Forever War and the AUMF 2001
Charlie Black, PhD
Co-Founder @ Xundis Global, LLC | Advisor | Board Director | Speaker | Marine Veteran | Cultivates Resilient Teams that Succeed in Complexity.
It has been twenty-three years since the infamous 9/11 attack on the United States by Al-Qaeda planned from their sanctuary in Afghanistan.? We’ve “withdrawn” from Iraq and Afghanistan and shifted focus to great power competition. Yet, we still have large numbers of military members serving around globe in harms way. Out of sight and mind of the American people and under reported by the Department of Defense. The American people deserve better than a United States that is forever at war.
The current approach to permanent military presence abroad, in places like Iraq and Syria, to conduct opportunity strikes to kill terrorist is not a strategy.? In many instances our presence fuels the inertia of path dependency begun twenty-three years ago. Looking strategically, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force 2001 is “the” sustaining structure that prevents a necessarily critical relook at our approach to national security and the use of force to achieve political aims abroad. We face a dynamic and diverse international landscape comprised of both new and the reemergence of old threats leaving us in perhaps a more unfavorable security position than ever before.? Old ways of thinking and doing are insufficient for modern war which looks much different than our recent past and avoids our preference for conventionality. There are many lessons yet to be learned.
Presidential authority to employ military force has Constitutional limits and demands real oversight. Moreover, it is important to remember that Congress also has major responsibility for war making.? Congress unfortunately has abrogated its role for over a decade on this issue. It is time to disrupt old patterns of thinking and doing in order to craft a new approach to a new world. It is time to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against September 11 Terrorists (AUMF). The existing AUMF has been used by every Presidential administration since 2001 to wage two decades of war against terror that employed and shaped an entire generation. Although different in time, geography, and enemy the past twenty years of war is similar to the American tragic strategic lose in Vietnam. Winning most battles and in this instance killing thousands of terrorists was and is irrelevant to wining wars when there is incoherent and consistent strategy.[1] The sacrifices of this generation must not be carried to the next. It is critical to our national security to start anew and design a new approach to our security.
?
领英推荐
?
Lecturer at The Bush School, TAMU -Washington DC
4 周Charlie Black, Bravo Zulu. We need Congress to get its act together. The War Powers Act in 1973 was originally created for this purpose. I am reading Jack Carr's book, Targeted: Beirut. The deep research on Presidential Decisions and Congressional interaction is very illuminating. General PX Kelley had an intuition that we would become entangled in future conflicts with Terror Organizations like Hezbollah. If we as a country see every problem as a nail, we will always use the military as a hammer. The Diplomatic, Informational and Economic factors of National Security are often overlooked or ignored.
Ex-Tesla Manager, Fire and Emergency Services at Tesla
1 个月These prolonged wars and proxy wars need to stop. We are not winning anything with them. Our presence in the Middle East is accomplishing very little if anything. Other then costing us billions of dollars that should have been used somewhere else. Our strategy in the Middle East has failed since there is still a strong terrorist presence.
I Help Senior Leaders Master Their Craft & Thrive Personally
1 个月Charlie Black, PhD you are spot on! The only thing I would disagree with is how long congress has been absent in enforcing its constitutional responsibilities regarding the use of force. It's been longer than the AUMF has been around. I particularly agree with your point that playing "whack-a-terrorist" is more like a deadly carnival game than a strategy, and isn't winnable. We need serious thinkers in the defense establishment who can develop and implement a real strategy and serious-minded members of congress to step up and do their duty. Thanks for the great read, Charlie.