I will not argue with the fact that they are covering themselves with legislation, but as far as perpetuating the war indefinitely, that is not likely. The AUMF gave the president the authority to use the U.S. Armed Forces against those who were responsible for the attracts on 9/11. This was general enough in itself to mean all over the world. The National Defense Authorization Act just acknowledge the fact that the president had such authority from the AUMF and clarified who could be detained and for how long. If does not perpetuate war.
Oh, come on. At the same time that bin Laden has been killed and al-Qaeda is described even by the U.S. government as "operationally ineffective", they're
expanding the opportunities for war? The only reason the wars won't go indefinitely is because the U.S. is going to spend itself into oblivion by trying to maintain a globe-straddling empire of military bases, with more weapons and equipment than it knows what to do with, while fighting wars in six different countries. One of the reasons the USSR collapsed is because the military was gobbling up way too high a share of the budget and in the end that was unsustainable. The U.S. is an incomparably richer country, but even it has its limits, as we will see in the years to come.
The new bill does not grapple with this reality at all, but instead sets in place a legal framework by which these wars can continue (and be justified) indefinitely. In my book, that perpetuates war.
Just keep in mind that Congress still maintains the power to fund and underfund the war.
Theoretically. But what are the chances of that happening? Congress is addicted to war, and more specifically to campaign contributions from weapons contractors. Eisenhower's original phrase was supposed to be the "military-industrial-Congressional complex", but he changed it to "military-industrial complex" to avoid offending legislators. Nevertheless, the original shows better the so-called Iron Triangle, by which members of Congress get money for lavishing funds on the military, the "defense" companies are awarded fat and lucrative contracts, and the Pentagon sees its power and might endlessly extended.
Congress will never underfund the wars. Right now they're busy cutting vital social services the American people rely on, closing hospitals and libraries, aiming to cut Social Security and Medicare...all so they can keep funding this grotesquely bloated, destructive (and counter-productive) imperial military.
Why do I say counter-productive? Bombing, invading and occupying other people's countries is not a great way to combat terrorism. Instead, it's far more likely to infuriate its victims and
increase terrorism - which, coincidentally, means the wars keep going and each party in the Iron Triangle stays fat and happy.
As Lenin said in response to the pacifists: "War is a 'terrible' thing? Yes - terribly profitable."
This will go on until someone surrenders.
Not going to happen. This is the problem with the whole "We're at War!" mentality. Terrorist groups are not national armies (as you basically acknowledged in your next sentence). They don't need to surrender. In fact, they're a lot like HYDRA from
Captain America: The First Avenger - "cut off one head, two more shall take its place." Especially when the U.S. keeps creating new enemies for itself through its aggressive and violent actions.
The real likely end game should be that this whole thing turns into a law enforcement action with the military out of the picture.
Should be, and probably will eventually. But we're so far from that right now. The problem is that ever since 9/11, we've had this mentality that this is a war. Looking at it as a war helps keep the military well-funded. In the end, like most aspects of American politics, this is all about money.
The weird thing is, the neocons and terrorists are actually perfect mirror images of each other in this regard. Neoconservative dogma (now diffused through the rest of the culture, thanks to the warmongering Democrats) holds that members of Al-Qaeda are not mere criminals, but soldiers in a war. Ironically, this is how the members of Al-Qaeda also view themselves. Being portrayed as a solder with a cause is far more ennobling than being seen as a mere criminal.
Thus, the whole war mentality merely legitimizes members of Al-Qaeda and makes them seem like more than what they are - criminals. As you point out, the proper avenue for dealing with these types should be law enforcement, not the military. But unfortunately, that's not how our heroic leaders see it.
