• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "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

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 India 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 India

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

  • 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

  • Article
    India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Choices

    This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Article
    What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?

    India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.

      Konark Bhandari

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.