Neither the George W. Bush nor Barack Obama White House ever laid out a vision for what an end to the war on terrorism would actually look like. But as Obama prepares for his second term in office, one of his top defense officials is arguing that there is an end in sight, and laying out conditions for when the U.S. will reach it.
“On the present course, there will come a tipping point,” Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, told the Oxford Union in the U.K. on Friday, “a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al-Qaida 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-Qaida as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.” At that point, “our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict.”
Johnson’s description of the endgame raises more questions than answers. But under his formulation, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which the Obama administration has cited as the foundation of its wartime powers, would expire. That would mean any detainee at Guantanamo Bay who hasn’t been charged with a crime would be free to go, although Johnson says that wouldn’t necessarily happen immediately. It would also raise questions about whether the U.S. would possess residual legal authorities for its lethal drone program — which Johnson defended to the BBC on Thursday — including the legal basis for any “postwar” drone strike the CIA might perform.
In Johnson’s view, once al-Qaida’s ability to launch a strategic attack is gone, so too is the war. What will remain is a “counterterrorism effort” against the “individuals who are the scattered remnants” of the organization or even unaffiliated terrorists. “The law enforcement and intelligence resources of our government are principally responsible” for dealing with them, Johnson said, according to the text of his speech, with “military assets in reserve” for an imminent threat.
Following two explosions that ripped the face off a Syrian intelligence building comes a brazen allegation: That Syrian security forces carried out the attacks themselves.
The explosion in Damascus Thursday killed up to 55 people and, according to the Syrian Interior Ministry, injured 372 others. While the Syrian government blamed the attacks on “foreign-backed” opposition forces, Syria’s two opposition movements, the Syrian National Council and the National Coordination Committee, denied carrying out the attacks, claiming that Syrian security forces were responsible. The question for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime is whether the opposition forces are technically capable of carrying out such an attack. The question for the opposition forces is whether the Syrian regime is actually this desperate to discredit the opposition.
As for the latter question, the regime would have to be incredibly hopeless to resort to such tactics. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the blasts “destroyed the nation’s intelligence agency,” reports CNN. The Associared Press’ Bassam Mroue describes the building as being “heavily” damaged, “leaving blood and human remains in the streets.” Would the regime be willing to lose its intelligence resources for a PR stunt?