Latest news with #AUMF
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016
Then-U.S. President Barack Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs on seven countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — in 2016 alone. We determined this by looking at data from the U.S. Air Force, Council for Foreign Relations, the Long War Journal and the New America Foundation. Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal. Congress passed a broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to approve war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which Obama relied on to justify his military activities. However, Obama stretched use of the 2001 AUMF to target militant groups that either did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001, or were not al-Qaida affiliates. U.S. presidents have repeatedly conducted military activities in other countries without seeking approval from Congress. President Donald Trump justified military activities during his first administration by citing the AUMF as well. As U.S. President Donald Trump authorized surprise airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 without seeking congressional approval, many of his defenders pointed out that former President Barack Obama carried out similar actions during his presidency. Conservative podcaster Alec Lace wrote on X: 2016 - Barack Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan without Congress Approval 2025 - Donald Trump dropped 36 bombs on Iran nuclear sites without Congress Approval Guess which one libs are mad about? The above claim about Obama is technically correct in that he did not obtain an act of Congress to conduct his military activities, though numerous presidents — including Trump — have done the same. We looked through old databases and reports about Obama's airstrikes and drone warfare program conducted with coalition partners through the year 2016 to confirm the number of strikes he authorized. However, Obama relied on an Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress issued in 2001 to target al- Qaida and the Taliban as a legal basis for his administration's military actions. In June 2025, Trump sent stealth aircraft into Iran with so-called Massive Ordinance Penetrator "bunker buster bombs" to reach concealed sites. Per a Pentagon briefing, around 75 precision-guided weapons were used in the overall operation, which included missiles sent by a U.S. submarine toward Isfahan. Around 14 of the bunker busters hit their targets. In 2014, the U.S. along with a number of coalition partners began Operation Inherent Resolve against the militant Islamic State group. The U.S. conducted numerous airstrikes in Iraq and Syria using both manned and unmanned aircraft, including drones. According to data from the U.S. Air Force Central Command, in 2016 the coalition dropped a total of 30,743 weapons in Iraq and Syria. According to an analysis by the think tank Council for Foreign Relations, the U.S. carried out 79% of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2016 and was responsible for 24,287 of these bombs. In addition, through Operation Enduring Sentinel in Afghanistan, the U.S. dropped a total of 1,337 weapons through both manned and unmanned aircraft, according to data collected by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent media outlet. Data from the Long War Journal — part of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank — and the liberal think tank New America also found the U.S. conducted around 513 strikes in Libya, 43 in Yemen, 14 in Somalia, and 3 in Pakistan in 2016. This data didn't give the exact numbers of weapons used. Regardless, keeping in mind the number of strikes in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, as well as the quantity of weapons used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the total still amounts to more than 26,000 bombs in seven countries in just 2016. Trump is not the first president who did not get congressional consent to carry out military actions in another country. In 1950, President Harry Truman used his authority to send U.S. troops to defend South Korea along with a U.N. Security Council resolution, but no authority from Congress. In 1980s, President Ronald Reagan ordered military force in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon, and in 1989 President George H.W. Bush directed the invasion of Panama to topple the dictator Manuel Noriega. According to a National Constitution Center analysis, while the U.S. Constitution gives the president the title of commander in chief of all armed forces, only Congress can declare war. Over the years, presidents have broadly interpreted their roles as commander in chief and often used it to bypass Congress. