President Barack Obama prepares to take the stage as he is introduced at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., May 23, 2013.

President Barack Obama prepares to take the stage as he is introduced at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., May 23, 2013.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America [...]

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

President Barack Obama, in yesterday's national security speech And:This might've been Obama's most substantive speech of his presidency. Conservatives are angry that Obama criticized the previous administration's use of torture and his continued insistence on shutting down Gitmo. Some liberals are angry that Obama has only partly curtailed the use of drones. But this was an eminently pragmatic speech and vintage Obama—straddling the line between two opposing forces and trying to find his sensible center. In this case, I actually think he found it.

But aside from the argument over the details (which I'm sure is what'll get hashed out in the comments), the two passages above point to the most important takeaway from the speech: the declaration that our "war on terror" as we know it is over. The Republican approach—the immediate resort to violence, the debasing of our values by resorting to torture, the curtailment of our civil liberties—has failed.



So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

Extremism can't be eradicated. It can only be controlled, contained, and with luck, nullified. But as Boston and the horrific attack in Woolwich a few days ago shows, it's impossible for us to prevent every isolated religious nut (whether Islamic or home-grown Christian) with a gun, pressure cooker, or even a meat cleaver from carrying deadly attacks.

This is an amorphous, faceless enemy. There is no Osama Bin Laden calling the shots anymore. And engaging in large-scale military operations overseas does nothing to make us safer at home. Indeed, there is little more we can do at home to make us safer, short of becoming a bona fide police state.

A terrorist inherently understands he is at a power disadvantage. They don't have any. Their numbers are too few, their resources too limited. Their foes are too strong. Thus, they engage in actions that create outsized fear and distress. They are only effective when they their limited actions can generate an outsized response. Osama Bin Laden is the most successful terrorist in the history of the world precisely because 9-11 dragged the United States into two wars, cost it thousands of lives, and cost it over a trillion dollars and counting. At the cost of what, a few box cutters and the meaningless lives of a handful of his followers?

With Al Qaida effectively dismantled, we can't keep acting like every two-bit terrorist is part of the same struggle. Stop treating these copycats as evil masterminds and instead treat them like common criminals, and they lose some of their power. Stop smearing entire religions based on the actions of a few and treat them like ideological cranks, and they lose some of their power. Stop retaliating with brute force, vandalism, and threats, and treat their home communities well (be it Mali, or the local mosque in Boston), and these terrorists lose some of their power.

None of that is as glorious as shocking and awe'ing Baghdad, but they promise better results than the status quo. The "war against terror" was always a stupid concept. It's good seeing Obama put it to rest. And not with a "mission accomplished" banner and ticker-tape parade, but with the acknowledgement that this will be an ongoing struggle, likely lasting our lifetimes. And the best way to deny wannabe terrorists their victory is by refusing to let them affect our way of life.

What does that mean? It means that the thousands of runners who'll line up for the 2014 Boston Marathon will do more to combat terrorism than 1,000 Iraq invasions ever would.