Only one senior al Qaeda leader left. And what that means.

[Robb]

CNN's Peter Bergen chimed in this morning on the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi. His usual apologia for "W" aside, he reported this:

The news that Abu Yahya al-Libi, the No.2 leader of al Qaeda, is now confirmed to have been killed in a CIA drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region along the border with Afghanistan further underlines that the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 attacks is now more or less out of business.

Under President Barack Obama, CIA drone strikes have killed 15 of the most important players in al Qaeda, according to a count maintained by the New America Foundation (a nonpartisan think tank where I am a director) ... As a result, according to senior U.S. counterterrorism officials, there now remains only one leader of any consequence in al Qaeda and that is Ayman al-Zawahiri...

Bergen goes on with some other nonsense, and misses the real importance of what he's gotten his Pentagon sources to confirm: senior US counterterrorism officials are now, today, and enthusiastically, playing up the importance of Abu Yahya al-Libi and sounding the death knell for al Qaeda.

Why is this a big f-ing deal?

Because it will end "indefinite detentions." Permanently.

As I've said here before, AUMF is the cornerstone of every successful legal argument surrounding indefinite detentions. The current administration is quite aware that AUMF is, for all purposes, the war against al Qaeda; Obama is actually focusing on destroying al Qaeda, which is not just foreign policy, but also domestic.

Here's why: as soon as it becomes slightly apparent that al Qaeda does not pose a meaningful, demonstrable threat, the powers granted by AUMF will be in trouble -- and the attorneys for the first post-Hamdi case of a US citizen being detained and denied a day in court will successfully poke a thousand holes in AUMF for precisely this reason.

This is why Obama fought -- with a veto threat -- for what seemed inexplicable terms in this year's defense bill, negotiating what even his strongest supporters could at best spin as a punt: setting language that would preclude Congress from passing a law that would've set up a Hamdi challenge prematurely, e.g. leaving things at best status quo.

By "prematurely," I mean this: Obama knows, as I've also said here before, he has a very, very good chance of being reelected. This means he also has a very, very good chance at getting to pick a couple of USSC seats -- with any luck, he'll get to pick those seats up before Hamdi gets a court challenge.

Because the right court could end the AUMF without the approval of Congress -- and do it while giving Congress a chance to grumble and save face about it all. No AUMF, no powers -- for Obama, or any future President.

And we'll be out of this mess.

[freshwest]

1. You're way past me thinking this out. I also welcome the End of the War on Terra.

Could we please stop killing the planet now and work on our mutual survival?

Fingers crossed. Peace Out.

[Turbineguy]

2. Zawahiri

will have to become a suicide bomber himself?

Yeah, like that's gonna happen!

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Reminds me of this...

[BOG PERSON]

8. n/t

[msanthrope]

3. Interesting analysis.

It does seem that the targeting strikes are effective...AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan is a shell of their former self.

AQAP, however, remains a player. Some would argue that the AUMF of 9/18/2001 does not cover AQAP anyway, and it would be interesting to see if Congress would vote an additional AUMF to clarify matters.

Then again...Dennis the Menace could always introduct a resolution to end the AUMF of 9/18/2001. I won't hold my breath.

[Robb]

13. Without another 9/11-caliber attack, orchestrated by AQAP,

... it's a hard sell to make them the level of threat al Qaeda was at the time the AUMF was passed. And tinfoil hattery on such things notwithstanding, "another 9/11" will never happen. That many stars will never align again, IMO.

[msanthrope]

19. I agree about 9/11..but I think the drone program would continue, unabated, even if the AUMF

were gone....

The Gulf of Aden is a strategic lightning-rod. I can easily see the justification in continuing the drone war against AQAP passing Congress given 1) the nature of Somalian politics/pirating, 2) the compliance of the Yemeni government, 3) the position of AQAP in the South of Yemen, and 4) the likelihood of further domestic terror attempts by AQAP.

I don't think the drones are going away anytime soon.

[Robb]

20. Agreed.

However you're not going to see 100,000 US troops on the ground in Yemen, for example. When the AUMF dies, that kind of blanket power will die with it.
There isn't anything wrong in Yemen that can't be solved without sending Marines.

