For practically twenty years, the Division of Protection has used 10 U.S.C. § 127e, an obscure counterterrorism funding authority, to create and command proxy forces throughout Africa and Asia. The complete checklist of those proxy forces is extremely categorised and but unknown. However journalists like Nick Turse, who was not too long ago featured on The Lawfare Podcast, have up to now uncovered § 127e applications in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.
Whereas a number of the international locations through which the Division of Protection has run § 127e applications are unsurprising—america’s counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Syria are not any secret—different locales could elevate eyebrows and constitutional considerations alike. What provides the Division of Protection the authorized authority to run counterterrorism operations in Cameroon, Egypt, or Niger? Significantly when the operations in these three international locations have reportedly concerned sending § 127e proxy forces on safety sweeps, raids, and kill-or-capture missions?
The Division of Protection could conduct its § 127e applications within the shadows, however the vary of applications involving fight hints at how the Pentagon interprets its authority to make use of drive. Part 127e doesn’t itself authorize U.S. forces to conduct or direct proxy forces into hostilities; it may possibly solely amplify america’s capability to conduct hostilities already permitted by an Authorization for Use of Army Power (AUMF) or Article II of the Structure, which confers on the president an inherent authority to make use of drive in self-defense. Working backward from unbiased reporting on § 127e, we will infer how the 2001 AUMF and Article II have been used. And we will conclude that these authorities could have been stretched past the chief department’s representations to Congress and the general public.
Part 127e
Initially enacted as a provisional authority in 2004 and subsequently codified in 2016, § 127e permits U.S. forces to “present help” to international militaries, paramilitaries, and personal people which might be “supporting” U.S. counterterrorism operations.
The sorts of help that U.S. forces could give and obtain aren’t outlined in § 127e. However the Division of Protection sought § 127e from Congress in order that U.S. forces would have the flexibility to recruit, practice, equip, and pay the salaries of international militaries, paramilitaries, and personal people that may help america in combating terrorism. In keeping with Maj. Gen. J. Marcus Hicks, the previous head of Particular Operations Command Africa, placing these companions on payroll would give U.S. forces “full incentive authority” over them and allow U.S. forces to “command and management” them on missions. In brief, § 127e was meant for use, and has been used, to create proxy forces who pursue navy targets alongside of and on behalf of U.S. forces.
Regardless of the regulation’s lack of readability on permissible sorts of “help,” § 127e doesn’t permit the Division of Protection to make use of its proxy forces nonetheless it might like. It requires these forces to facilitate “approved ongoing navy operations … to fight terrorism.” In different phrases, § 127e shouldn’t be itself a authorized authorization for operations. It’s merely a instrument for conducting operations, by means of and alongside proxy forces, pursuant to separate authorities.
The 2 authorities that permit the Division of Protection to conduct counterterrorism operations involving fight are the 2001 AUMF and the president’s inherent powers beneath Article II of the Structure. As part of my analysis into § 127e, Division of Protection officers and congressional staffers alike mentioned that § 127e applications involving fight—together with fight directed by U.S. forces however carried out solely by international proxies—needs to be primarily based on one or each authorities. Due to this relationship, we will use reporting on § 127e proxy forces to raised perceive the Division of Protection’s working interpretation of the AUMF and Article II.
2001 AUMF
The 2001 AUMF is the overarching authorization for the so-called struggle on terror. Enacted simply days after Sept. 11, the AUMF permits the president to “use all mandatory and acceptable drive” towards those that “deliberate, approved, dedicated, or aided the terrorist assaults.”
On its face, this language would seem to restrict the targets of approved navy operations to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However successive administrations have argued that the AUMF sweeps extra broadly, masking not solely al-Qaeda and the Taliban however additionally their “related forces.” Thus, al-Qaeda’s allies and splinter teams like al-Shabab and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) can fall throughout the AUMF’s ambit.
The chief department has lengthy maintained that it takes a cautious and restricted method to designating new related forces—a call with the potential to increase the geographic scope and period of the struggle on terror. Because the Obama administration, officers have assured Congress and the general public that each one related forces should meet two standards: (a) that they’re an organized, armed group that has entered the struggle alongside al-Qaeda or the Taliban and (b) that the group has engaged in hostilities towards america and its coalition companions. In keeping with these officers, a bunch shouldn’t be an related drive, and coated by the AUMF, just because it has aligned itself with al-Qaeda or as a result of it commits an act of terrorism.
Pursuant to this two-pronged take a look at, the Obama administration reported that it had designated six teams as related forces: al-Shabab, ISIS, al-Qaeda within the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qaeda in Libya, al-Qaeda in Syria, and al-Qaeda and Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The Trump administration later reported the identical checklist of related forces, although al-Qaeda in Libya was expanded to al-Qaeda within the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As not too long ago as July 2019, the Division of State’s authorized adviser repeated this checklist in congressional testimony.
