I'm not sure just who Charles Krauthammer thinks is supposed to be "surrendering" to the United States to finally end this so-called "war on terror," but that's one of the only two scenarios he offered to his cohort Bret Baier on Fox this Thursday as legitimate reasons to end the United States pretending we're at war with a tactic.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I give the president credit for moral seriousness. But there is a flaw at the center of it which has to do with the strategic idea that he has. He central idea here is that it explains why he wants to restrict the drone war, he explains why he wants to shut Guantanamo, he explains why he wants to change and ultimately repeal the law that authorizes the War on Terror. He wants all of that. But it derives from this notion which is every war has to come to an end. Every war in the past has and he said this war like all wars must end. That is a naive and utopian idea.
It is true that all other wars have ended. But to end a war you need two sides. You will either have the surrender like the Germans and Japanese. Even Kim Il-sung agreed to an armistice, it was not unilateral. You don't declare the war's over if there is no response, assume with your head in the sand it's over. And the Cold War there never was a surrender, but the Soviet Union disappeared. That was after half a century. Here we are 12 years in, it's as if Obama stood up in 1958 and said the Cold War has to end and I'm going to end it.
The problem is it doesn't end until either al Qaeda disappears or it renounces the declaration of war it made in 1996. And that's why all the proposals he wants are completely impractical and ultimately harmful.
Or in other words, never. That use of force should have never been given in the first place and it's long past due that President Obama is calling for it to be rolled back. I knew the heads would be exploding over at Fox following that speech. It's pretty pathetic watching Krauthammer twist himself in knots trying to justify his position.