Decades of Presidential Military Actions Without Congressional Approval Spark Renewed Debate

Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith recently weighed in on the contentious issue of presidential war powers, highlighting a consistent pattern of U.S. military interventions conducted without explicit congressional approval across multiple administrations. In a tweet shared by "Thomas Sowell Quotes," Smith asserted, > "When we talk about foreign policy without congressional approval or intervention, Obama in 2011 with Libya, Obama with the drone strikes and targeted k*llings... Biden in 2021 when he ordered air strikes in Syria... Nobody's innocent." His comments underscore a long-standing tension between the executive and legislative branches regarding the authority to commit U.S. forces abroad.

The 2011 military intervention in Libya, authorized by then-President Barack Obama, involved airstrikes aimed at protecting civilians and enforcing a no-fly zone. The Obama administration argued that these actions did not constitute "hostilities" under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, thus negating the need for formal congressional authorization. This stance drew significant criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, with many lawmakers and legal scholars contending that the intervention bypassed constitutional requirements for congressional war declarations.

During his presidency, Obama also significantly expanded the use of drone strikes and targeted killings in various countries, including Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. These operations were often justified under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, without seeking new, specific congressional approval for each action. Critics argued that this broad interpretation of the AUMF allowed for an executive-led "perpetual war" without adequate legislative oversight.

More recently, President Joe Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria in February and June 2021, targeting facilities used by Iranian-backed militias. These strikes were presented as acts of self-defense to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq who had been subjected to rocket and drone attacks. The Biden administration, similar to its predecessors, cited the President's Article II constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief for these actions, bypassing direct congressional authorization.

The recurring nature of these executive actions highlights the persistent debate over the scope of presidential authority in foreign policy and military engagement. While presidents often cite the need for swift action in national security matters, the lack of explicit congressional approval for prolonged or significant military operations continues to raise questions about checks and balances. Stephen A. Smith's commentary brings this complex and often-overlooked aspect of U.S. foreign policy back into public discussion.