Are We Still at War?

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY February 18, 2013

We remain a nation at peril, but are we still a nation at war?

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama signaled, yet again, that the war in Afghanistan is effectively over. Soon, in fact, it will be over by any honest measure: The presence of American troops will be halved to 34,000 in the coming months, and erased entirely by December 31, 2014. On this arbitrarily chosen date, the president claims, we will "achieve our core objective of defeating the core of al-Qaeda."

This was just rhetorical fluff. The core of al-Qaeda will still be intact, even resurgent. It will simply have moved on to more hospitable climes such as northern Africa - thanks in no small part to a windfall of new arms from Libya, courtesy of Obama's unprovoked, unauthorized, and strategically disastrous war to topple the Qaddafi regime.

What, moreover, has Afghanistan got to do with "defeating the core of al-Qaeda"? We have been told for years that al-Qaeda has virtually no presence in Afghanistan. It has been a very long time since the mission of our troops there was to defeat al-Qaeda's core. For several years, their mission has been incoherent: Prop up the ramshackle and often hostile sharia government we have birthed in Kabul, while simultaneously staving off and negotiating with the Taliban. You may think, as I do, that these are futile objectives and that it is irresponsible to put our troops in harm's way for them. Or you may believe that, though difficult, they are worthy goals. One thing you cannot credibly believe, though, is that these are the aims for which we went to war in 2001.

It is essential to remember those aims because it is they, and they alone, that determine whether we are still, constitutionally and legitimately, a nation at war. That is a very real question. It is one we must confront because on it hinges such crucial questions as whether the intensified drone campaign - the subject of heated ongoing debate - is lawful.

Understand: Though war is political act, it is also a formal legal reality. Its existence and legitimacy, in our constitutional system, are up to Congress.

War is not a matter of rhetoric. Banter that "we remain a nation at war" is no more meaningful than claptrap about being at "war" with poverty or drugs. Many of us have long objected to the term "War on Terror" exactly because it is rhetoric that ducks identification of an actual enemy. As such, it invites such dubious mission creep as "Islamic democracy"-building in Afghanistan and elsewhere. If, in going to war, you don't focus on the defeat of a concretely identified human enemy, all manner of foolishness can become policy under the guise of defeating a rhetorical abstraction such as "terror."

Nor is war an exercise in deductive reasoning. The nation is not legitimately at war just because politicians and pundits can look around and draw the conclusion that the United States has enemies in the world. Merely to have enemies is not to be at war. We always have enemies - foreign countries and factions that mean us ill. North Korea is our enemy, as is Hezbollah, but we are not at war with them.

In the same way, the international jihadist network spearheaded by al-Qaeda was our enemy before September 11, 2001. In fact, prior to that infamous date, al-Qaeda repeatedly declared itself to be at war with us. It even acted on these declarations by, for example, attacking our embassies in east Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole as it docked in Yemen in 2000. Here, however, is the salient fact: We were not at war with al-Qaeda, regardless of their jihad against us. This was unwise on our part, but that does not make it any less true.

This article appears at NRO.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor  Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and blogs at National Review Online's The Corner. 

 

 


blog comments powered by Disqus

'Who got a new hamster?' Wonder what Joe Biden thinks of today's primaries

February 09, 2016  08:32 PM

"*SNORT*"

The post ‘Who got a new hamster?’ Wonder what Joe Biden thinks of today’s primaries appeared first on twitchy.com.

Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump win New Hampshire primary; John Kasich now a distant second

February 09, 2016  08:22 PM

New Hampshire didn't serve up many surprises, as the heavily favored Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump each won easily.

The post Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump win New Hampshire primary; John Kasich now a distant second appeared first on twitchy.com.

Playtime's over: New Cruz ad smacks Trump over his liberal tendencies [video]

February 09, 2016  08:21 PM

Looks like Ted Cruz might be done pulling punches when it comes to Trump.

The post Playtime’s over: New Cruz ad smacks Trump over his liberal tendencies [video] appeared first on twitchy.com.

Supreme Court puts President Obama's climate change rules on ice

February 09, 2016  08:00 PM

Thanks to the Supreme Court, energy prices might not necessarily skyrocket in a forced transition to green energy sources.

The post Supreme Court puts President Obama’s climate change rules on ice appeared first on twitchy.com.

'Worth a thousand words': One 'disgraceful' photo sums up Hillary perfectly

February 09, 2016  03:59 PM

"Totally unacceptable."

The post ‘Worth a thousand words’: One ‘disgraceful’ photo sums up Hillary perfectly appeared first on twitchy.com.

10 year FSM Anniversary

FSM Archives

More in MUST READS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )