Is it time to expand the war on terror?

Now that the U.S. has nailed Osama bin Laden, some Republicans want to broaden and extend America's war resolution against terrorists

A pro-U.S. rally in New Dehli after Osama bin Laden's death
(Image credit: REUTERS/Adnan Abidi)

The hunt for Osama bin Laden culminated dramatically on May 1, but the future of the post-9/11 War on Terror remains up in the air. In the House Republicans' draft defense bill unveiled Monday, Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) proposes to update the central legal basis for the war on al Qaeda — the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). McKeon wants to affirm, apparently indefinitely, our "armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces," and broaden the list of legit enemies beyond those directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It is a good idea to expand the War on Terror?

No, let's declare victory: "Some of us naive folk thought that the death of Osama bin Laden, combined with the supposedly crippled state of al Qaeda," might prompt "an actual plan to end the War on Terror," says Jim Newell at Gawker. Nope. The GOP just wants to untether it from 9/11, so the president can unilaterally go after "anyone, you know, 'over there.'" This is a terrible idea.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up