (in today’s GDP-adjusted dollars), but Hawks still claim that Obama “hollowed out” our military.

Yes, we have a readiness problem. And yes, our military does not have the resources to do everything asked of it, but papering over these challenges with money owed by future generations is not the answer. The problem is Washington’s overreach and failure to set realistic defense priorities, not a lack of funding. A start down the right path would be for the White House to simply follow the law, and for Congress to step up and assert its constitutionally-granted authority.

Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas and works in the financial services industry.