Table Of ContentCOUNTER-TERRORISM
FROM THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
Caught in the Fait
Accompli War
Donna G. Starr-Deelen
Counter-Terrorism from the Obama Administration
to President Trump
Donna G. Starr-Deelen
Counter-Terrorism
from the Obama
Administration to
President Trump
Caught in the Fait Accompli War
DonnaG.Starr-Deelen
IndependentConsultant
Kensington,MD
USA
ISBN978-3-319-69756-7 ISBN978-3-319-69757-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69757-4
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017956574
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,
whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,
reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinany
otherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,
computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthis
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesare
exemptfromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationin
thisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublisher
northeauthorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerial
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher
remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Coverpattern©MelisaHasan
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisPalgravePivotimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
A
CKNOWLEDGMENT
Iwouldliketothankallscholarsofconstitutionalgovernment,particularly
LouisFisher.IamalsogratefultoRosaBrooksandthediplomatwhospoke
with me about the Trump administration. Finally, I thank my siblings
Eileen,Paul,andLindaforyearsofcivilpoliticaldiscourse.
v
C
ONTENTS
1 TheFaitAccompliWar 1
2 TheRiseofISIS 19
3 TheObamaAdministrationandSyria 27
4 TheTrumpAdministration 33
5 Conclusion 55
References 71
Index 75
vii
CHAPTER1
The Fait Accompli War
Abstract Starr-Deelen explores the last two years of the Obama adminis-
trationanditsuseofforceincounterterrorism,beginningwithadiscussion
of the war paradigm versus the law enforcementapproach to international
terrorism. The chapter examines the “fait accompli” war that George
W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama and how Obama attempted to
forge a third way, or hybrid approach to combating terrorism. Michael
Glennon’stheory of a “double government” and Harold Koh’s pattern of
executive initiative, congressional acquiescence, and judicial tolerance are
introduced as a lens to view the Trump administration and its national
securitypolicies.
Keywords Waronterror(cid:129)Nationalsecurity(cid:129)Trump(cid:129)Obama(cid:129)Useof
force(cid:129)Executiveinitiative(cid:129)Congressionalacquiescence(cid:129)Judicial
tolerance(cid:129)Trumanitenetwork(cid:129)Securitydirectorate
Writingin2014,IobservedinmybookthattheObamaadministrationwas
plagued by the long shadows cast by the George W. Bush administration
anditsuseofforceintheongoingwaronterror.PresidentBushlaunched
hiswaronterrorin2001afterthe9/11attacksthatleftnearly3000people
dead. This war was not merely a rhetorical device but an actual armed
conflict with emphasis placed on the use of force to counter transnational
©TheAuthor(s)2018 1
D.G.Starr-Deelen,Counter-TerrorismfromtheObama
AdministrationtoPresidentTrump,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69757-4_1
2 1 THEFAITACCOMPLIWAR
terrorist groups, particularly al Qaeda. As detailed in Chap. 6 of my book,
President Bush built on precedents from previous administrations, espe-
ciallytheReaganadministration,inhiswaronterror.Therhetoricofboth
the Reagan administration and the George W. Bush administration
included the militarization of foreign policy although, in fact, the Reagan
administration only responded twice in a manner that matched its harsh
languageregardingterrorism.Thisoccurredwhenthehijackersofthecruise
ship Achille Lauro were captured in 1985, and in 1986 when the USA
bombedLibyainresponsetoitssupportofterrorism.
BythemiddleofPresidentObama’ssecondterm,thepoliticalnarrative
about the Obama counterterrorism architecture tended to divide into two
schools of thought: those who contended Mr. Obama was essentially the
same as his predecessor, Mr. Bush, only liberated from the protests of a
noisyliberalopposition,andthosewhoarguedthatsubstantivedifferences
existedbetweenthetwoadministrations.Bytheendofhissecondtermin
2016,itwasclearthatPresidentObama’sactionsinnationalsecurityaffairs
did not always match the rhetoric of hisearlier promises to break with the
excesses of the war on terror.1 While many have been swift to brand
Obama’s policies as a continuation of the policies pursued by the Bush
administration after 9/11, a close examination reveals a more nuanced
andcomplicatedassessmentisinorder.2
The starting point for that assessment is the “fait accompli” war that
George W. Bush bequeathed to his successor, Barack Obama. A fait
accompli, something decided before those affected hear about it, leaves
them with no option but to accept it; this is the war Bush left Obama in
2008. It is a war comprising all the virtually irreversible policy choices
President Bush made regarding the use of force and targeting, detention,
and interrogation methods. When Mr. Obama became Commander-in-
Chief,hewaslefttodirectthreeongoingconflicts,thewarinAfghanistan,
the war in Iraq, and the fait accompli war in which the armed-conflict
approachtocounterterrorismwaspredominant.
