Armed Conflict Congress Executive Branch Foreign Relations & International Law

Obama's Legal Legacy of Light Footprint Warfare

Jack Goldsmith, Matthew Waxman
Tuesday, July 26, 2016, 1:16 PM

We have a new piece in The Washington Quarterly, titled “The Legal Legacy of Light-Footprint Warfare.” President Obama’s approach to military intervention has generally emphasized stealthy and often long-distance warfare as an alternative to his predecessor’s heavy “boots on the ground” approach. We review the executive branch legal interpretations used to justify “light-footprint” military actions.

Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Brookings

We have a new piece in The Washington Quarterly, titled “The Legal Legacy of Light-Footprint Warfare.” President Obama’s approach to military intervention has generally emphasized stealthy and often long-distance warfare as an alternative to his predecessor’s heavy “boots on the ground” approach. We review the executive branch legal interpretations used to justify “light-footprint” military actions. Together these interpretations comprise a potent legal legacy that risks undermining important political checks.

We argue:

Undergirding Obama’s use of drones, cyber-operations, and Special Operations forces are constitutional and statutory innovations that enhance the President’s discretion to start and continue military interventions that deploy these tools. Many of Obama’s predecessors, of course, widened presidential war power. But Obama’s innovations pose a distinctive challenge to U.S. democracy and military strategy because light-footprint warfare does not attract nearly the same level of congressional and especially public scrutiny as do more conventional military means.

Congress has been complicit in these developments, which can be seen from two perspectives. More optimistically, the resulting policy has generally met with political approval: “Especially in an era marked by fierce partisan gridlock in other contexts, the formalities of overt congressional approval might matter less than the reality of broad congressional and public support for the president’s military actions.” However, “[a] more pessimistic view … would acknowledge light-footprint warfare’s costs to U.S. democracy and its risks to a politically sustainable foreign policy over the long run.”

We conclude by acknowledging that a requirement that Congress formally approve each new development against a quickly shifting enemy is not realistic and probably not wise, but nonetheless propose a mechanism for forcing Congress to engage on these issues more regularly. Our aim in this piece is to spark discussion, so please let us know your thoughts.


Jack Goldsmith is the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School, co-founder of Lawfare, and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Before coming to Harvard, Professor Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002-2003.
Matthew Waxman is a law professor at Columbia Law School, where he chairs the National Security Law Program. He also previously co-chaired the Cybersecurity Center at Columbia University's Data Science Institute, and he is Adjunct Senior Fellow for Law and Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He previously served in senior policy positions at the State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council. After graduating from Yale Law School, he clerked for Judge Joel M. Flaum of the U.S. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.

Subscribe to Lawfare