It was 2007, the war in Iraq was in full swing, and Congress was struggling to exercise its oversight powers. Despite Democratic victories in the midterm elections, driven by public opposition to the war, Then-President George W. Bush hoped to “send” thousands more U.S. troops to Iraq. Democrats introduced a resolution condemning the plan.
Retired Army Master Sergeant Tim Walz, a freshman representative from Minnesota, stood up in support of the resolution. “Some people say this debate sends a message to our enemies, and I agree. The message our enemies heard this week is that American democracy is alive and well,” he said. “The genius of this country’s founders is now on display,” Walz added, praising Congress’ constitutional role in overseeing the war.
Walz is now the governor of Minnesota, and on Tuesday he became the Democratic vice presidential nominee. His selection could signal that a future Harris administration may exercise more foreign policy restraint. Phil Gordon, Vice President Kamala Harris’s national security adviser, has also built a public profile by learning from the mistakes of regime-change movements such as the Iraq war.
Yet despite Waltz’s strong feelings about the war powers, he also showed a tendency to shy away from the intense political battles on the issue. During the debate over the troop surge, Walz voted to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days. Less than five months later, however, he voted to continue funding the war. That stance puts him at odds with most of his Democratic colleagues.
“In my area, I don’t hear [during the campaign] Walz told NBC News, “There are widespread calls that the military must withdraw by midnight tomorrow. I’m concerned that if the withdrawal is delayed or accelerated for political reasons, that would be dangerous.”
A similar pattern continued throughout Walz’s congressional career. According to voting records compiled by the anti-war advocacy group Peace Action, Walz has frequently voted in favor of repealing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the War on Terror, while also voting against limiting or cutting military funding.
When the war with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria broke out, then-President Barack Obama asked Congress to create a new AMF. The bill authorizes war but excludes “protracted offensive ground combat operations” against the Islamic State and its “associated forces” for three years. Walz thinks it’s a good compromise.
“The president is trying to walk a fine line between not tying his own hands and recognizing the fact that Americans fear endless conflict,” Walz told The Washington Post. mankato free pressthe local newspaper.
When the bill failed, the Obama administration claimed that the war was authorized anyway under the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. Walz continues to push for war powers reforms and opposes congressional enforcement of them.
For example, in May 2016, Walz voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF. The following month, he voted against a bill that would have set an expiration date for war funding under the 2001 AUMF and against another bill that would have defunded military operations in Iraq and Syria, Unless the new AUMF can be passed.
This middle-of-the-road stance continued under former President Donald Trump. In 2017, after Trump ordered airstrikes in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against civilians, Walz said the bombing was “obviously necessary” although “any further military action” would require congressional approval, “especially if it could risk adding more casualties.” Putting our men and women in uniform at risk. “
Walz left Congress in 2019, and as Minnesota governor, he did not have to deal with many foreign policy issues, with the exception of the Gaza war. He condemned Hamas’ attacks on Israel in October 2023, supported the general idea of a ceasefire in March 2024, and praised the pro-Palestinian protests as “citizen participation”. None of these statements suggested he would take a hard line in any direction.
As a congressman and governor, Walz had been able to play the role of a moderate, expressing skepticism about the war but not actively preventing it. As a candidate for the White House, he doesn’t take issue lightly. The man who began his career praising restraints on the president may soon have those principles put to the test.
