• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Matthew Duss"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Renewing American Statecraft"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "americanStatecraft",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "ASP",
  "programs": [
    "American Statecraft"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iraq",
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

The Senate’s Move to Formally End the Two Iraq Wars Is a Start

Biden has signaled he would sign the repeal of the Iraq AUMFs. The war on terror should be next.

Link Copied
By Matthew Duss
Published on Mar 22, 2023
Program mobile hero image

Program

American Statecraft

The American Statecraft Program develops and advances ideas for a more disciplined U.S. foreign policy aligned with American values and cognizant of the limits of American power in a more competitive world.

Learn More

Last week, the U.S. Senate took an important if symbolic step toward reclaiming congressional authority over war by advancing the repeal of the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq. If and when passed by the House and signed by President Joe Biden, which he has said he will do, this would formally end the two U.S. wars in Iraq.

The 2002 AUMF has been cited as authorizing not only the Iraq war but also military interventions addressing its multiple negative consequences, such as the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Former president Donald Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF as authorization for the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

A larger and far more consequential challenge remains: repealing the 2001 AUMF. Passed in the wake of 9/11, it authorized the entire global war on terror against an ever-growing list of enemies on an ever-shifting set of battlefields. Unfortunately, Biden has shown no support for this effort, and his recent speeches have downplayed that still ongoing war.

“War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking . . . it’s time to end the forever war,” Biden said in his April 2021 speech announcing the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. Months later, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly just weeks after the withdrawal, Biden declared, “I stand here today, for the first time in twenty years, with the United States not at war.” In this year’s State of the Union address, the word “terrorism” was mentioned only once, tucked amid a longer list of threats.

While Biden’s reference to ending the “forever war” was meant to signal the keeping of a campaign pledge, it was never meant to refer to just Afghanistan—but also to include the multiple and constantly shifting battlefields of the global war on terror, which continues. Biden’s UN declaration was untrue: the United States is still very much at war, with thousands of combat troops deployed in various countries, including Syria, Iraq, and increasingly in African nations such as Somalia, Kenya, and Niger. The omission of terrorism from the State of the Union was quite striking, given how terrorism fears dominated U.S. foreign policymaking for the two decades following the 9/11 attacks.

Measuring the exact number of forces deployed overseas for counterterrorism purposes is impossible, and it’s part of the problem that AUMF repeal might help to fix by imposing greater transparency on the Defense Department. But a great many troops—probably thousands—are engaged directly or in support of these efforts.

Congress has a key role to play in winding down the forever war for real, and previous legislation offers a potential path forward. In July 2021, Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and Mike Lee of Utah introduced the National Security Powers Act, an expansive effort to reassert Congress’s Article I authorities over war. While the Senate did not act on the bill, it contains an ambitious set of ideas that should be taken up in the future.

But for this legislation to move forward, either in whole or in part, it will require support and engagement from the administration. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen that yet. 

This piece is part of the Renewing American Statecraft series.

Correction: This commentary originally stated that the Senate repealed the Iraq AUMFs. It voted to advance the measure.

About the Author

Matthew Duss

Former Visiting Scholar, American Statecraft Program

Matthew Duss is the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy. He served as a foreign-policy advisor to U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders from 2017 to 2022.


    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    How the Biden Administration Should Approach the New Israeli Government

      Matthew Duss, Zaha Hassan

  • Q&A
    The Major Takeaways From the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit

      Matthew Duss, Gilles Yabi

Matthew Duss
Former Visiting Scholar, American Statecraft Program
Matthew Duss
SecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIraqSouth AsiaAfghanistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Deciphering Europe’s Relationship with Turkey

    Debate is heating up on how Turkey could be integrated into a common European defense framework. Commercial and industrial deals offer a better chance at alignment than sweeping political efforts.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Music, Memory, and Identity in the Afro-Iraqi Community

    In Basra, an ethnoracial minority wages a constant struggle to assert itself in the face of marginalization.

      Zeinab Shuker

  • Construction site
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Isn’t the Only Challenge Facing Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030

    As the monarchy appears to question its grandest projects, the state could do with more critical debate than rote cheerleading.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it Worth it for Europeans to Placate Trump?

    After spending much of 2025 trying to placate Donald Trump, some European leaders are starting to change posture. But is even a hostile Washington still so important to Europe that the U.S. president’s outbursts are worth putting up with?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.