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.
The top U.S. House Armed Services Committee Republican, in a sharply worded Oct. 29 letter, told President Barack Obama that his recounting of the events around a deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya sounds “implausible.”
That charge came in a letter from Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., to Obama. It is the latest criticism congressional Republicans have launched at Obama or his top Cabinet officials about their handling of a deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.
McKeon’s letter was sent in response to comments made Oct. 26 by Obama during a radio interview. The president said that in the immediate wake of the attack he issued several directives, including one to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”
That is puzzling to McKeon and other GOP lawmakers, who are questioning why the administration did not use U.S. military assets to secure the consulate in Benghazi. The attack, an apparent terrorist strike, left the American ambassador and three others dead.
“Your … directive would appear to involve potential actions by the U.S. military,” McKeon wrote.