A POLITICAL eternity ago, back in May 2013, President Barack Obama felt able to boast that the core of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan was on a path to defeat, allowing America to declare an end to the global war on terror that began after the September 11th 2001 attacks. “This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands,” Mr Obama said two years ago. He announced his intention to work with Congress on refining and ultimately repealing the hastily drafted Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) granted in the first days after the 2001 attacks.Alas for Mr Obama—whose political rise was rocket-powered by his opposition to the 2003 Iraq war—events have intervened. On February 11th the president asked Congress for a fresh AUMF endorsing a limited use of America’s armed forces, including ground troops, against Islamic State (IS) and its allies.“I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East, ” Mr Obama assured Americans in a televised statement. Local forces were best placed to defeat the extremist group, he said, adding that the AUMF wording is intended only to give him “flexibility”, for instance to send special forces after targets in locations where local allies could not act.Though reactions do not divide perfectly along party lines, some...
from The Economist: United States http://ift.tt/17mTcEX
No comments:
Post a Comment