Last month, the House of Representatives defeated a resolution offered by conservative Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to remove about 900 U.S. troops from Somalia. The vote was 102-321, with the votes on the provision split with 52 Republicans and 50 Democrats voting aye. It was an unusual left-right coalition; conservatives such as Gaetz and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) joined liberals such as Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in favor.
Coalitions like these sets of unlikely bedfellows could signal readiness in Congress to reengage in a long overdue conversation about the scope of the U.S. military’s presence overseas. The talking points espoused by advocates of troop removal, who otherwise seem diametrically opposed on almost every issue, echo familiar cries from politicians and experts alike who argue that the U.S. presence in foreign countries could sometimes exacerbate, rather than prevent, conflict.
During the debate, Gaetz argued, “The U.S. military is not an effective capability to deploy to defeat an ideology. We are not able to permanently stabilize countries by having a presence that can at times be the very basis for the terrorism recruitment that we seem to work against.”
Omar, a Somali American, added that a more extensive debate “should include clear-eyed analysis of U.S. counterterrorism policies, including air strikes and drones, and the consistent problem of civilian casualties of U.S. operations.”
The House vote was pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a measure to limit the president’s authority to wage war and reassert congressional authority over foreign wars. While President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill, Congress overrode the veto.
However, since 1973, presidents of both parties have largely ignored the measure, except for reporting requirements.
The little-known Section 5(c) permits members of Congress to offer privileged resolutions — meaning that a vote is guaranteed — any time U.S. armed forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization.
This forced vote was not Gaetz’s first and, he has made clear, not his last. Previously, on March 8, a Gaetz resolution to compel the withdrawal of American troops from Syria was beaten 103-321, with close to equal number of Democrats and Republicans voting aye.
Previous debates on terminating overseas conflict have been less bipartisan. During the controversial Vietnam War that convulsed the nation for many years, the majority of the congressional opposition to the war came from Democrats and a much smaller group of moderate Republicans.
For example, a key 1973 vote to stop U.S. bombing over Cambodia was supported by 184 House Democrats and 35 Republicans.
The concern over the president’s almost untrammeled authority to launch wars and military operations that can last years or decades has regularly aroused bipartisan concern.
This rising concern about overseas bases has been motivated by studies that show extensive American overseas bases — and military engagement — are largely overlooked by Congress and the American public. The United States has about 750 overseas bases in more than 80 countries, according to David Vine, co-founder of the Overseas Base Realignment and Closure Coalition and a professor at American University. In addition, the Biden administration is planning to add bases encircling China, including four new bases in the Philippines, bringing the total in that country to nine. As Vine points out, the United States has more overseas bases than any nation, empire or people in world history. Members of Congress have pressed for the details of all these bases and their associated costs, but the Pentagon has largely stonewalled.
While the Biden administration has promoted a diplomacy-first policy toward resolving crises, the Pentagon has too often taken the lead. Hopefully, efforts like Gaetz’s forcing of votes on these overseas deployments can lead to bipartisan action in Congress for informed votes on sending and retaining overseas deployments.
John Isaacs is a senior fellow at Council for a Livable World