Webb, Feingold Call for Senate Sign-Off on Future of U.S.-Afghanistan Relations

Foreign Relations Committee Members Express Concern with Strategy in Afghanistan

U.S. Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) are requesting that any bilateral agreement governing U.S. military operations be submitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent.  The senators, both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the request in a letter to President Obama.  In the letter, the senators reminded President Obama of President Bush’s failure to submit the security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq to the Senate.  As a senator, President Obama opposed President Bush’s effort to circumvent the constitutional requirement of Senate advice and consent. 

“Agreements governing these operations have profound implications for our troops, the American people, and Congress’ constitutional responsibility to declare war and make spending decisions about military operations,” the senators wrote.  “Any such agreements carry the weight of a treaty and should be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent in keeping with constitutional requirements.”

According to the State Department, an agreement involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole” should be considered for submission as a treaty.  Feingold and Webb pointed out that the strategic agreement between the U.S. and Iraq committed the nation as a whole and imposed operational restrictions on U.S. troops, yet was not submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.  Considering the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops conducting military operations in Afghanistan, Feingold and Webb cautioned that this dangerous precedent should not be repeated in Afghanistan, because it goes against the intent of the framers of the Constitution. The senators concluded by acknowledging the need to negotiate a strategic agreement with Afghanistan, but aired their concern with the current Afghanistan strategy.

“We do not believe that a long-term, open-ended presence of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan serves our national interest,” the senators wrote. “Most importantly, we believe that any consideration of such a prospect must be taken with the full advice and consent of the Senate.”

The text of the letter is below:


July 27, 2010

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20500


Dear Mr. President,

We write to request that any strategic framework agreement with the Government of Afghanistan pertaining to our long-term relationship and military operations in that country be negotiated as a treaty and submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent.  U.S. operations in Afghanistan are one of the longest military campaigns in our nation’s history.  Agreements governing these operations have profound implications for our troops, the American people, and Congress’ constitutional responsibility to declare war and make spending decisions about military operations.  Therefore, any such agreements carry the weight of a treaty and should be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent in keeping with constitutional requirements. 

We note that, as a senator, you cosponsored then-Senator Hillary Clinton’s bill which stated that “[i]t is the sense of Congress that any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving ‘commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole’, including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation does not have the force of law.”  The bill further stated that “Congress is a co-equal branch of government and as such the extension of long-term United States security commitments to Iraq that obligates or requires the appropriation of United States funds requires the full participation and consent of Congress.”  This applies equally to the situation in Afghanistan today.

As you know, President Bush negotiated a major security agreement with the Government of Iraq without submitting the agreement to the Senate for review.  State Department guidance states that an agreement involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole” should be considered for submission as a treaty.  The final agreement with Iraq entailed significant risks implicating our nation as a whole, including operational constraints on the one hand and a failure to specifically define an end-point for our security commitments on the other.  The failure to submit the agreement as a treaty also undermined efforts to develop a consensus between the legislative and executive branches which compromised our ability to develop a war policy with broad political support.  This set a damaging precedent that should not be repeated in Afghanistan.

While bilateral agreements pertaining to peace-time military deployments are common, the presence of nearly 100,000 U.S. troops conducting military operations in Afghanistan make this situation very different.  The Framers intended for agreements of such magnitude to be submitted as treaties to be considered by the Senate.  Senate ratification serves as an important check on the ability of the executive branch to commit our country to a course of action that may have profound implications for our country without the backing of the American people and their representatives in the Senate.

We appreciate the need to negotiate a strategic agreement with the Government of Afghanistan.  The United States clearly has enduring interests in the region, including the need to dismantle al Qaeda’s network in that country.  However, we do not believe that a long-term, open-ended presence of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan serves our national interest.  Most importantly, we believe that any consideration of such a prospect must be taken with the full advice and consent of the Senate.

Thank you for your consideration.