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to ensure Congress had a role in approving U.S. involvement in any armed conflicts. However, Congress has also passed numerous Authorizations for the Use of Military Force that give the president the ability to carry out limited and clearly defined military actions. In practice, however, these AUMFs have been interpreted broadly to justify all kinds of military actions. In 2001, Congress passed an AUMF authorizing military actions against "those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11, 2001] attacks against the United States." In 2002, Congress passed another AUMF calling for the use of military force against Iraq. When Obama ordered military intervention in 2011 in Libya without congressional approval, he said his actions did not fall under the War Powers Resolution. A 2016 analysis by left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress found that the Obama administration had continued to use this justification for drone strikes: "Congress initially authorized war against al-Qaida and the Taliban in its 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and the Obama administration continues to rely on that AUMF as congressional authority for ongoing military operations." The Council for Foreign Relations also evaluated the legality of Obama's drone strikes in 2017. It found that the 2001 AUMF had been "stretched" by the Obama administration to "justify strikes against terror groups that either did not exist on 9/11, or are unaffiliated with al-Qaida. Yet, the AUMF remains the domestic legal underpinning for all U.S. military actions against Islamist terrorists." A 2016 paper by a pair of Duke and Harvard Law School professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, on "Obama's AUMF Legacy" noted that Obama initially wanted to repeal the 2001 AUMF, but by the end of his presidency it acted as the legal underpinning for his military actions: Despite massive changes in the geographical scope of the conflict that began on 9/11, the strategy and tactics employed, and the identity of the enemy, the AUMF remains the principal legal foundation under U.S. domestic law for the president to use force against and detain members of terrorist organizations. The AUMF is already the longest operative congressional authorization of military force in U.S. history, and, as of fall 2016, there was no immediate prospect that Congress would move to repeal or update it. With the continued vibrancy of Al Qaeda, its associates, and the Taliban, and with the 2014 presidential extension of the AUMF to cover military operations against the Islamic State, the AUMF is likely to be the primary legal basis for American uses of force for the foreseeable future. […] For many years, President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to repeal the AUMF and end the AUMF-authorized conflict. By the closing year of his presidency, however, his administration had established the AUMF as the legal foundation for an indefinite conflict against Al Qaeda and associated groups and extended that foundation to cover a significant new conflict against the Islamic State. In 2014 and 2015, Obama did try to get Congress to pass an updated AUMF for his ongoing war against the Islamic State. In February 2015, he sent Congress a draft AUMF, but disagreements over how it would limit the powers of a future U.S. president, and even Obama, meant the measure stalled. In 2020, Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF as the legal justification for the Jan. 2, 2020, U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Obama did use more than 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone against seven countries. However, while he did not get congressional approval at the time, he relied on older congressional authorizations as the legal basis for such strikes, a practice that Trump also continued. "Afghanistan: Reported US Air and Drone Strikes 2016." TBIJ, Accessed 24 June 2025. "America's Counterterrorism Wars." New America, Accessed 24 June 2025. Bradley, Curtis A., and Jack L. Goldsmith. "Obama's AUMF Legacy." The American Journal of International Law, vol. 110, no. 628, 2016, Accessed 24 June 2025. Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2014-2021 Airpower Statistics. U.S. Air Force Central Command, 30 Nov. 2021, Accessed 24 June 2025. Crowley, Michael, and Edward Wong. "Is the U.S. at War With Iran? What to Know About Trump, Congress and War Powers." The New York Times, 22 June 2025. Accessed 24 June 2025. "Does the President Need Congress to Approve Military Actions in Iran? | Constitution Center." National Constitution Center – Accessed 24 June 2025. Elsea, Jennifer. "Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces." U.S. Congress, 10 Dec. 2024, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Evaluating the Obama Administration's Drone Reforms." Council on Foreign Relations, 31 Jan. 2017, Accessed 24 June 2025. Fowler, Stephen. "Trump Administration Defends Iranian Strikes as Some Lawmakers Question Its Legality." NPR, 22 June 2025. NPR, Accessed 24 June 2025. Glass , Andrew. "United States Invades Panama, Dec. 20, 1989." Politico, 20 Dec. 2018, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Hegseth, Caine Laud Success of U.S. Strike on Iran Nuke Sites." Department of Defense, 22 June 2025, Accessed 24 June 2025. Herb, Jeremy. "Congress War Authorization: Where We Last Left off." CNN, 7 Apr. 2017, Accessed 24 June 2025. " - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." U.S. Congress. Accessed 24 June 2025. "Interpretation: Declare War Clause." National Constitution Center. Accessed 24 June 2025. Kheel, Rebecca. "Trump Administration Outlines Legal Justification for Soleimani Strike." The Hill, 14 Feb. 2020, Accessed 24 June 2025. Liptak, Kevin. "Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites Thrust US into Escalating Middle East Conflict." CNN, 22 June 2025, Accessed 24 June 2025. Martin, Kate. "Are U.S. Drone Strikes Legal?" Center for American Progress, 1 Apr. 2016, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Operation Enduring Sentinel Lead Inspector General Quarterly Report to Congress, January 1, 2024—March 31, 2024." Office of Inspector General. Accessed 24 June 2025. "Public Law 107–40." U.S. Congress, 18 Sept. 2001, Accessed 24 June 2025. "US Airstrikes in the Long War." FDD's Long War Journal, Accessed 24 June 2025. "What We Know about US Air Strikes on Three Iranian Nuclear Sites." BBC, 23 June 2025, Accessed 24 June 2025. "Who We Are." Operation Inherent Resolve, Accessed 24 June 2025. Zenko, Micah and Jennifer Wilson. "How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Miami Herald
