After 20 years, the United States’ longest war is over. A day before President Joe Biden’s deadline of  Aug. 31, the U.S. evacuated Afghanistan of as many U.S. citizens and Afghan refugees as possible. However, the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw has been under fire after recent events, including a terror attack at the Kabul airport taking the lives of 13 U.S. service members and dozens of civilians and the Taliban retaking the country. 

Adding to the controversy, an Aug. 29 drone strike in Kabul was confirmed to have killed 10 Afghan civilians – including seven children – in an attempt to target a terrorist group whom the military falsely deemed a direct threat to the withdrawal mission. Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, called the strike a “tragic mistake” during a press conference on Sept. 17.

According to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, an estimated 71 thousand Afghan and Pakistani civilians are thought to have died as a direct result of the war since 2001.

The Taliban was formed in 1994 by a group of former resistance fighters that combated the Soviet Union. The Taliban enforced strict Islamic law in 1996 after they took control of Afghanistan the first time. The laws included women having to wear head-to-toe coverings, not being allowed to study or work and being forbidden from traveling alone. Television, music and non-Islamic holidays were also banned. The country under Taliban rule also housed the mastermind behind the sept. 11, 2001 attack against the U.S. and leader of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.

After 9/11, the U.S. led an allied attack to oust the Taliban from power and prevent the country from being a base for any future attacks by the terror cell. For 20 years, the U.S. has provided military and administrative support to the interim government of Afghanistan, as the country has struggled to defeat the Taliban. The war cost the U.S. over $2 trillion and thousands of American lives. The conversation about withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan has been a political talking point for over a decade. Plans for withdrawal have been around since the Obama administration. 

In February 2020, former President Donald Trump announced a peace treaty with the Taliban. The deal stipulated that the U.S. would leave the country in 14 months and the Taliban would not harbor terrorists and not harm any U.S. troops. Under the treaty, the U.S. would also release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for 1,000 U.S. prisoners. Months after the deal was signed, evidence began to surface that the radical group had already violated measures of it. A United Nations report explained that the group still has strong ties to the terror group al Qaeda. 

Biden finalized the 20 year-long war stating that the U.S. counterterrorism mission was over. Since the withdrawal, over 100,000 Afghan refugees have been evacuated from the country with thousands more trying to flee. According to Secretary of State Antony Bliken, “As of the end of last week, we had about 100 American citizens in Afghanistan who told us that they wish to leave the country.” The concerns of human rights violations have become a prevalent issue as the Taliban begins to reimplement Sharia law. 

Almost a month after the withdrawal happened, Biden continues to defend his administration’s approach to the conflict, stating, it was, “The right decision, the wise decision, the best decision for America.” Biden has reiterated the American commitment to help Americans and Afghans safely leave the country. As the Taliban implement their new government, the U.S. will be keeping a close eye on the nation and the new government’s actions.

On Jan. 3, on the orders of the President of the United States, a drone strike assassinated Iranian General Quasem Soleimani and nine others at Baghdad’s International Airport in Iraq.  The attack was conducted without explicit Congressional authorization and absent even notification of Congressional leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Soleimani, considered among the most powerful figures in Iran, was the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, which handles military operations abroad as well as clandestine ones. Soleimani had deep connections with a number of Iranian-backed proxies throughout the Middle East and was considered one of the principal architects of Iran’s foreign policies, especially in the Middle East. Many of the proxies Soleimani had ties to have been designated terrorist organizations by the United States, as has the Quds Force itself.

Soleimani has long been on America’s radar. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both declined to authorize strikes on him. Soleimani was undoubtedly a foe of America and responsible for the deaths of a number of Americans through operations he organized, financed, and directed through his proxy militias. But the former presidents reasoned that his assassination would likely serve to substantially inflame tensions between Iran and the United States and threaten retaliatory action that would result in more American deaths. 

The fallout of the attack was stunning. The Iraqi Parliament, outraged at what they considered a breach of their sovereignty, passed a nonbinding resolution to expel U.S. service members from Iraq. The coalition fighting against ISIS was forced to suspend operations for fears of retaliatory attacks on their personnel. The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran were launched into dangerous escalation, with many scholars arguing that the killing constituted an act of war by the United States.

Though since then both the United States and Iran seem to have taken steps to de-escalate the conflict, it still should be shocking that the United States lurched onto the precipice of war with a U.S. military strike while most of Congress, including Congressional leaders, were uninformed.

In the aftermath with Congress, the media and publc demanding answers, the Trump Administration provided a shifting set of responses before ultimately settling on the president’s Article II Commander-in-Chief powers to respond to imminent threats as a basis for the strike. However, administration officials contradicted one another and offered differing explanations on the nature, timetable and scale of the purportedly imminent attack. 

This justification was signified by the administration sending a notification to Congress pursuant the War Powers Act of 1973.  The report remains classified but reportedly members of Congress who have seen it and attended a subsequent briefing on the strike were left unimpressed. 

This action has reignited many debates in the United States ranging from the need to repeal the Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 and 2002 to what is the strategic vision and priorities of the country in the Middle East and how it should. be involved in the region. These are important and legitimate debates to have, but what should not be lost in the shuffle is that even if the AUMFs were repealed, this strike still could have gone forward, as the Trump Administration asserted Article II powers instead of statutory authority. 