Unlike his predecessors in the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush admin-
istrations, President Obama did not have the same freedom of maneuver
regardinghispreferredcounterterrorismstrategies.InsteadMr.Obamawas
leftwiththedilemmaofhowtomanagethevariousramificationsleftfrom
the second Bush administration and its war on terror, in addition to the
globaleconomiccrisisof2008.Broadlyspeaking,therearetwoapproaches
to the issue of international terrorism and how liberal democracies should
respond.Thesearethe“armedconflict”orwaronterrorapproachandthe
1 THEFAITACCOMPLIWAR 3
“law enforcement” approach. These are not merely descriptive designa-
tions, but “provide moral frameworks for judging the actions of govern-
ments and determining what the law should be.”3 The war on terror
approach defines international terrorism as a national security threat that
imperils the existence of the state, not as mere criminal activity. It follows
thatinternationalterrorismismorelikewar,withitssignatureviolenceand
indiscriminate killing, than a crime, where the motive is usually economic
gain. Terrorists violate the laws of war and if captured, “it is morally and
legally permissible to try them in military courts and accord them a less
rigorousformofdueprocessthanisfoundinciviliancriminalcourts.”4Asa
grave national security threat, lethal force may be used against terrorists;
anothernameforthisapproachisthearmed-conflictmodel.
In contrast, the law enforcement paradigm treats terrorism as a serious
criminalact,notanationalsecuritythreatlikeaninvasionbyanation-state.
Proponentsofthelawenforcementmodelcontendthatterrorismshouldbe
handledlikeanyotherseverecrime;police,prosecutors,andtrialsincivilian
criminal courts with the usual due process standards are appropriate.5 The
underlying philosophy is that even though a terrorist episode may inflict
significantharmandcasualties,terroristactsaremorelikesporadiccriminal
eventsthanarealwar.Inaddition,thefailuretotreatterroristsascriminals
unintentionally rewards them with the status of “warriors” and may inad-
vertentlyplayintoterrorists’narrativesabouttheirmotivations.6Thestatus
ofthosewhoperpetratepoliticallymotivatedviolenceisanimportantpoint;
jihadists in al Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and similar
organizations want to be treated not as mere criminals but as soldiers in a
larger,ongoingengagementagainsttheUSAandtheWest.
TherewerethreechoicesavailabletoPresidentObamainJanuary2009
related to the war or crime dichotomy of international terrorism. The first
was to announce that President Bush’s war on terror was over; this would
acknowledgethattheUSAespousedawarparadigmagainstalQaedasince
9/11butsignalthattheObamaadministrationwouldhenceforthnolonger
followthatpath.Thesecondoptionwastorenouncethewaronterrorand
forcefullyconfrontalltheillegalactivity(includingenhancedinterrogation
methods, extraordinary renditions,etc.) that occurred during the previous
eightyears;italsowouldacknowledgethewarparadigmofthesecondBush
administration. The final option was to move toward a third, hybrid
approach to counterterrorism that preserved certain policy choices from
theBusherabuteliminatedsomeofthemoreegregiousandcontroversial
4 1 THEFAITACCOMPLIWAR
aspects. This choice would blend aspects of the law enforcement and war
approaches.
The first option, simply announce an end to the war on terror, was not
plausibleinJanuary2009becausethemainterroristperpetratorbehindthe
9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, remained at large and was able to inspire
hisfollowerstoplanmoreattacksagainsttheUSAanditsallies.Renouncing
the war paradigmwith all its problems,the second option,was legally and
politically quite complicated for the incoming Obama administration. If
President Obama had chosen to renounce the war on terror, then some
Bush-erapoliciesoninterrogations,extraordinaryrenditions,andtargeting
would be illegal under various international laws. For instance, Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) drone strikes could be categorized as “extraju-
dicialexecutionsassumingthattheydonotcomplywithhumanrightslaw”
iftherewasnoactual“armedconflict.”7Moreover,theConventionagainst
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punish-
ment requires state parties to try or extradite those accused of torture and
prohibits using national security as a justification for “enhanced interroga-
tion techniques.” The new administration, faced with the task of finding
OsamabinLadenanddirectingtheongoingwarsinIraqandAfghanistan,
chosenottorenouncethewaronterror,partiallybecauseitdidnotwantto
become mired in investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for
questionablepractices.
In addition to the legal issues left over from the Bush administration’s
waronterror,renouncingitwouldhaveignitedapoliticalfirestormthatthe
Obama administration would have struggled to contain. The economic
crisis of 2008 was one of the biggest priorities for the new administration
anditconsumedagreatdealoftimeandpoliticalcapital.Ashemanagedthe
economiccrisis,PresidentObamadidnotwanttoappearweakonnational
securityissues,astancethatwouldhaveimperiledbothhisdomesticagenda
and his chances for wining a second term. The safer, more political astute
option was to move cautiously toward a third, more nuanced approach to
counterterrorism that would preserve particular policy choices from the
Bush war on terror but eliminate some of the worst excesses, for instance,
indefinitedetentionofterrorismsuspectsatGuantanamo.
Mr.Obamaoptedforthelastalternative,amorenuancedapproachthat
John Brennan outlined in August of 2009 in a speech at the Center for
StrategicandInternationalStudies.Afteracloseexaminationoftheuseof
force in counterterrorism in the Obama administration, it is clear that the
third way proposed by the Obama administration never materialized. For
