Dozens of Senate Republicans oppose overturning the law that made the disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion possible

• The Senate began the process on Thursday to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War AUMFs.
• Dozens of Republicans are voting against the bipartisan measure despite the war long being over.

With the 20th anniversary of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq looming, the US Senate has begun the process of revoking the laws that allowed the United States to wage war against the Middle Eastern state in both the 1990s and 2000s.

On Thursday, the Senate voted to begin debate on a bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana that would repeal both the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq.

The measure passed overwhelmingly, with 19 Republicans — ranging from self-styled nationalists like Sens. Josh Hawley and JD Vance to moderates such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — joining all Democrats in support of the bill. The White House has also endorsed the bill, saying it "would have no impact on current US military operations." President Joe Biden, who voted in favor of both the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF as a senator, publicly expressed support for scrapping post-9/11 laws that sparked "forever wars" shortly after he entered the White House.

But 27 Republican senators voted against beginning the debate, signaling their opposition to the idea.

"It should be easy to remove," quipped Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a supporter of repeal. "But some Republicans will vote to continue a war that's been over for 20 years."

The Senate is expected to vote on amendments to the bill over the course of the next two weeks, and it's possible that some who voted against the measure today may change their minds — and that some who voted to begin the debate could do the same.

The 2002 AUMF granted President George W. Bush the legal authority to launch the invasion of Iraq in 2003, while the 1991 AUMF did the same for the US invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War.

The House easily passed separate bills repealing both the 1991 and 2002 AUMF in June 2021, when the chamber was controlled by Democrats; the Senate never voted on the measure that year.

It now remains unclear whether the measure would be taken up by the Republican-led House, though dozens of House Republicans supported the idea in 2021.

So why did those 27 Republicans vote no, despite essentially unanimous agreement that the war in Iraq has come to a close?

'The world continues to be a troubled place'

In interviews with Insider at the Capitol this week, Republican senators acknowledged that though the Iraq War has concluded, they believed the US still needed to ensure it has the ability to wage war in Iraq given the operation of Iranian-backed militias in the country and the looming threat of terrorism.

"The world continues to be a troubled place, and I don't want to remove any of the authorities that have been, or may be, relied upon to defend our interests," said Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah.

Many specifically cited the January 2020 killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top general, in Iraq as an example of why it's important to maintain the AUMFs. The Trump administration offered up the 2002 AUMF as partial justification for the Soleimani strike, a controversial military decision that pushed the US and Iran to the brink of war.

"I don't want to do anything that reduces the President's ability to kill somebody like Soleimani," said Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. "That's probably what I care about the most."

Legal scholars have challenged the notion that the 2002 AUMF could be employed to vindicate the killing of an Iranian general, given the law's original intent was to open the door for the US to take action against Saddam Hussein's government. The 2003 Iraq invasion also remains among the most criticized US foreign policy decisions in modern history. The invasion, which destabilized the region and contributed to the rise of ISIS, was launched under false, debunked allegations that Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Republican Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Insider that it would only make sense to repeal the AUMFs "when conditions are different in the Middle East than they are right now." Nonetheless, the Pentagon increasingly looks to China and Russia as the primary challenges to US national security and has shifted attention away from countering jihadist groups based in the Middle East.

Yet some senators who are traditionally defense hawks indicated a willingness to debate the issue.

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa said she looked forward to the amendments process, when senators may be able to offer provisions that clarify that the US can still target Iranian militias.

"I'm not wedded to either side yet," said Ernst, saying the US does "need to maintain some flexibilities" in the Middle East.

For Sen. Paul, repealing the Iraq War AUMFs — which he called "symbolic" — isn't going far enough.

The Kentucky Republican told Insider that he was considering offering an amendment to repeal the 2001 AUMF, which was passed just days after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks — with a single dissenting vote. The law authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

Paul castigated Democrats for opposing repeal of the 2001 authorization, arguing it "authorizes, according to several presidents, wars in 20 different countries."

The 2001 AUMF opened the door for the invasion of Afghanistan, launching the longest war in US history. The law has been a linchpin of the US government's global war on terror for decades, and has been used by every president since George W. Bush to justify counterterrorism operations in 22 countries.

Critics of the 2001 AUMF have argued that its language is too broad and it grants presidents a blank check to wage endless wars, while eroding Congress's constitutionally-enshrined war powers.