Thus, in examining how the United States came to stand on the precipice of war, one must examine Article II. This article of the Constitution outlines the powers of the presidency and has been at the center of several of the most notable controversies in the Trump Administration, from the Mueller investigation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. 

“Then I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump has notably asserted,  

This is a position legal scholars have roundly rejected, citing sections of Article II itself as well as Article I and Article III. 

However, presidents asserting an expansive view of Article II, commonly called the Vesting Clause Thesis or the Royal Residuum theory, is not a new phenomenon. It has been central in the development of the Imperial Presidency, and presidents of both parties have been aggressive in advocating for it to enhance the authority of the presidency. 

In this view, the president has a vast reservoir of powers that give them unrivaled preeminence in matters like national security and foreign affairs. This theory, while always controversial, has gained ascendancy in the public imagination since the Second World War. 

Concern over presidential power in this realm and the president’s ability to entangle the United States in conflicts abroad with limited or no congressional authorization has been a perennial worry, especially since the Vietnam War – prompting erratic action by Congress such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to try to constrain the presidency. 

The steady evisceration of democratic norms and traditions by the Trump Administration presents an opportunity to seriously reexamine this thesis. Whenever the Trump presidency ends and the task of rebuilding, repairing and strengthening America’s democratic institutions and norms begins in earnest, it will be worth reviewing the Vesting Clause Thesis to answer two primary questions: Were the framers, who had just fought a war against King George III and were adamantly against a single figure having the power to launch the nation into conflict, seriously intending to set up a system of governance in which the presidency had such immense powers in foreign affairs? If they did, is such a policy desirable after seeing the extreme degree it can be carried to?

Shipwrecks of this sort occur regularly in the Mediterranean. Last year almost 5,000 people died trying to get to Europe by way of smugglers, and more people attempt to make the trek regularly. Some of these people were fleeing political subjugation and violence. Many had officially been declared refugees by the United Nations but decided that the wait for safe and legal transport would take too long. In 2014, about 67,000 refugees were Syrians escaping from their country’s civil war and indiscriminate violence. Others were fleeing from the totalitarian regime in Eritrea, the war in Mali and the conflict in Libya.

Currently, many migrants are attempting to escape poverty, and their aim is to be hired in Europe. A survivor from the recent wreck is a Bangladeshi man; if he were to get a job in Europe doing the same work that he performed in his home country, his wages would increase by 400 percent.

However, crossing the mediterranean costs about $10,000. Many migrants pay as much as possible then use labor to pay the rest of the travel costs, making them human trafficking victims by definition. This labor often includes manning the ship or navigating despite the fact that most of these people have no sailing experience.

The number of persons migrating to this area has increased dramatically due to the eruptions of violence in Libya and the government’s responses to these actions. When Muammar Gaddafi ruled Libya, the government had an agreement with Italy, which stated that ships of refugees would be turned back to Libya. After the coup d’etat that took Gaddafi out of power, this deal dissolved, as immigration was not as high of a priority for the succeeding government. Now as more people are trying to leave Libya, the problem has both gotten larger and out of control. Additionally, the number of refugees from Syria has risen dramatically.

The trip from the African coast to Italy is about 70 miles. However, the ships that the smugglers use are more like shoddy rafts, and they are overloaded with people. When traveling, the goal of the ships is not always to make it to the coast. Rather, migrants hope to be seen and rescued by another boat, which is obligated to help the ship under international law. However, migrants cannot always catch the attention of a rescuing ship, and they often end up capsizing.

The Italian government had been working under its own policy to rescue migrant ships under operation “Mare Nostrum.” However, the European Union’s immigration agency, Frontex, replaced Mare Nostrum last fall. Since then, the budget and personnel for this work have been significantly reduced. Frontex policy has been to stop making great rescue efforts, arguing that this would make migrants less likely to make the journey.

The European Commission has been working on a strategy to deal with the issue. According to a statement it released, it plans to focus on improving conditions in the countries people are leaving.

“The only way to truly change the reality is to address the situation at its roots. For as long as there is war and hardship in our neighborhood near and far, people will continue to seek a safe haven on European shores. And as long as countries of origin and transit do not take action to prevent these desperate trips, people will continue to put their lives at risk.”

On Apr. 20, the Joint Foreign and Home Affairs Council released a ten point action plan concerning migration. Many of these points were more focused on immediate action in the area. These points included:

1. Increasing funding to organizations, like Frontex, so that more intervention is possible
2. Destroying the vessels used by smugglers
3.  Increasing communication between the immigration and homeland organizations EUROPOL,     FRONTEX, EASO and EUROJUST
4. Increasing the number of people who can process asylum applications in Italy and Greece
5. Having states fingerprint and identify immigrants
6. Work on relocation options
7. A project from the EU that will focus on resettlement and protection of migrants
8. Establishing a return program for irregular immigrants (those who were smuggled in)
9.  Working with countries surrounding Libya to prevent dangerous migration
10. Deploying officers in “key third countries” to gather intelligence and strengthen role of EU delegations in those countries.

These points were created to handle the situation in the present as well as to find a permanent and lasting solution for the migration crisis. However, this is likely to challenge an international body like the UN as it aims to control and modify actions in different countries, especially since a definitive governing body is not present in all of these countries.