...use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.Ending the indefinite war is exactly what President Obama promised to do back in May.
My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon...As the President said in that same speech, that involves more than simply pulling our troops out of Afghanistan.
This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.
...we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my Administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban. We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws...Those talks stalled a few months ago when the Taliban walked away from the effort. But Reuters is reporting that the Obama administration has made a new offer that is designed to bring them back to the table.
The Obama administration, in a move aimed at reviving Afghan peace talks, has sweetened a proposed deal under which it would transfer Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison in exchange for a U.S. soldier held by Taliban allies in Pakistan.You can read more details about the offer at the Reuter's link. But the important point is that the Obama administration is still working on this. These kinds of negotiations are very complex and tend to move at a snail's pace.
The revised proposal, a concession from an earlier U.S. offer, would alter the sequence of the move of five senior Taliban figures held for years at the U.S. military prison to the Gulf state of Qatar, sources familiar with the issue said.
U.S. officials have hoped the prisoner exchange, proposed as a good-faith move in initial discussions between U.S. negotiators and Taliban officials, would open the door to peace talks between militants and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Of course the Taliban publicly blamed their walk-out on the U.S. But its much more likely that it had more to do with divisions in their own ranks.
In early 2012, Western officials say, the Taliban's reclusive leaders struggled to contain a backlash from mid-level militants who opposed talking to the West...This new offer from the U.S probably demonstrates that signals have been sent that its time to start moving ahead. That's good news...even at a snail's pace.
Even so, analysts say there are signs that the Taliban leadership, based in Pakistan, may now be more open to a negotiated settlement, and these have included the appearance of a senior Taliban figure at a recent conference in Japan.
I would say that with the Authorization it's technically not a civil liberties issue only because civil liberties are technically those which the state (lowercase) designates. You know I'm not going Greenwald with this, but drone strikes are a dirty business.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, drone strikes are a considerably less dirty business than invading countries wholesale. I think I mentioned before how my ex felt that Obama was making a pretty serious self-sacrifice getting into government, particularly in running for President. The ugliness of what goes on at that level is huge. One's hands become necessarily dirty, and very dirty.
I suppose I distinguish political figures by the broad direction they move. Obama clearly is moving things in the right direction, and there's nobody I see that has a snowball's chance of affecting things that seems like he or she will do it better, in the right direction.
I also as a corollary got in a one-sided discussion with a Randian libertarian type (bastard wouldn't shut up) who seemed to feel a sense of moral superiority arguing for a truly "free market" which by his own admission exists nowhere on the planet. This type of moralizing based on imaginary ideals seems to me not only foolish but deeply immoral, because it distracts from what needs to be done in actually existing context.
I SO agree with you about getting your hands dirty!
DeleteFor me this all comes down to finding the right pressure point for ending things like drone strikes and indefinite detention.
To cede the idea of the US being engaged in "indefinite war" is by far the most dangerous ground to concede - which is what I see WAY too many progressives doing.