The 60 Words That Launched the War on Terror
How a single legal sentence defined two decades of conflict.
1The Origin of 60 Words
In the chaotic hours after the 9/11 attacks, a White House lawyer drafted a 60-word legal justification for military action. This sentence, signed by President George W. Bush as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), became the foundation for the global War on Terror. It allowed unprecedented presidential war powers without congressional approval for specific operations.
2Legal Power Unleashed
The AUMF's vague language enabled military actions against 'nations, organizations, or persons' linked to 9/11. This led to Guantanamo Bay detentions, drone strikes in 7 countries, and SEAL team raids—all without new congressional declarations. Over 40 countries became battlefields under this authorization. Legal experts note it effectively erased the constitutional line between war and peace.
3Congressional Debate
On September 14, 2001, Congress voted 420-1 for the AUMF. Only Rep. Barbara Lee opposed, warning of 'open-ended war.' Former Congressman Ron Dellums later called it 'a blank check.' The 60 words contained no geographic or temporal limits, allowing successive presidents to reinterpret its scope. This single vote authorized military actions through three administrations.
4Presidential Interpretation
The Bush administration first used the AUMF for Afghanistan in 2001. By 2003, it justified Iraq operations. Obama expanded it to ISIS in 2014, though they hadn't existed in 2001. Trump cited it for 2020's Soleimani strike. Each reinterpretation stretched the original intent further. Legal scholar Benjamin Wittes calls it 'a perpetually renewable resource for war.'
5Global Consequences
The AUMF enabled operations in Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and beyond. Over 800,000 people died in post-9/11 wars, per Brown University estimates. The U.S. spent $8 trillion, with 38 million displaced. Guantanamo held 780 detainees without trial. The 60 words became a global framework for counterterrorism—adopted by 72 countries in their own laws.
6Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court ruled on AUMF cases 12 times between 2004-2020. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), justices upheld detention powers but required due process. Later cases limited military commissions' scope. Senator Tim Kaine has introduced repeal bills since 2016, arguing it violates the Constitution's war powers clause. No repeal has succeeded.
7Endless War Mechanism
The AUMF created a permanent war footing—the first in U.S. history without declared victory or end. It normalized emergency powers: warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, and targeted killings. The New York Times found it cited in 41 separate military engagements. Former State Department lawyer Harold Koh admits, 'We institutionalized war as a routine tool.'
825-Year Legacy
As the 25th anniversary approaches, the 60 words remain law. Biden used them for 2021 Syria strikes. Experts warn it sets dangerous precedent—China and Russia now cite it for their operations. The AUMF demonstrates how crisis decisions become permanent policy. Journalist Daniel Klaidman notes, 'We're still governed by the panic of those first hours.'
Original article: Radiolab — The 60 Words That Launched the War on Terror