“A Decade of War Is Ending”

by Deborah Pearlstein

Cross-posted at Balkinization

Of the many memorable lines in President Obama’s eloquent victory speech on Tuesday, the Chicago crowd reserved some of its greatest applause not for the line trumpeting the economy’s ongoing recovery, but for the news that “a decade of war” was coming to an end.

Tuesday’s speech was not the first time the President has made such a statement. But he has taken care to avoid saying which war, exactly, he meant was at an end. Certainly he includes the war in Iraq as among the endings. Likewise nearing an end from the President’s perspective is the war in Afghanistan, with U.S. troops set to leave by 2014. What about the worldwide “war” against Al Qaeda and associated forces? The war two Presidents, Congress and the courts have all now found in some sense to exist? While U.S. operations in, for example, Yemen, continue apace, and the brand name “Al Qaeda” remains in active use, public reporting suggests there is less and less left of a command structure behind the Al Qaeda organization actually responsible for attacking the United States in 2001. Whether that war counts among the endings the President had in mind is less clear.

We may all hope to learn more about what the President meant by war’s end in the coming weeks. But he was certainly right to raise the question of how the country moves “beyond this time of war.” As Administration officials have suggested in recent years, in, for example, contemplating Al Qaeda’s “strategic defeat,” it is possible to envision an ending of one kind or another to all of these conflicts. Now is the time to think carefully about the vast law and policy implications of what it will mean when the United States is no longer at war.

Take one small sliver of the subject: the myriad federal statutes authorizing the government to exercise certain powers only for so long as hostilities continue. The existence of war, variously defined, is the sine qua non condition for the lawful exercise of a wide range of statutory authorities that have supported the past decade of U.S. counterterrorism operations. Military commissions, for example, may substitute for civilian trials to prosecute only those acts “incident to the conduct of war,” for events occurring “within the period of the war.” Under another law, civilians may be subject to the U.S. military justice system if they are “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field… [i]n time of declared war or a contingency operation.” Likewise, private security contractors implicated in misconduct are immune from tort suits for a wide swath of activities, only if performed “during time of war.”

Perhaps most famous among such authorities, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force empowers the President to detain individuals “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,” only, as the Supreme Court held, “for the duration of these hostilities.” The existence of this “armed conflict” is likewise one of the central legal justifications for ongoing targeted killing operations by the United States abroad.

Whatever the answers to the longstanding questions about the scope of these and other war-triggered authorities, about whether and for how long they should continue to exist, it should be possible to agree on at least one thing as the conversation at war’s end begins: it would be better to make decisions about which of these laws are needed after we have a developed a game plan for U.S. counterterrorism strategy for the long-term. A strategy not driven by the demands of crisis-driven fear, as it was in the months after September 11, or by ex-post mistake mitigation, the task that confronted the President in his first term, and in important ways burdens him still.

What we need to help guide these decisions is a strategy that sees the challenge of terrorism in all its enduring complexity. A strategy that flows from the vision we glimpsed in passing on Tuesday, that of “a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war, to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being.” A strategy that begins with the understanding that the task is to develop rules that will be a part of our national life and character not for a limited or exceptional period of “war” time, but indefinitely. And that therefore recognizes that the questions before us are not about what we are willing and able to do right now as a nation, but about what kind of country and what kind of world we want ours to be.

The President is right. These particular wars will come to an end. The problem of terrorism never will.

http://opiniojuris.org/2012/11/09/a-decade-of-war-is-ending/

3 Responses

  1. It is true that the War on Terror may never come to an end, and will definitely not come to end anytime soon. With that said, the President should be weary of making any drastic changes to the counter-terrorism procedures that he has maintained over the course of his first term. It goes without saying that the time for United States boots on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq has reached its end, however the time has yet to come when the United States should begin to implement a legislative exit strategy. 

    The AUMF has already been limited in scope by the Supreme Court in Hamdi and Hamadan. Therefore, the authorization of force, and presumably the subsequent detainment of ‘enemy combatants’, has been curbed to a point which is in line with international custom. The United States is undoubtedly the leading force in the War on Terror. This is not to deemphasize the United States’ volatile practices in the past, but rather to emphasize the exigencies that have been and will continue to be present in this War on Terror.

    President Obama has done right by Americans and the international community, showing all along that he and his State Department have ample  concern for engaging the international community diplomatically and with great care. In my opinion he has shown that his government can use the wide authorization that the AUMF gives efficiently, effectively, and without major incident. Barring the continued use of GITMO, this administration’s war-time practices have been humble and even-handed. To tie their hands at this point by disallowing an essential piece of legislation would be tantamount to defeating crucial military effectiveness and efficiency. 

    @ pilr.blogs.law.pace.edu
     

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. [...] Auf Opinio Juris hat sich Deborah Pearlstein Gedanken gemacht über die Ankündigung “A decade of war is ending… in Obamas Rede nach dem Wahlsieg. Zwar liess der Präsident offen, welche Kriege genau er meint und [...]