Latest news with #CouncilforForeignRelations
Yahoo
18 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.
Bloomberg
20-02-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Balance of Power 02/19/25
"Balance of Power" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. On today's show, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall discusses what to expect as President Trump is set to give the keynote speech at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Miami. Steven A. Cook, Senior Fellow for Middle East & Africa Studies at the Council for Foreign Relations, states there is a special relationship between Saudi Arabia and President Trump when discussing what the United States & Saudi Arabia are looking to exchange with one another. (Source: Bloomberg)
Bloomberg
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
A 'Special Relationship:' Cook on Trump, Saudi Arabia
Steven A. Cook, Senior Fellow for Middle East & Africa Studies at the Council for Foreign Relations, states there is a special relationship between Saudi Arabia and President Trump when discussing what the United States & Saudi Arabia are looking to exchange with one another. He also talks about how Saudi Arabia may feel about Trump's pitch to resettle Palestinians, and if there will be an expansion of the Abraham Accords. Steven A. Cook speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
The Guardian
12-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
She said no: marriages in China plummet to record low
Marriages in China plunged 20% to a record low in 2024 as young people resisted government efforts to convince them to settle down and have more babies. Marriages in China dropped from 7.7m in 2023 to 6.1m last year, data from China's civil affairs ministry showed. The figure was less than half the number registered in 2013, and the lowest since record keeping began in 1986. The data also showed that 2.6 million couples filed for divorce in 2024, up 1.1% from the previous year. The sharp dive in nuptials was amplified by 2023's brief rebound as people caught up on weddings after several years of Covid restrictions. There was also speculation that people had avoided getting married in 2024 because it was an inauspicious 'widow year' in the Chinese lunar calendar. But the broader trend remained on track – stubbornly resisting the ruling Communist party's push to reverse China's demographic decline. 'It's not that people don't want to get married, but that they can't afford to get married!' said one Changzhou-based commenter on China's social media platform Weibo, which has had more than 46 million engagements about the topic since Monday. China has the world's second-largest population and for decades enforced tight restrictions on child birth, including a one-child policy. But now, as China faces a decreasing and ageing population, which threatens the country's economic future, the authoritarian government wants people to have more children. A big part of that push is trying to encourage more marriages. Births are tightly linked to marriage in China, with childbearing out of wedlock discouraged by traditional values and various government regulations. But the decades of restrictions mean there are fewer people today who are of marriageable age – and those who are, aren't interested in marriage or children. 'For many young people, not getting married is an active choice. At the same time, having their own lifestyle and enjoying single life is also a big reason,' said another commenter on Weibo. 'Women can support themselves and do not need to rely on men. The willingness to get married is much lower than in the past.' Concerns over high youth unemployment, the skyrocketing cost of living, education and childcare, and a pushback against traditional gender roles have held fast against the government's financial entreaties and policy overhauls. 'Collapsing marriage rates reflect a convergence of social forces: a declining population of young adults, a darkening economic outlook for recent graduates, changing attitudes towards marriage, and escalating gender polarisation between men and women,' said Carl Minzner, senior fellow for China studies at the Council for Foreign Relations, who described the drop in nuptials as 'extreme'. On Weibo commenters also noted how society appeared to have become 'more tolerant' with some highlighting what they said was a shift in the level of pressure being exerted by families at recent Chinese new year gatherings. 'Ten years ago, what I heard most from relatives was about which daughter or son was not married by the age of 27 or 28. Now, what I hear is about those basically 30 years old and above. [Getting married before] 27 or 28 is no longer eligible for discussion.' Many commenters also cited the controversial introduction of a divorce cooling-off period in 2021, making them wary of the 'easy entry and strict exit' for marriage. Others noted China's refusal to legalise same-sex marriage or provide equivalent rights to same-sex de facto couples. 'Why did the number of marriage registrations drop again in 2024? Because I am a lesbian,' wrote one woman.