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Was Trump's attack on Iran legal? Experts weigh in on US and international law
President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran has reignited a decades-long debate over the legality of unilateral military action. In response to the June 21 attack — during which U.S. stealth bombers struck three Iranian nuclear sites — Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, labeled it 'not constitutional.' Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, called it 'illegal' and dangerous. However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Trump 'made the right call, and did what he needed to do.' Numerous other elected Republicans echoed this statement. McClatchy News has asked legal experts to clear the air and weigh in on whether the president's actions were lawful under both U.S. and international law. US law Whether or not the president has the power to independently launch a military attack has been a hotly contested and largely unresolved issue for years. 'It's been a longstanding situation of competing claims of authority between the Congress and the president,' Robert Goldman, a law professor at the American University Washington College of Law, told McClatchy News. The debate stems from the U.S. Constitution, which divides wartime powers between both the legislative and the executive branch, Goldman said. On the one hand, Article I grants Congress the power to declare war, while Article II designates the president commander in chief of the armed forces. The consensus among legal scholars is that the authors of the Constitution 'intended to separate the power to initiate a war from the power to run a war once it has begun, leaving the president able only to repel sudden attacks without first going to Congress,' experts told the New York Times. In practice, though, presidents of both parties have frequently initiated military campaigns without the approval of Congress — and often with little pushback. 'The U.S. has been involved in numerous armed conflicts or wars since World War II,' Goldman said. 'But the last time the U.S. Congress formally declared war was when Franklin Roosevelt, in 1942, came to them after the attack on Pearl Harbour.' While Congress has not declared war in eight decades, it has, in some cases, granted a president's request to use military force against specific targets through what is called an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). For example, in 2001, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lawmakers passed an AUMF, permitting President George W. Bush to use force against 'nations, organizations or persons' that took part in the attacks. But, in multiple other instances, presidents have used military force without an AUMF, including in Kosovo in 1999, Libya in 2011, in Syria in 2014 — and now in Iran under Trump. 'This is something that's gone on for ages,' Goldman said. 'This is not something that is unique to this particular administration.' International law On the other hand, under international law, the rules are more cut and dry, experts said. 'By attacking Iran, the U.S. is breaking international law — there is no doubt about that,' Ian Hurd, a political science professor at Northwestern University, told McClatchy News. 'It is illegal to use military force against another country,' Hurd said. 'This rule is the centerpiece of international law, written into the United Nations Charter at the end of World War II.' Under the U.N. Charter, an attack on another nation is only permitted under a few circumstances — none of which apply to Trump's bombing of Iran. Firstly, Article 51 of the Charter recognizes the right of a state to respond to an armed attack for purposes of self defense. 'Quite clearly,' Goldman said, 'we were not subject to an armed attack by Iran.' Some legal experts also argue that anticipatory self defense — under which a state has not been attacked, but determines that a foreign attack is imminent — is legal under international law. 'Obviously, you couldn't argue anticipatory self-defense because…Iran doesn't have any weapons platforms capable of hitting the continental U.S.,' Goldman said. Lastly, the charter permits the use of force against a state if it has been authorized by the U.N. Security Council — as it did during the First Gulf War in 1990. Such an authorization was not obtained for Trump's bombing of Iran. 'So I would say the situation is fairly straightforward as to the legality,' Goldman concluded. 'It may have been done politically for a reasonable reason, but that is distinct from international law.' The U.S., though, is hardly alone in breaking international law. In recent years, numerous conflicts have violated the U.N. Charter, according to Amnesty International, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's war in Gaza.
