There has been a single piece of written word that has defined the millennial generation more than any other, and no it’s not by J.K. Rowling. It is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This piece is the background on it, and to explain its evolving interpretation in the changing environment of counter-terrorism. It is not a comment on any individuals or operations conducted under it.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the Authority to declare war, and to raise and support the armed forces, however, Article 2 Section 2 states that the President the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. Through this process, Congress has declared war five times and has authorized the use of force 16 times without declaring war. In 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in response to problems Congress saw with the Vietnam War . The purpose of the War Powers Resolution of 1979 was to giving Congress the power to limit the president's ability to commit troops to areas where imminent hostilities are likely. Under this law the president is required to routinely report to Congress on military interventions in hostile environments or situations where imminent hostilities are indicated, and cannot conduct military operations in such environment for greater than 90 days without a congressional declaration of war or mandate. No president has openly admitted to being constrained by this law, but President Bush did seek congressional approval before the Iraq War, and both Presidents Bush and Obama routinely provided updates to Congress on military interventions during their presidencies.

On September 11th, 2001, America was the target of a highly coordinated terrorist attack. On September 14th, 2001, Congress approved public law 107-40 better known as the 2001 AUMF. This AUMF is a relatively short document stating:

“ the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons, he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The only other portion is stating that this authorization is compliant with the War Powers Resolution. The 17 terrorist involved in the terrorist attacks were members of Al-Qaeda who were led by Osama Bin Laden and located in Afghanistan. The Taliban were ruling party of Afghanistan and aftr President Bush delivered an ultimatum with which they did not comply with they were viewed to be aiding Al-Qaida, so on October 7th the United States began Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan to target Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In 2002 Congress passed an AUMF against Iraq to:

“defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

This authorization was to implement Security Council resolutions about chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons which were believed to be in Iraq based on the information provided by the informant Curveball. This informant later stated that he had lied to topple the Saddam regime.The US began Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19th, 2003. Much of US military action was covered under the 2002 AUMF including the toppling, of the Saddam Hussein Ba’ath government. After the last withdrawal of US troops on December 18th, 2011, all drone strikes after that were under the justification of the 2001 AUMF.

Over the past 15 years, the interpretation of the 2001 AUMF has evolved due to changing terrorist threats. Due to a lack of new AUMF or repealing the existing AUMF the broadening version have been under the precedent of the previous year’s engagements. The first adjustment was expanding the 2001 AUMF to target associated forces of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Associated forces were groups that were cobelligerent and carried out attacks with these groups. In 2014 the Islamic State Crisis led to the further broadening of the term associated forces to include organizations with similar ideals that included the Islamic State and Al-Shabab. Opponents of this broad interpretation maintains that it limits congressional oversight of military actions, and fear it could lead to another protracted costly military engagement as the AUMF is being broadened to include associates of associates.

Due to the vague and broadening nature of the 2001 AUMF, it has been used as the authorization for all counter-terrorism operations over the last 15 years. To give an idea of the breadth of its application I have compiled a partial list of its uses. A full list isn't available to the general public because of its classified nature. Military actions under the AUMF include the War in Afghanistan, the raid on Osama Bin Laden compound in Pakistan , drone strikes against AQIS in Pakistan, drone strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It has also been used for drone strikes against the Khorasan Group of Al-Qaeda in Syria, the2011 Intervention in Libya, drone strikes against Al-Shabab in Somalia , drone strikes against MILF, and BIFF in the Philippines , drone strikes against AQAP in Yemen, drone strikes against AQI in Iraq, and current air strikes in support of the Libyan Government of National Accord against the Islamic State.

Since 2014 there has been a push to update the AUMF to contend with the new nature of global terror networks, and Counter-terrorism operations. For example since 2001 terrorist organizations now have a much easier time moving between nations, and also have an easier time recruiting foreign fighters. It would also need to contend with terror networks often splintering into smaller factions, that terror groups have weak ties with many other groups. These affiliates operate in a variety of countries, and these ties often can shift entirely. It would also need to state whether it is an authorization to fight a particular terror network or if it is just an authorization to conduct counter-terror operations against a broad list of terrorist groups. To work with this On August 14th, 2014 President Obama proposed a new AUMF to Congress to authorize future operations against the Islamic State. This AUMF included the language to explicitly include the target IS and associated forces without enduring ground troops. It would do this without repealing or amending the 2001 AUMF. That AUMF was not approved, but Congress did vote to fund the war against the Islamic State. Senator Lindsay Gram of South Carolina has proposed an AUMF that is eligible for a vote after it bypassed committee. It would expand the permissions for counter-terrorism operations, and like the 2001 AUMF, it does not have a date requiring reauthorization. On the other side of the spectrum is the Reclamation of War Powers Act introduced by Democrat Jim Himes. This bill would expand the War Powers Resolution, by authorizing Congress to withhold money from new military operations.It would also repeal the existing AUMFs within 180 days of its enactment and increase the reporting requirements on military actions. When requesting an AUMF, the new president would be required to report threats faced, the scope of military action, and expected duration.

In reading this I hope you have learned something about our nations history, the war on terror, and the scope of what the brave men and women of the armed forces have done and sacrificed for to protect our nations, our allies, and our citizens at home and abroad.

If you want to read more of my other articles, you can here or follow me on Twitter. Please stop by next week for more articles on news, economics and international affairs only available at Odyssey.