Biden Pledged To End The Forever Wars, But He Might Just Be Shrinking Them

Enlarge this image

U.S. Marines and Afghan Commandos stand together in 2017 at Shorab Military Camp in Helmand province. American ground troops are out of the country, but war from the air may go on.

Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty Images

The Taliban Have Stopped Planes Of Evacuees From Leaving Afghanistan

But critics — and even some Biden allies — question whether the «forever wars» are truly over. The president may have shrunk the wars, they say, but he has not ended them, nor are they confident he can without the backing of Congress and the public.

«The use of military force, the support of autocratic regimes, the maintenance of a facility at [Guantanamo Bay] — these are all still aspects of the forever war that are a backdrop of what America is in the world,» said Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser under former President Barack Obama. «And until we dismantle at least aspects of that infrastructure, we can’t say that we brought a forever war to a close.»

Biden wants to refocus U.S. foreign policy

When Biden came into office, he was trying to reorient U.S. foreign policy — scaling down the focus on global terrorism and expanding the focus on China, Russia and cybersecurity threats.

In addition to pulling ground troops out of Afghanistan, for the first six months of Biden’s administration, U.S. drone strikes were at an all-time low, as Foreign Policy magazine reported in July. Biden’s National Security Council has been working on an inter-agency review of counterterrorism policy, which includes the use of drones.

A senior administration official said the president established «interim guidance» on the use of military force to ensure he had full visibility into any potential action while the review was underway, but no final decisions have been made about new counterterrorism policies. The New York Times has reported that the Biden playbook could be a hybrid of drone policies administered under Obama and former President Donald Trump.

Experts say despite Biden’s original foreign policy aims, the resurrection of the Taliban, the chaos in Afghanistan and the possibility of a failed state that could become a breeding ground for terrorists could complicate his ambitions to truly end the wars.

The United States carried out strikes this summer in Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Late last month, it also struck targets connected to an alleged ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan as the U.S. was withdrawing from the country.

The U.S. air war stretches over the horizon

«We will maintain the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries,» the president said last week. «We just don’t need to fight a ground war to do it. We have what’s called ‘over the horizon’ capabilities.»

He was referring to drone and missile strikes. Even as vice president, Biden insisted that counterterrorism efforts from the air were more effective than protracted ground warfare.

But experts say that means the war in Afghanistan is morphing — not actually ending.

«Under no definition of warfare would the end of ground troops be called the end of war,» said Seth Jones, who previously advised U.S. special operations in Afghanistan and now works with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. «If the U.S. is prosecuting a lethal campaign against terrorists [who are] on the ground, that’s an act of war.»

Enlarge this image

A U.S. drone aircraft lands at Afghanistan’s Jalalabad Airport on Oct. 2, 2015.

Noorullah Shirzada/AFP via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Noorullah Shirzada/AFP via Getty Images

Biden’s Approval Rating Hits A New Low After The Afghanistan Withdrawal

The U.S. Launches A Drone Strike On An ISIS-K Target

The widespread use of drones and the human cost on the ground from airstrikes have been contentious issues.

The British-based watchdog group Airwars estimates that at least 22,000 civilians have been killed in U.S. strikes over the last 20 years.

The U.S. government has no comparable publicly available total from the last two decades. In the last few years, the Pentagon began issuing annual reports about civilians, and those annual death toll numbers are significantly less than NGO estimates. The U.S. government says the discrepancy is because it has access to confidential information. Skeptics say there’s no clear information because some of these strikes are covertly carried out by the CIA, and so the government won’t publicly admit they exist.

Earlier this summer, the ACLU joined with over 100 other groups to call on the Biden administration to end «the unlawful program of lethal strikes outside any recognized battlefield.»

«Airstrikes, including through the use of drones, that take place outside of recognized armed conflict — that is a center piece, a hallmark of the forever wars,» said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.

Congress and the public have a say

Critics of the so-called «forever wars» say the only way to end them is not by focusing solely on specific policies, but also the legal framework, principally the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that, they say, has allowed for open-ended warfare.

For the last two decades, the basis for Republican and Democratic presidents alike to carry out military operations has been the war authorization passed by Congress in the frenzied days after the 9/11 attacks.

Here’s How Presidents Have Responded To Terrorism

«This was a 60-word authorization that was a blank check,» said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who at the time was the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 war authorization. «It just said the president is authorized to use force in perpetuity, forever, against any nation, organization, individual, he or she deemed connected to 9/11.»

Lee is working to repeal the 2001 AUMF, as well as the one passed in 2002 to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq the following year. The White House has said it supports narrowing war authorizations but hasn’t been explicit about the 2001 authorization and how it should be rewritten.

We are committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.

— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 5, 2021

Obama’s deputy national security adviser Rhodes says dealing with outdated war powers is an important first step, but he thinks it will be much harder to completely end the wars.

«The reality is this is going to be a long process of essentially unwinding a series of wars and authorities, and I would argue excesses, that date all the way back to those early months after 9/11 that have shaped American foreign policy,» he said. «I don’t even think a president alone could end the forever war. It would take Congress. It would take a shift in prioritization from the American public.»

Perhaps that opening is coming.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released last week found that a slight majority of Americans now believe domestic terrorism is a greater threat to the United States than global terrorism, a marked shift from the fears in the country immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.


Добавить комментарий