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Reporter's Notebook: Who really decides when America goes to war? The answer isn't so clear
The Founding Fathers were clear about lots of things, but in the era of modern warfare, who calls the shots and has the final say to head into battle was not the Founders' most crystalline moment. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War." But Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution anoints the President "Commander in Chief." Constitutional scholars argue that Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into hostilities abroad under the aegis of "war." But what if you just dispatch B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway around the world and slingshot 14 bunker buster bombs into three of Iran's nuclear facilities? Or if you greenlight Ohio Class subs to fire 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran as well? Are you "at war?" Does the president have the authority to do that? What about Congress? Well, if you say the president — or Congress — both can be right. Or wrong. "I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act," said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Fox. "(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the right as commander-in-chief to execute a very surgical process." Mace noted "there were no troops on the ground." But then the South Carolina Republican added this: "The 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn't like it, then Congress should get rid of it," said Mace. OK. Hold on. We know what "troops on the ground" is. We think (think) we understand what "declaring war" is (or do we?). But pray tell, what in the world is an "AUMF?" That's congressional speak for an "Authorization for Use of Military Force." It's kind of like Congress "declaring war." Both the House and Senate must vote to "declare war." Transom windows, pie safes and coal chutes in homes all started to become obsolete in the 1940s. So did "declaring war," apparently. Congress hasn't "declared war" since 1942. And that was against Romania. In fact, the U.S. has only "declared war" 11 times in history. And Congress doesn't just "declare war." Both the House and Senate must vote. And so what the modern Congress does now is approve an "authorization" to send the military into harm's way overseas. That could be by sea. Troops on the ground. In the air. You name it. Congress authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. That was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an authorization to invade Afghanistan and wage the "war on terror" in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed that up in the fall of 2002 for authorization to invade Iraq — on suspicion that Saddam Hussein's regime had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies found nothing after the 2003 invasion. To Mace's point, the 2001 AUMF is so broad that four American presidents have deployed it for various military action around the world. Mace's argument would be that Iran or its proxies could launch terrorism attacks — or even a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement. That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics. This is why it's a political kaleidoscope about how various lawmakers felt about launching attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved. Democrats who usually oppose President Trump supported airstrikes. "I've been saying, 'Hell yes' for I think it's almost six weeks," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from either party. "This window is open now," said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. "We can't take our boot off their neck." But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before the U.S. launched them. There's concern the conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict. "The idea that one strike is going to be adequate, that it's going to be one and done, I think is a misconception," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. Before the conflict, bipartisan House members just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. "They are worried that this will escalate," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. "And it wouldn't take a whole lot for it to spiral out of control." This is why Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran. "I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And we're non-interventionists," said Massie on CBS. "You're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars?" said Khanna, also on CBS. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didn't mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, she excoriated the decision to strike Iran. "Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" wrote Greene. Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also questioned the authority of the president to fire on Iran. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," wrote Davidson on social media. But when it came to Republicans criticizing those who went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie. "I'm not sure what's going on with Thomas. He votes no against everything," said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. "I'm not sure why he's even here anymore." "He should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Fox about Massie. Shooing away Republicans toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering the narrow GOP House majority. It's currently 220 to 212 with three vacancies. All three vacancies are in districts heavily favored by the Democrats. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel the Senate to vote this week on a resolution to determine if the U.S. should tussle militarily with Iran. "We will have all members of the Senate declare whether or not the U.S. should be at war with Iran. It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," said Kaine on Fox. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this." Whether the U.S. is involved in "war" with Iran is an issue of debate. And here's the deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preach about exercising their war powers authorities under Article I of the Constitution. But because votes about "war" or "AUMFs" are complicated, some members would rather chatter about it — but cede their power to the president. The reason? These are very, very tough votes, and it's hard to decide the right thing to do. The Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. They wanted to make sure a "monarch," or, in our case, a president, couldn't unilaterally dial up hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquished many of those war powers. And that's why the executive seems to call the shots under these circumstances. Is the U.S. at war? Like many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder. And whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is in the eye of the beholder, too.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
