Here & Now

U.S. Reps. Respond to Crisis in the Middle East

Frederica Freyberg:

In our first look tonight, the U.S. House votes to limit President Donald Trump’s war powers in the midst of strikes against Iran. We hear from two members of Congress. In a moment, Wisconsin 2nd District U.S. Representative, Democrat Mark Pocan. But first, 8th District Congressman, Mike Gallagher, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former marine who deployed twice to Iraq and was a commander of intelligence teams. He joins us from Washington by phone. Thanks very much for doing so.

Mike Gallagher:

Happy to be with you. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why did you vote no on the House resolution to limit President Trump’s war powers in Iran?

Mike Gallagher:

Because since the INS v Chadha decision, a concurrent resolution has been viewed as a legislative veto and therefore unconstitutional. I think it’s a shame because I do agree with the intent of the War Powers Resolution. The lead House proponent for it was a Wisconsinite. It was Clement Zablocki but the sad fact is since its passage in 1973 over Nixon’s veto, it has completely failed to achieve its very noble gains. Had the Democrats had the courage of their convictions, they would have submitted a joint resolution. They did not. But clearly in this case, because we are not initiating new hostilities with Iran, we are taking defensive action. Pursuant to Article 2, and the 2002 AUMF that allows our troops to be in Iraq. The president had the authority he needed to do what was necessary to defend our troops and our diplomatic personnel.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why do you support the killing of General Soleimani?

Mike Gallagher:

Soleimani was the head of a designated terrorist organization. He was himself a terrorist. He has the blood of over 600 Americans on his hands as well as thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Arabs across the Middle East, people that I work with, that I fought with. The carnage in Syria, the genocide in Syria. I can’t think of anyone with the possible exception of Vladimir Putin and President Assad himself was more responsible for that. He’s also irreplaceable in terms of being the world’s top terrorist mastermind. So I believe the world is a safer place with him gone. And he has the blood, recently, of Americans on his hands. And we simply cannot let terrorists kill our people in impunity.

Frederica Freyberg:

Was targeting him for his past behavior or because of imminent, current threats?

Mike Gallagher:

I think it was a mixture of both. Now I should confess that I –prior to the most recent intelligence reporting had said we should not hesitate to take Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Soleimani off the battlefield, if indeed they are threatening our troops. If he did not want to be taken off the battlefield, then he should have complied with the UN sanctions that said he was not to leave Iran. He was a uniformed military officer on an active battlefield where our troops have the right to defend themselves. We know, with recent evidence — in open source, independent of the intelligence reporting that they conducted a rocket attack, Iranian proxies that killed at least one American and wounded four other service members. But they also attacked our embassy. So I think we were more than justified in taking the necessary defensive action to protect our people. And my hope is and the early indications are – although very early – that we have restored some semblance of deterrence in the Middle East. That’s the best way to avoid war over the long term and reduce our presence, is to have a credible military deterrent and a clear red line that we’re willing to enforce.

Frederica Freyberg:

And yet, even after retaliatory missile strikes that reportedly caused no American casualties, Iran was saying to soon expect harsher revenge. So do you believe that threat has passed?

Mike Gallagher:

It’s hard to tell what is a real threat and what is just posturing for a domestic audience because simultaneously Foreign Minister Zarif has said on Twitter that they are seeking de-escalation. So it’s too early to tell. I would expect Iran to revert to proxy warfare. Iran does not have 100% operational control of the Shia militias in Iraq and those militias could take matters into their own hands. We should all prepare for the possibility of a cyber-attack emanating from Iran. We have very diligent and vigilant people in our government working on that very problem.

Frederica Freyberg:

Iraq seems to be signaling that it wants the U.S. out of its country. What do you think of that?

Mike Gallagher:

No. I think, I think that vote in the parliament was very significant, but for precisely the opposite reason. They were barely able to muster a quorum. In fact, the reports in the last few days suggest they actually didn’t legally have a quorum. More to the point, there’s a caretaker government that does not have the legal authority to kick us out. It was a nonbinding resolution. So I just would say to people watching this, don’t believe what you hear on Iranian state TV. You really have to read the Arabic language source in Iraq. What we know incontrovertibly is that for the 73rd day in a row, Iraqis have taken to the streets to protest Iran’s influence in their country. So we have strong partners on the ground that want to work on us. Of course, our goal is a free, independent, sovereign Iraq. Iran’s goal is to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia. And that’s bad for the people of Iraq.

Frederica Freyberg:

I understood that some of those people protesting in Iraq were also protesting against U.S. presence still in Iraq. You would like to stay, have the U.S. military stay?

Mike Gallagher:

I would. I think we’ve actually, through a painful process of trial and error, arrived at a sustainable approach where for a very small investment of troops and special operators, we can work by, with and through Iraqis on the ground. We’ve had incredible success in the fight against ISIS. That fight is not over. So I think the partnership is worth continuing. Now there are a lot of my constituents that would like us to pull out, but I just would caution against that. We saw what happened when President Obama pulled out precipitously. And I think, you know, for a modest investment of resources, if we can counter Iran’s influence not only in Iraq, but throughout the rest of our region, and draw closer to our traditional allies, again, as I alluded to before, I think that’s the best way over the long term to be able to move more of our forces to more important theaters of the world, particularly Asia and INDOPACOM.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. U.S. Representative Mike Gallagher, thanks very much for joining us.

