Debate Club

We Need Military Authorization Until Al-Qaida Is No Longer a Threat

By + More

Nearly 12 years since 9/11, the United States remains in a state of armed conflict and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force continues to provide the principal legal framework for military and detention operations against al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated forces.

The law has given both the Bush and Obama administrations the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" responsible for the September 11 attacks, in order to prevent any future terror plots against America. As a result, al-Qaida and the Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan; Osama bin Laden and many of his top lieutenants were killed in Pakistan; and there have been no terror attacks of the 9/11 magnitude on American soil.

Despite these gains, however, al-Qaida remains a viable threat. Over the past years, the terror group has metastasized and spread across the Middle East, forming al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Al-Qaida-affiliated groups have also exploited regional instability in the aftermath of the Arab Spring to gain a foothold in Syria, Libya and Egypt's Sinai. Moreover, some regional radical groups have become co-belligerents with al-Qaida in the fight against the West, including Somalia-based Al-Shabaab and Nigeria's Boko Haram.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Middle East.]

It is therefore premature and dangerous to repeal or significantly restrict the AUMF at this point, since it would undercut the effectiveness of U.S. counterterrorism efforts to deal with al-Qaida-related emerging threats worldwide. Suggestions to incorporate temporal and geographical limitations into the AUMF are also ill-advised. Confining the law to a specific number of countries or terrorist groups would give the enemy more freedom of action and allow it to create new fronts and sanctuaries in areas immune from U.S. counterterrorism operations.

In his counterterrorism policy speech three weeks ago, President Obama promised to continue a "series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America." In the absence of the AUMF, such actions would become untenable and devoid of a legal basis.

At present, the AUMF provides the administration with adequate authorities to pursue the war. Until al-Qaida and associated forces are degraded to a level where they pose no substantial national security threat to the United States, the law should not be repealed or replaced.

Ahmad Majidyar

About Ahmad Majidyar Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute

Tags
terrorism
Congress
Obama, Barack

Other Arguments

#1
55 Pts
The War on Terror Has Not Made Us Safer

Yes – The War on Terror Has Not Made Us Safer

Phyllis Bennis Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies

#3
13 Pts
Barbara Lee: AUMF Was Wrong in 2001, and It's Wrong Now

Yes – Barbara Lee: AUMF Was Wrong in 2001, and It's Wrong Now

Barbara Lee Democratic Representative from California

#4
-3 Pts
Congress Never Authorized a War Without End

Yes – Congress Never Authorized a War Without End

Adam Schiff Democratic Representative from California

#5
-45 Pts
The AUMF Should Be Amended, Not Voided

No – The AUMF Should Be Amended, Not Voided

Thomas Henriksen Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

You Might Also Like


See More