The U.S. Senate just made a rare show of unity that might actually signal the end of a long, painful chapter in American history.
On Thursday, the Senate voted unanimously to repeal the 2002 resolution that greenlit the 2003 invasion of Iraq, joining the House, which passed a similar measure last month, in a bipartisan push to close the book on a conflict that cost countless lives and reshaped the Middle East, as AP News reports.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: the Iraq War, launched under President George W. Bush’s administration, was sold on the shaky claim that Saddam Hussein was hoarding weapons of mass destruction. That was a whopper of a mistake, and the fallout was catastrophic—hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and nearly 5,000 American troops lost.
This repeal, tucked into the annual defense authorization bill, didn’t even spark a debate in the Senate—just a voice vote with no objections. It’s almost as if both parties looked at the wreckage of the past and said, “Enough is enough.”
The charge was led by an unlikely duo: Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana. Their amendment doesn’t just scrap the 2002 resolution but also tosses out the 1991 Gulf War authorization, signaling a broader intent to tie up loose ends.
Now, supporters in both chambers argue this isn’t just paperwork—it’s about preventing future executive overreach and recognizing Iraq as a strategic partner, not an enemy. That’s a noble shift, though one wonders if it’s a tad late after decades of bloodshed.
Sen. Tim Kaine put it poetically: “That’s the way the war ends, not with a bang but a whimper.” Well, senator, it’s a whimper that took far too long, and the echoes of that bang still haunt families on both sides of the Atlantic.
Sen. Todd Young, meanwhile, called it an “extraordinary moment,” expressing hope it shows Congress can still tackle big issues. Extraordinary? Sure, but let’s not pat ourselves on the back too hard when the 2002 resolution was rarely used anyway—except, notably, by the Trump administration in 2020 to justify a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani.
Speaking of President Trump, it’s anyone’s guess whether he’ll back this repeal. Sen. Young urged him to sign it, citing Trump’s past rhetoric against endless wars, but some Republicans privately grumbled to Kaine about the measure, even if they didn’t dare object publicly.
Here’s a kicker: while the 2002 and 1991 resolutions are on the chopping block, the 2001 authorization for the global war on terror—passed after the Sept. 11 attacks—remains untouched. That’s the one giving presidents carte blanche to strike groups like al-Qaida and the Islamic State, so don’t expect the military’s reach to shrink much.
Unlike the Iraq-specific measures, the 2001 resolution is broad and frequently used, a reminder that Congress isn’t fully reining in executive power. It’s a half-step forward, but half-steps don’t win marathons.
Back to the Iraq repeal, this isn’t the Senate’s first rodeo—they voted 66-30 to ditch the 2002 resolution two years ago. Thursday’s unanimous vote, amid a bitter partisan standoff over a government shutdown, feels like a small miracle in a polarized Capitol Hill.
So, what does this all mean? It’s a symbolic nod to returning war powers to Congress, a body that’s often been too eager to let presidents play general without oversight.
Yet, skepticism is warranted—after all, the 2002 resolution was a dusty relic, rarely invoked, and Iraq has long shifted from foe to uneasy ally. Is this repeal a genuine course correction, or just a feel-good gesture while broader war authorizations linger?
Still, credit where it’s due: in a time when bipartisanship feels like a fairy tale, seeing both parties unite on this—however quietly—is a flicker of hope. Maybe, just maybe, Congress can remember its job isn’t to rubber-stamp endless conflicts but to deliberate, debate, and decide when enough is enough.
