Last week, US Members of Congress faced two contrasting votes concerning U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, highlighting a peculiar aspect of war politics. While questioning the humane conduct of war appears permissible, actively working towards ending war itself remains politically contentious.
The first vote centered on a tepid proposal introduced by Representative Warren Davidson (R-OH). The proposal sought to obligate the Biden administration to present a strategy to Congress, inclusive of potential diplomatic initiatives to facilitate a negotiated settlement for the conflict. As a conditional measure, a small percentage of Ukraine aid in the NDAA, totaling around $300 million, would only be allocated upon the administration’s submission of the aforementioned report. Unfortunately, this proposal was resoundingly rejected, with only 129 Members, all Republicans, voting in support.
In stark contrast, a separate bipartisan proposal aiming to restrict the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine garnered significant support. This outcome was particularly notable given the last-minute maneuvering by House leadership, which seemingly sought to sabotage the proposal’s success. A broad bipartisan initiative to ban cluster munitions universally was substituted by a Republican-led measure focused solely on banning transfers to Ukraine, led by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Despite the eleventh-hour switcheroo, which likely diluted some support, 49 Democrats and 98 Republicans joined forces to back the measure, although it ultimately fell short of passage.
Opposition to transferring cluster munitions is by no means a radical stance. These weapons, prohibited by a treaty ratified by over a hundred nations, possess a notorious inhumane nature. Apart from immediate damage caused by their explosive blast radius, they also leave unexploded ordnance for unsuspecting civilians to stumble upon. Although the Defense Department initially provided assurances that the munitions being sent were new and improved, subsequent statements unveiled their alarming failure rate in immediate detonation.
Undeniably, limiting the methods of warfare is important and not a mere diversion. However, political leaders must not only evaluate and challenge the means and tactics employed in warfare but also the concept of war itself. Interestingly, many Americans and their elected representatives appear content with addressing only the brutality within war rather than posing more fundamental questions about its existence. This trend was particularly prevalent during America’s war on terror, where controversies centered on treatment of detainees or civilian casualties caused by drones and missiles, rather than questioning the rationale, location, and duration of the wars themselves.
This paradigm continues to persist, even among those members of Congress who commendably mobilized to withdraw American support from Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen during the Trump administration. At that time, legislators actively opposed not just specific weapons but also America’s complicity in an immoral conflict. They championed a resolution declaring such involvement a violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973—an emblem of the Vietnam era’s concerns about war that is now in tatters. Yet, this week, many of these same legislators stopped short of demanding an end to the Ukraine war and merely sought more humane conduct.
While acknowledging that Ukraine and Yemen are distinct situations, and the U.S. does not support the aggressor in the former, it is increasingly evident that the conflict in Ukraine is becoming a proxy war. A year on, it is also apparent that the war remains at a stalemate, requiring a negotiated peace as the only viable solution. Humanizing the war, although important, does not bring us closer to that peace; in fact, it may inadvertently delay it. President Biden recently commented that the Ukraine war is likely to be long if the current policy continues.
In this light, the debate surrounding cluster munitions appears misleading. Proponents argue that utilizing them will drastically transform the quagmire into a Ukrainian victory, while opponents maintain that certain tactics should never be condoned, even if they provide military advantages. Unfortunately, neither side prioritizes a negotiated settlement, and the outcome may be yet another protracted war, albeit conducted in a more humane manner.
The post “The Politics of the Ukraine War for the US Congress” first appeared on the European News Global.
European News Global 