Mike Gallagher:

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now to the Democratic side of the aisle and back to Washington to speak with 2nd District Representative Mark Pocan. Congressman, thanks very much for being here.

Mark Pocan:

Thank you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why did you support limiting the president’s war powers in Iran?

Mark Pocan:

Well, honestly, this has been overdue from probably a few decades. Congress, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has the sole responsibility for putting our country into a war unless there has been an attack directly against our country and a few other provisions. And it’s very clear that the last couple decades, Congress has given up too much of that Article 1 power to the executive branch and presidents. Both Democrats and Republicans have very loosely used old 2001, 2002 authorizations to go into war for other purposes. And it’s long overdue that we did something about it. What we saw the president do last weekend was another example of someone not coming to Congress as they’re supposed to for advice and consent. We just need to do this not just for Donald Trump, but for any future president. We have to go back to what the Constitution says and that means Congress has that sole power.

Frederica Freyberg:

Representative Gallagher says that the resolution passed in the House was a political effort that will have the practical effect of undermining our military. What is your reaction to that?

Mark Pocan:

That’s political rhetoric. You know, I think when it comes to things that involve war, we have to get beyond our little what team we’re on, what party we’re on and talk about what’s right for the country. And in this case, if you are a coequal branch of government, Congress, and Constitution — you know, explicitly says it’s Congress’ role, we should, Democrats and Republicans, get together and reclaim that role because what we don’t want to happen is presidents loosely using old AUMFs, authorizations to go into war for other purposes. For example, in this case, that 2002 authorization to go into war was specifically about Saddam Hussain in Iraq and it was the rationale used by the president this time to do something in Iraq just because it had the word Iraq. That’s clearly not what was intended by Congress back in 2002. That’s why we just need to, again, as the constitutional authority is given to Congress, take that back so that any president, Democrat or Republican, understands they have to come before Congress in order to do that.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your position on the assassination of General Soleimani?

Mark Pocan:

Again, I think one of the troubling things we had, we had a classified briefing this week. Also I went into a classified setting and read the president’s two-page reasons why we did this. The problem is — and it’s not just coming from me, but it’s coming from Republicans in the Senate and others, they didn’t give us any justification. In fact, Secretary Pompeo did an interview recently this week where he said well, we didn’t know where or we didn’t know when, but we knew it was imminent. That’s not the same definition of imminent, right. It should be something that is actually factual. So every time we asked, well, what was the imminent warning? Well, it was imminent. Yeah, but what was imminent? Well, it was a warning. Yeah but — it was a circular who’s on first, what’s on second routine. We need hard facts to know if it’s something the president had to do or did he have the time to come to Congress and do it. In this particular case that assassination has been considered by previous presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, who did not do it because the consequences are severe. We did get some background what those consequences could be according to the intelligence community and it was a bad assessment without a real imminent reason. That’s why I just think again, Congress needs to understand it is a coequal branch of government. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans. It’s about being Americans. We need to reclaim that authority per the Constitution that Congress has. And I think you’re going to see some other measures coming in the coming weeks that are also going to do that, Frederica. I think we’re going to have something explicitly that says no funds can go towards war with Iran and I think you’re going to see something actually repealing that 2002 AUMF, something we should have done quite honestly a long time ago.

Frederica Freyberg:

Where do you think this U.S. military action and continued threats of Iranian revenge for it leaves our people?

Mark Pocan:

We are without a doubt less safe today than we were a week ago because by doing something that is essentially assassinating the number two person of a country that has the eighth largest military on the planet that is not a good idea unless you had some real reason. And since we have not seen a real reason in classified or non-classified settings, it puts us at greater risk. Even though we saw one reaction from Iran, what we think is going to happen is there’s going to be more surrogate reactions that could happen in the weeks to come that make the region less safe. That, at the end of the day, is a bad thing. If we ever have to consider sending men and women from the United States over to the Mideast, that has to be a very thoughtful decision. The president promised he was going to end endless wars. He was going to bring troops home, but right now Frederica, we have 15,000 more troops in the Mideast than we did six months ago and that’s not good for peace.

Frederica Freyberg:

Just very briefly as we close this out, all of this said, I trust does not mean that you are defending Soleimani?

Mark Pocan:

No. No one is. In fact, today Republicans are starting to apologize for their rhetoric of the week when they said people were standing in the ayatollah or whatever else. That’s all, again, just absolutely ridiculous garbage. What is important right now at a time like this is you don’t put the blue or the red cap on. You say what is in the best interest of peace in the Middle East and what is in the best interest of not having to send American men and women overseas and put their lives at risk. Right now, it is by having de-escalation, having diplomacy and I’m hoping that’s what we’ll do moving forward in dealing with Iran.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Representative Mark Pocan, thanks very much.

Mark Pocan:

Yeah. Thank you, Frederica.