[W]ASHINGTON — The Senate killed an effort led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would have required the U.S. military to cease participation in operations in Yemen’s years-long civil war.
Sanders, among the Senate’s most liberal members, introduced the measure with Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in late February, and pushed for the full chamber to vote on it.
The resolution would have given the administration 30 days to remove U.S. troops from Yemen, where a civil war has killed thousands of civilians, according to observers. It allows an exception for military forces involved in efforts to combat al-Qaida to remain.
The United States has been backing a coalition led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, providing weapons and equipments, intelligence support and refueling for planes used in airstrikes.
However, the resolution stalled when the Senate voted 55-44 to table it.
On the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, Sanders argued that American involvement in the war in Yemen has not been properly authorized by Congress.
“What we are saying is if Congress wants to go to war in Yemen or anyplace else, vote to go to war. That is your constitutional responsibility,” Sanders said. “Stop abdicating that responsibility to a president, whether it is a Republican president or, in the past, Democratic presidents.”
Sanders said that he believes under current law, U.S. troops have been engaged in the conflict in Yemen for some time.
“This war has been going on for three years,” he said.
Lee pleaded for colleagues not to vote to table the measure. He said it is an urgent matter that deserves the immediate attention of Congress.
“This is, in fact, a war,” Lee said. “ There are in fact grave humanitarian concerns presented by that war, and that makes it all the more important, not less important, for us to debate this.”
Vermont’s other senator, Democrat Patrick Leahy, was among 10 co-sponsors of the resolution. He voted against motion to table.
Many opponents took to the floor to argue that the resolution was circumventing the committee process on a complex issue.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, argued that the measure should go through his panel, rather than be considered by way of a “wild west” debate on the floor.
“Legislation is being introduced soon in a bipartisan way to deal with this terrible issue that’s taking place in Yemen,” Corker said. “We’re going to have a hearing. We will have a markup.”
He also said the committee will work on a new authorization of military force. Presidents of both parties have used resolutions authorizing military force against al-Qaida and in Iraq passed by Congress in 2001 and 2002 as justification for military action in other foreign countries.
The vote came on the 15th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.
In a letter late last month, the Department of Defense opposed the resolution, arguing it is “fundamentally flawed” because the support the United States has provided to the Saudi coalition is limited and does not involve direct military action of forces.
Lee, Sanders and Murphy responded in March, asserting that the U.S. activities do qualify as “hostilities” in the region.
Dr. Peter Henne, an international relations assistant professor at the University of Vermont, said the United States gradually slipped into the civil war in Yemen.
“We’re not really part of the war, we’re not fighting the war, but we’re basically on the Saudi side even though we’ve never officially said so,” he said.
He said there is a “massive” humanitarian crisis and the conflict has the potential to escalate.
Henne said he favors the resolution. If it were to pass, he said, it would mark a shift. Congress has shown a willingness to give the executive branch “a lot of latitude.”
“It would change a lot of the relationship between Congress and the president on defense and foreign affairs,” he said.