[The Magistrate]

4. Very Plausible, Sir: I Hope You Are Right

[NV Whino]

5. We've reached the final number two?

[riderinthestorm]

7. But AQAP is stronger than ever. There's also AQ in Somalia, Sudan, Libya

I'd argue that the splinter AQ groups are as dangerous as Bin Ladin's organization (which is basically just a shell of itself but has spawned a ton of insane offspring).

I really doubt the AUMF is in any jeopardy (unfortunately) just because another #2 got whacked today.

[Robb]

17. As I said upthread, that's a tough sell.

AQAP are a bunch of bastards, but their capability -- even generously assessed -- doesn't begin to approach the threat level of al Qaeda circa 2001.

Consider how much they're pumping up Abu Yahya al-Libi. It's way out of character for this admin. BBC's Mark Mardell noted this yesterday in his critical piece "Obama's drone policy dilemma":

But American officials are so keen to trumpet their latest drone kill that it sounds like they are about to offer him a job rather than announce they have killed a bitter enemy.

They say he was "experienced", "versatile", played a "critical role" as a "longstanding member of the leadership" who had "gravitas" and "religious credentials".

Rather like some official announcement of the retirement of a colleague, they continue: "[Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-]Zawahiri will be hard-pressed to find any one person who can readily step into Abu Yahya's shoes."

"There is no-one who even comes close in terms of replacing the expertise AQ has just lost," they add.

Mardell opines that it's being done to pump up Obama's war credentials for the election, which is possible. But I'm suggesting it makes far more sense -- if your goal is truly to end the "long national nightmare" of the war on terror -- to accentuate the blows al Qaeda's been delivered. Mardell's theory also doesn't explain the level of "al Qaeda's not a threat anymore" we've been getting from counterterrorism officials.

[riderinthestorm]

18. You're banking on some future configuration of the "right court" making a logical judgement

which I don't think is a sure thing at all, even with Obama selecting more Dem replacements. I believe the MIC has their tentacles even into SCOTUS to say nothing of the reams of conservative judges Bush installed.

I think the US war machine is too deeply entrenched in the halls of power and they'll seize any opportunity to keep the AUMF in place. Fact is AQ is far from dead. Sure, they may not be of the same lethality as Bin Ladin's group but they're lethal enough. I'd place a bet that their current threat level is more than enough for the war mongers to justify AUMF. Beyond that, I haven't seen anything that convinces me Obama wants an end to our war mongering either or that he wants to "end our long national nightmare of terror".

[PufPuf23]

9. Authorization for Use of Military Force - What about Mullah Omar?

Like your concept (very much so) but the AUMF was for war on al qaeda, the taliban, and Afghanistan as a safe haven country regards to 9-11 and is extremely fuzzy in language.

Your scenario is a stretch, alas, when one considerins the geographical expansion of the WOT against al qaeda to Africa and Pakistan since 2008.

Is the WOT over when the drone hit list is completed?

The War on Terror has made more terrorists rather than less because 9-11 should have been treated as a police rather than a war action.

Targets of the AUMF when passed were nations, organizations, and specific individuals (OBL and Mullah Omar) as specified in the language in AUMF plus "to prevent any future acts of terrorism".


From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to 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.

[madrchsod]

10. in a union shop that meant a move-up in senority

it also meant getting a chance on the next good job coming up...


so there`s no one left to take the stop?

[Honeycombe8]

11. Obama's administration has done an excellent job in this area. Excellent. Historical. nt

[NNN0LHI]

12. I admire people who are able to think analytically

Being able to do that is not a very common trait among most people I know.

Don

[pinboy3niner]

14. BREAKING: Ayman al-Zawahiri has just declared himself the NUMBER THREE AQ leader

[Bonobo]

15. The "Number 2" people we have been killing are ALREADY so far removed from 9/11

11 years later and the people we are killing are already quite removed from direct involvement in 9/11 and are now the former drivers and assistants that have moved up in rank as we take out those above.

So, if your argument is that we just need to keep killing until there is no rationale left for the AUMF, I think hat ship sailed a long, long time ago.

[Robb]

16. Only if you completely ignore the argument and restate it as "we just need to keep killing."

Clever debate style there.