A month or so ago, then-DOD General Counsel Jeh Johnson delivered a speech which raised the intriguing possibility that the so-called “War on Terror” might possibly have an expiration date attached. The key passages were as follows (footnotes omitted):
I do believe that on the present course, there will come a tipping point – a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, such that al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.
At that point, we must be able to say to ourselves that our efforts should no longer be considered an “armed conflict” against al Qaeda and its associated forces . . . .
At that point we will also need to face the question of what to do with any members of al Qaeda who still remain in U.S. military detention without a criminal conviction and sentence. In general, the military’s authority to detain ends with the “cessation of active hostilities.” For this particular conflict, all I can say today is that we should look to conventional legal principles to supply the answer, and that both our Nations faced similar challenging questions after the cessation of hostilities in World War II, and our governments delayed the release of some Nazi German prisoners of war.
These passages occasioned a brief flurry of commentary, with contributions from Kenneth Anderson, Jack Goldsmith, Deborah Pearlstein (here and here), and Eric Posner. Particularly noteworthy (at least to me) was Goldsmith’s careful analysis of the various qualifications in Johnson’s speech. ISTM we shouldn’t start planning victory parades, etc., just yet. Still, recalling Hamilton’s caution regarding the corrosive effects of “[t]he perpetual menacings of danger,” I did find it mildly encouraging that at least some in fedgov have considered the possibility that the “War on Terror” might (some day) disappear.
Reading Johnson’s speech (and the commentary occasioned thereby) also inspired me to (finally) read this interesting article by Robert Chesney, which considered how withdrawal from Afghanistan and the “simultaneous decimation, diffusion, and fragmentation” of Al Qaeda might destabilize the legal underpinnings of the “War on Terror.” I’m interested to see whether, as Chesney believes, such developments will indeed occasion renewed debate regarding that war’s legal aspects.
I doubt that the WoT will end as long as there is money to be made from it or restrictive laws and regulations to be enacted in its name.
Because… http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
An end to the War on Terror would be great news; it would mean that drone strikes and targeted killings aren’t an open ended authority we’ve ceded to the President as long as something or other called Terror exists somewhere in the world to be fought.
I agree with both the comments above. A lot of people want war to continue for personaol and corporate profit and other gain. Power hungry politicians love having Patriot Acts and all that to surveil and control us.
Lynn – I believe we already ceded open ended authority for drone strikes and targeted killings. Presidents will always find the “terrorists” or potential terrorists or just really bad people that need killing. The executive branch needs its power balanced very badly. (I’m purposely leaving out Obama’s name as I believe there are many people who would delighted to take his position and abuse power more than he, or Bush or any other previous president. Michael Bloomberg perhaps?
True that – I’m reminded of the quote from Frank Herbert – “Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
Never heard that quote, but it’s a good one.
Al Qaida may be weakened, but there are signs of them in Afpak. Islamism itself is making quite a comeback.
Afpak will remain a serious challenge, and shadow war or not, we’ll have some engagement there.
On some level, we are already trusting our government (maybe not the executive so broadly, given Obama’s tendencies) to use special ops, intelligence, our military and security agencies to prosecute this war.
Terror is broad and diffuse and maybe poorly defined with many legal consequences, but we will be engaged for likely the foreseeable future, however we define it.
I hope they will not be a serious challenge. I think the duck in their commercials is cute.
Not really the same AQ.
Steve
I think you can make a good case we should have invaded Afghanistan. I have never really understood invading Iraq, but I (mistakenly) did not think Colin Powell would lie, so I initially supported it even if it didnt make any sense otherwise. Beyond those, we should have never had war, but rather targeted police action directed against terrorist activity. Treat them as criminals not soldiers. Now, I think you are correct that the legal landscape will be quite messy determining the future of those we are holding.
Steve
Oh, they’re more clever than you think. It will not be easy.
All – thanks for the responses.
Those preferring to see the “War on Terror” end would be well-advised to read Goldsmith’s analysis of Johnson’s speech. Those believing that the “War on Terror” needs to continue probably ought to read Chesney’s article. I’m kinda on the fence, so it’s probably good that I’ve read both . . . .
If the “War on Terror” ends in my lifetime, I will expect to see pigs flying or hell freezing over shortly afterwards. We are still in various states of “national emergency” brought on by the Spanish-American War and several conflicts following it which ought by rights to have officially ended long since. Let’s face it, Congress doesn’t declare US wars, and NOBODY ends them