The difficulty is, the Division of Protection’s § 127e applications have countered teams nicely past al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and these six listed forces. Part 127e proxy forces in Cameroon had been used to hunt members of Boko Haram. In Egypt, they had been used to focus on members of the Islamic State – Sinai Province. Equally, § 127e proxy forces in Niger had been assigned a kill-or-capture mission for a frontrunner of the Islamic State within the Better Sahara. And in Somalia, § 127e proxy forces have been directed to fight an ISIS affiliate not on the chief department’s brief checklist of teams coated by the AUMF.
Are these teams undisclosed related forces? Maybe. As part of my analysis into § 127e, a former Division of Protection official recounted {that a} “cottage trade of senior legal professionals [made] certain that each named group, as they morphed, … [got] on the checklist” and that the “checklist of names morphed weekly.” A better learn of the Obama administration’s checklist of related forces, too, reveals that the administration enumerated solely these teams towards which the navy was “at the moment taking direct motion.” Though lawmakers and advocates have usually understood this checklist as a complete accounting of related forces, teams previously focused beneath the AUMF, in addition to these focused “not directly” by means of § 127e proxy forces and different companions, could have been omitted.
Alternatively, it’s attainable these teams are considered as indistinguishable from ISIS itself. In 2015 —a yr after the launch of the Cameroonian § 127e program—the chief of Boko Haram pledged allegiance to ISIS. And the Islamic State – Sinai Province, Islamic State within the Better Sahara, and Islamic State in Somalia are self-evidently ISIS associates.
That mentioned, if successive administrations have taken a broad view of what constitutes ISIS, that may mark a consequential departure from previous follow relating to al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda associates like AQAP and AQIM needed to be individually designated, forcing the chief department to contemplate the risk posed by every group. And not using a separate designation course of for ISIS associates, the chief department might bypass the two-pronged method and pursue adversaries which have by no means posed a danger to america and its allies. It might goal teams which have pledged allegiance to ISIS in international locations as far-flung as Mozambique and the Philippines. The struggle on terror might stray additional nonetheless from the textual content and function of the AUMF: making certain accountability for and stopping future assaults from the perpetrators of Sept. 11.
Article II of the Structure
Along with the 2001 AUMF, the chief department’s broad notion of Article II authority could help § 127e applications involving fight. Beneath Article II of the Structure, the president has an inherent authority to make use of drive to “repel sudden assaults” towards U.S. individuals and territory, even with out congressional authorization. Because the Chilly Battle, government department legal professionals have performed quick and unfastened with what this authority entails and when it may be used. Govt department legal professionals have crafted capacious theories of “unit” and “collective” self-defense. These theories can simply result in fight when mixed with aggressive implementations of the Division of Protection’s authorities for coaching international companions. Govt department legal professionals have additionally argued that the president could use drive “in protection of necessary nationwide pursuits,” a principle of Article II energy that has few limiting rules.
All through the struggle on terror, Congress has enacted varied authorities beneath which the Division of Protection could educate, present weapons to, or restore weapons for international companions. A few of these authorities, just like the “international practice and equip” authority at 10 U.S.C. § 333, afford the division large latitude to pick out companions and determine how they’ll obtain help. The division could present such help even when its companions are preventing native adversaries that U.S. forces haven’t any authorized authority to focus on. Though applications beneath these authorities are nonoperational and may happen on a base fairly than within the area, the division’s choices about whom it would practice and the place its bases are positioned may end up in U.S. forces encountering their companions’ adversaries—after which invoking unit or collective self-defense.
Unit self-defense permits U.S. forces to have interaction in fight to answer precise or imminent assaults with out first looking for congressional authorization. To make certain, U.S. forces have the authority to guard themselves when deployed. However the Division of Protection’s follow of operating coaching applications out of “ahead working bases” could make unit self-defense look extra offensive than defensive. These are smaller bases that U.S. forces on coaching assignments could arrange in “unstable” areas, maybe for straightforward entry to trainees who’re actively combating native adversaries. Unsurprisingly, U.S. forces at such bases have sometimes come beneath assault or ended up exchanging hearth themselves. It’s uncertain that the Structure permits the Division of Protection to depend on a declare of “self-defense” to bypass Congress when it has intentionally positioned U.S. forces in places the place it’s predictable that they’ll come beneath hearth.
Collective self-defense, which allows U.S. forces to have interaction in fight to guard companions designated by the president or secretary of defense, is an much more troubling principle. It permits the pursuit of international companions’ adversaries even when these adversaries pose no risk—rapid or in any other case—to U.S. forces. Lower from entire material, collective self-defense has no foundation within the Structure’s textual content, design, or historical past. Furthermore, the idea might permit the Division of Protection to bypass Congress’s function in deciding the place and towards whom america is at struggle: The division might merely accomplice with international forces who’re preventing an adversary not contemplated by Congress after which invoke collective self-defense to counter that very same adversary.
