Recently, after over two decades of an unnecessary U.S. military presence in Niger, the U.S. finally withdrew from the West African country. I, for one, never believed we should have been there in the first place and warned our presence was doing more harm than good. Congress never authorized sending troops to Niger. Last year, I was right to demand their withdrawal. Why waste our money and risk our troops’ lives for a hostile country?

In over a decade, civilian lives were lost, U.S. service members were killed, millions of taxpayer dollars were spent, and we have nothing to show for it. So, what exactly did we do in Niger? I repeat: Congress never voted to send troops there. Congress never authorized the use of military force there. Yet, on multiple occasions, U.S. forces in Niger had to engage with hostile groups and, sadly, American lives were lost. 

Some may recall that, on October 4, 2017, four U.S. soldiers—Sergeant 1st Class Jeremiah Johnson, Staff Sergeant Bryan Black, Staff Sergeant Dustin Wright, and Sergeant La David Johnson—were ambushed and killed while on a mission near the village of Tongo Tongo, Niger.

This tragic incident was the largest loss of life for U.S. forces in Africa since the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. At the time, the New York Times reported, in a piece called “An Endless War,” that two senior senators, a Republican and a Democrat, both of whom are still serving, knew little of the American military presence in Niger.

They were surprised because Congress had abdicated its constitutional war-making power to the executive branch. They were surprised because Congress is content to allow the President to sidestep the Constitution and unilaterally deploy U.S. forces anywhere in the world, at any time, for any reason, by citing a limitless interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF. 

Passed in the days following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the 9/11 AUMF was narrowly tailored to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks. An ever-aggrandizing executive, however, deliberately misinterprets the AUMF as limitless, empowering the President to go to war everywhere, all the time, forever. 

Using an AUMF written 23 years ago to justify war today is a perverse abuse of power, yet Congress stands idly by. 

These military interventions the U.S. has carried out all across the Middle East and Africa have made us less safe and less prosperous. In many cases, including that of Niger and the surrounding region, our interventions have been counterproductive, destabilizing, and helped create the conditions for Islamic extremism to prosper. 

Does anyone remember our intervention in Libya? I know many think this is ancient history, but in 2011, the Obama-led offensive helped destroy that country. The American-led coalition toppled the government of Muammar Gaddafi, killed hundreds of civilians, fomented anarchy throughout the country, and opened the floodgates for widespread extremist terror to spread throughout the region. Gaddafi kept Libya’s tribal rivalries in check, but his U.S-sponsored overthrow exacerbated them. Many tribal members turned to Islamists for guns and training to defend themselves against rivals.

In fact, I forced a vote in the Senate in 2011 declaring that President Obama’s decision to intervene militarily in Libya violated the Constitution. Unfortunately, it failed 90-10, and here we are, 13 years later, and not much has changed. During that 2011 floor debate, I stated, “Though I’m new here in the Senate, I am appalled that the Senate has abdicated its responsibility.” Well, I’m now in my third term, and I’m still appalled that Congress refuses to acknowledge its constitutional role on the question of determining when and where the United States goes to war.

Libyans today are unambiguously worse off than before we intervened. In 2010, the UN Human Development Index ranked Libya 53rd in the world. This year, Libya is ranked 92nd. The UN Human Rights Office reports that the execution and torture of civilians in Libya is a regular occurrence. The UN has also identified the existence of “open slave markets” where migrants and refugees transiting Libya are bought and sold as slaves.

The disaster the Obama administration helped unleash in Libya has had lasting consequences for the region. Libyan arms, including heavy weaponry such as anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles, have been traced to criminals and terrorists across the region, including in Niger, Mali, Tunisia, Syria, Algeria, and Gaza.

It is rarely asked if our interminable military interventions create the terrorists we seek to destroy. That’s a question Congress needs to answer. In the 11 years U.S. troops were in Niger, Congress did not once debate the merits of the mission and never authorized the use of military force. As the U.S. was forced out of Niger, Russia was welcomed with open arms, solidifying that our efforts have almost been counterproductive. 

After over a decade, lives lost, and hundreds of millions spent, the U.S. didn’t stop the spread of Islamic extremism, didn’t help build or spread democracy in other nations, and has now lost a top ally in the region. At what point will Congress learn that its inaction and reliance on the executive branch is not only a dereliction of its constitutional duty but also worsening global relations?

Last year, Niger’s democratically elected leader was ousted in a coup led by Nigerian military officers. With the potential of U.S. service members being caught in the crosshairs, I forced the Senate to vote on a War Powers Resolution. The resolution directed the President to remove all U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Niger within 30 days of its enactment, something that should have been done as soon as the Biden administration formally declared that a military coup took place. 

Eighty-six Senate Republicans and Democrats voted against my resolution and the removal of U.S. troops in Niger amid the coup, further involving America in another foreign conflict.

We owed it to those service members to debate their mission. Not only because it was a new conflict not contemplated by the 9/11 AUMF, but because, if we are asking our young men and women to remain in harm’s way and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice, Congress should fulfill its duty. 

Committing America’s military to fight wars on behalf of the nation is the most consequential and humbling responsibility that Congress is entrusted with. If America’s interest in another country is of such vital importance that we ask our young men and women to fight and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend it, we at least owe our service members a debate in Congress.