this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

news

807 readers
635 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

  1. Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
  2. Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
  3. Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
  4. Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
  5. No link shorteners
  6. No entire article in the post body

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Effectively nothing. We no longer are fighting Iraq, so revoking the authorization is effectively just cleaning the books of superfluous stuff. It ahould have happened years ago, but Republicans couldn't make it look like Democratic administrations were accomplishing anything remotely close to ending wars while pushing the narrative that Dems are warmongers.

Other blanket authorizations are still in effect.

A separate 2001 authorization for the global war on terror would remain in place under the bill. While the 2002 and 1991 resolutions are rarely used and focused on just one country, Iraq, the 2001 measure gave President George W. Bush broad authority for the invasion of Afghanistan, approving force “against those nations, organizations, or persons” that planned or aided the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Passed in September 2001, it has been used in recent years to justify U.S. military action against groups — including al-Qaida and its affiliates, such as the Islamic State group and al-Shabab — that are deemed to be a threat against America.