Public reporting reveals that unit and collective self-defense might broaden, and in some situations already has expanded, the attain of U.S. fight in international locations with identified § 127e applications. Division of Protection paperwork from 2014, obtained by the Intercept by means of the Freedom of Data Act, present that the division maintained not less than 34 ahead working bases in Africa. These bases had been concentrated within the Sahel and Horn of Africa, two areas the place U.S. forces are identified to have encountered adversaries and run an array of § 127e applications.
Furthermore, as a result of unit and collective self-defense allow U.S. forces to have interaction in fight with out congressional approval, a § 127e program primarily based on considered one of these theories might contain hostilities towards teams not coated by the 2001 AUMF. A current report from the Worldwide Disaster Group recounts that U.S. fight towards al-Shabab started in earnest not less than one yr earlier than al-Shabab was recognized as considered one of al-Qaeda’s related forces; the Division of Protection’s work with Somali companions led to broad workouts of unit and collective self-defense towards al-Shabab in 2015, although the group was not but a legit goal beneath the 2001 AUMF.
If § 127e exercise towards teams just like the Islamic State – Sinai Peninsula and Boko Haram has the truth is been primarily based on unit or collective self-defense, that may evince a urgent want for congressional oversight, not solely of § 127e applications however of practice and equip applications as nicely. Though these coaching applications don’t themselves entail operations, not to mention fight, they will function a springboard for fight past what Congress has approved.
It bears point out that, even with out ahead working bases or aggressive coaching applications, government department legal professionals can invoke Article II authority by claiming that U.S. fight in a specific nation is important for defending necessary nationwide pursuits. The national-interest principle has been used to justify a variety of congressionally unauthorized interventions that nicely precede the struggle on terror. And through the struggle on terror, the principle was used to focus on ISIS in Iraq, earlier than government department legal professionals assessed that the AUMF utilized to the group. An operation primarily based on the national-interest principle might, not less than notionally, help a § 127e program involving fight. Not one of the Division of Protection officers or congressional staffers I interviewed for my forthcoming report had been conscious of § 127e exercise that had taken place on this foundation. However the potential for proxy warfare—primarily based on little greater than the chief department’s sense that the nationwide curiosity is at stake—ought to immediate Congress to weigh in on this controversial principle.
Mistaken Interpretations of the Regulation
Along with overbroad readings of the 2001 AUMF and Article II, a 3rd chance might clarify the startling vary of § 127e applications involving fight: human error. The textual content of § 127e is not any mannequin of readability. It’s round and obscure, and members of Congress have publicly struggled to get a deal with on what the supply permits. In personal, government department officers have additionally struggled to grasp § 127e.
In interviews for my analysis on § 127e, former and present Division of Protection officers lamented that there had been “misunderstandings” concerning the authority. One former official described “confusion concerning the nature of the authority” inside components of the departments of Protection and State. Specifically, he cited the “notion that § 127e was a full bundle authority,” fairly than a funding provision that might not be exercised with out an exterior authority just like the 2001 AUMF or Article II. Regardless that § 127e doesn’t itself authorize operations, it’s all too attainable that it has at instances been used as the premise for looking high-value targets.
On high of errors in decoding § 127e, errors in decoding execute orders or EXORDs might lead to fight not justified by an AUMF or Article II. EXORDs memorialize the Division of Protection’s “approved ongoing navy operations” and may implement the 2001 AUMF or Article II. All § 127e applications ought to help or facilitate the operations described in an EXORD. The issue, although, is that EXORDs might be broadly drafted and should not specify the authority beneath which they’re promulgated. This may go away U.S. forces unsure about which adversaries they will pursue, whether or not themselves or by means of § 127e proxies.
For its half, Congress has tried to get a full checklist of the Division of Protection’s EXORDs, in addition to the particular EXORDs at difficulty within the 2017 Tongo Tongo ambush—an assault on U.S. forces in Niger who had been tasked with helping § 127e proxy forces on a kill-or-capture mission. The White Home has resisted turning over the total checklist of EXORDs, and the division refused to present Congress the Tongo Tongo EXORDs for greater than a yr after the incident.
With out extra rigorous congressional oversight of § 127e and the EXORDs on which the authority depends, in addition to higher cooperation from the chief department to allow such oversight, the potential for errors—together with errors that violate the constitutional order whereby Congress decides the place and towards whom the nation is at struggle—will persist.
***
Whichever of those theories explains the proliferation of § 127e applications involving fight, the truth that we’re left speculating concerning the government department’s interpretation of its authority to make use of drive is unsettling. The general public mustn’t need to attempt to reverse-engineer the scope of or foundation for the place the nation is at struggle from scraps of details about § 127e proxy forces.
Merely put, the struggle on terror has expanded nicely previous what Congress approved in 2001. In the present day, the American public and far of Congress are unaware of the total scope of U.S. hostilities to counter terrorism overseas. These hostilities elevate critical constitutional questions and threaten a disaster of democratic accountability. This can proceed to be the case until and till Congress reforms or repeals § 127e and the 2001 AUMF and enacts new laws to rein in presidential war-making.
