Amy McGrath

Opinion contributor

Our Founding Fathers gave Congress the sole power to declare war in Article 1 of the

Constitution. They made the president "commander in chief” in Article 2. That was no accident. After winning their independence over a monarch, the Founders were intent on making sure that no future American leader would ever have too much power — especially on crucial matters of war and peace.

Today, nearly 19 years after Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force within days of the tragic attacks of Sept. 11, we are running on legislative fumes. In our system of divided powers and checks and balances, Congress must act to revise the AUMF, as well as the War Powers Act of 1973. Legislators continue to fail to fulfill their duty of operating as the only branch of our government with constitutional authority for war-making.

While this month’s House resolution was a small step in the right direction, it woefully lacked what is necessary. Meanwhile, the Republican-led Senate may follow suit with its own vote for an inadequate resolution.

Our armed forces must have confidence in the mission

As somebody who served in the military for 24 years, including a number of combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, having Congress step up to reauthorize the use of military force is personal to me, especially considering that we've been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly two decades.

In a democracy like ours, there is nothing more important for our men and women in uniform than knowing that the country has their back in battle. And while no war is ever perfectly planned in advance, they must have the confidence that policymakers have fully assessed the dangers and downsides of any mission before asking our warriors to risk their lives to carry it out.

The 2001 AUMF is all we have to legitimize military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and beyond. Because that law targeted the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks — Sunni/Salafist extremists under the al-Qaida banner and their close associates — it does not even attempt to speak to the current situation with Shiite-led Iran.

It is imperative that we fix this.

Two decades after 9/11:With al-Qaida ruined, there's no need for USA to stay in Afghanistan

The American public has become more and more disconnected with the conflicts and places in which we are fighting. As someone who fought — and lost friends — in these wars, it is wrong to continue asking Americans to fight them if Congress (the direct representatives of the people) is not willing to even debate them and take an up-or-down vote.

We all want to keep America safe, and we should maintain and equip a strong, capable military to do that. Additionally, we cannot tie the hands of this or any future commander in chief in a way that could leave the nation even temporarily defenseless. But that does not mean that this or any president gets a blank check.

Keeping Congress accountable

A new AUMF would have a fixed end date (five years for example), after which another new AUMF would be required. However, if Congress failed to replace it, the previous authorities could remain in effect temporarily so as not to leave the country defenseless in the event of the always present threat of Washington gridlock.

We should also require the director of national intelligence to certify that any new

extremist group has ideology and goals related to al-Qaida, or broader violent

extremism/Salafism, before a president is permitted to strike it. That would prevent a president from using the AUMF for entirely different purposes than its original intent, while allowing flexibility if new terrorist groups splinter off from old ones or simply change their names to avoid being targeted.

Additionally, we should add more checks and balances to any employment of nuclear weapons, except in the event of immediate peril to the nation when an enemy nuclear attack is imminent or underway.

None of these reforms would substitute for Congress' other traditional oversight obligations. It is imperative that Congress get involved in the Iran debate — demand more in-depth intelligence briefings, conduct hearings on potential developments, debate long-term Iran strategies publicly and be forced to cast tough votes — which is why they were elected in the first place.

Iran, U.S. conflict:It's time for the truth and de-escalation

Sadly, our Congress is no longer made up of revered leaders like Sens. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., Richard Lugar, R-Ind., or John McCain, R-Ariz. — all heroes of mine who deeply understood their sacred constitutional responsibility to challenge all presidents, even of their own party, in service of the nation. Today, we get little more than an unacceptable rubber-stamping by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell when it comes to the actions of an impulsive administration without any clear plan or strategy.

With the nation again potentially at the cusp of war, there is no more important debate than this one. America deserves leaders who take this responsibility seriously, regardless of political party and regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Amy McGrath is a retired lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps and is running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Follow her on Twitter: @AmyMcGrathKY