GREGG JARRETT: Why Trump's preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was legal, likely saved lives
Right on cue, liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders declared that President Trump's successful military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites were "grossly unconstitutional." Along with other Democrats, he argued that only Congress can grant such approval. What Sanders and his colleagues fail to recognize or remember is that Congress already granted consent for exactly the type of action deployed by Trump. Immediately after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF). It granted the President exclusive and extraordinary powers to target those groups and nations that he determines "aided the terrorist attacks…or harbored" the perpetrators of 9/11. The stated goal was to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." One only needs to read the report of the 9/11 Commission to be reminded of Iran's complicity. For years, the government in Tehran actively aided and abetted attacks on America by offering Al Qaeda terrorists extensive training, intelligence, transit, logistics, weaponry and funding. Some of the terrorists that Iran supported were the very same "future 9/11 hijackers," the report explained. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, several Al Qaeda leaders fled to neighboring Iran where they were given safe haven. This included Usama bin Laden, who was harbored by the mullahs while he plotted even more attacks against Americans. On this basis alone, Trump's tactical military strikes against Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities were legally authorized and constitutionally justified. No advanced consultation or approval by Congress is required. The AUMF carries no expiration date. It has never been repealed, refined or amended. It remains in full force as a delegated power to the President. Few Democrats complained when President Obama broadly utilized the AUMF on numerous occasions for military operations against Libya, Syria, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and even ISIS. His robust use of the resolution further cemented its legality. All three branches of government, including the judiciary, affirmed its legitimacy and scope. President Biden invoked the AUMF to justify airstrikes in Iraq against jihadist militias. He defended it as an act of self-defense to protect American lives. He told Congress that his military action was consistent with international law. Most Democrats were mute on the subject. Now, only because it is Trump who has taken aggressive steps against the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, his politically driven critics are howling. Their hypocrisy should be lost on no one. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., stated with confidence that Trump's "disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers." Predictably, she pronounced that it is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Presumably, Ocasio-Cortez was referring to the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It is a notification requirement, not a prohibition on a President's right to exert military action. Indeed, Trump complied by notifying Congress. It is hardly an impeachable offense. A more reasoned analysis was offered by Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who wrote on X, "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." The hysteria of the "no forever wars" crowd will inevitably lurch into a vigorous constitutional debate. However, historical precedence and the consistent use of the AUMF by Trump's predecessors uphold his decision to neutralize an enemy state that has long vowed the destruction of both Israel and the United States. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, is empowered to direct military operations to deter foreign threats to our national security. This has been well established over the course of our republic. A nuclear-armed Iran controlled by a maniacal regime poses the ultimate peril. Trump had an affirmative duty to act preemptively. David Albright, one of the world's foremost experts on Iran's nuclear program, told The Wall Street Journal that Tehran was dangerously close to atomic breakout. Before Saturday night's strike, he said that Iran "could make enough weapon-grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons within a month." It is a foregone conclusion that such bombs would be used against Israel, the United States, or both. Trump's decision to destroy nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan was not an easy one. But it was bold and absolutely necessary. Simply waiting under exigent circumstances would have been irresponsible, if not reckless. Iran has a long and proven record of lying, cheating, and covering up its development of weapons of mass destruction. Their fanatical leaders cannot be trusted when so much is at stake. The president should be commended, not condemned, for neutralizing a growing menace. But political enmity in the Age of Trump militates that the party out of power react with impetuous opposition, regardless of the known facts, the law, and the Constitution. We may never know how many millions of lives have been spared. There will be reprisals, to be sure. But they pale in comparison to the existential risks that were bearing down on America and our closest ally in the Middle East. The usual reactionaries will take to the streets to castigate Trump as a "war criminal" deserving of prosecution. Let them. Their formulaic fury is exceeded only by their ignorance. Trump's ordered strike was narrow and limited and purposeful. Claims by some that the U.S. will become mired in another foreign quagmire with boots on the ground is overwrought. No such action is merited or even contemplated. Feverish predictions of "World War III" are little more than unhinged rhetoric. Trump gave Iran every opportunity to peacefully forsake its nuclear ambitions. If Democrats want to impeach him despite the clear language of the AUMF, his inherent constitutional authority, and the sustenance of history, they can certainly try. But I tend to doubt that Americans will look favorably on yet another dubious impeachment. Doing what is right is not always the easiest thing to do. But doing nothing can be far worse.
