This article first appeared on Reason.com.

Despite candidate Donald Trump's welcome, sometimes critical look at long-standing entangling U.S. alliances and arrangements, there was little doubt, given his rhetoric on the war on terror, that he would ramp up military involvement. Heredeclared that war in his inaugural, putting a new face and new rhetoric to a decades-long fight.

Sixty days into the Trump administration, the new contours of the war on terror are starting to take shape. Foreign Policy reports there is a renewed bombing campaign against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen following a late-January raid the Trump administration insisted was a holdover from the Obama administration. According to Foreign Policy, the Obama administration "handed over plans for a stepped-up campaign to the incoming Trump team in January," and there'd been "an immediate change in the tempo of operations."

The U.S. has now reportedly dropped more bombs on Yemen than in any previous year. Of the 26,000-plus bombs the U.S. was estimated to have dropped in 2016, 34 were attributed to Yemen.

According to Foreign Policy, the Trump administration has seen military decisions untethered from much of the policy and bureaucratic deliberations that reportedly slowed down action during the Obama administration. The Yemen and the U.S. campaign against AQAP was once lauded by President Barack Obama as anexample of a new kind of counterterrorism effort, one with a more limited footprint—the country collapsed into a civil war after rebels alleged to be backed by Iran ousted the U.S.-backed government from the capital.

Saudi Arabia has since led a military coalition to return the government of former President Abdrabbuh Hadi back to power. Following the bombing of a hospital, the U.S. suspended some arms sales to Saudi Arabia late last year, but those have been resumed under the Trump administration.

Al-Qaeda has benefited from the civil war, gaining territory with the help of a Saudi bombing campaign that, as Foreign Policy explains, is exclusively targeting the Houthi rebels. AQAP can fill the void, as, for example, when it took over the port city of Mukalla and began to collect millions of dollars a month in taxes and fees.

A U.S. Army trainer, left, instructs Iraqi army recruits at a military base in Taji, Iraq, on April 12, 2015. Ed Krayewski writes that the Trump administration has seen military decisions untethered from much of the policy and bureaucratic deliberations that reportedly slowed down action during the Obama administration.JOHN MOORE/GETTY

The Trump administration is also considering an increase in troop levels in the 15-and-a-half-year war in Afghanistan, where the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has recently established a presence.

General Joseph Votel, the head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Egypt, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, told the Senate Armed Forces Committee a "few thousand" more troops above the 8,500 still deployed in Afghanistan were needed to break a "stalemate" with the Taliban, the Islamist group that the 2001 U.S. invasion ousted from power for harboring Al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks.

At that time, Afghanistan was probably the only country left where Al-Qaeda could set up a base—16 years of U.S. interventions have opened up space in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.

ISIS, the threat that most of the military operations under Central Command target, is a competing militant group to the Taliban in Afghanistan, with a potential alliance possible, largely because of a U.S. presence.

Votel also suggested more ground troops were required in Syria—U.S. troops started to arrive in late 2015 to battle ISIS. American troops were also redeployed to Iraq for that purpose. On March 9, The New York Times reported that the U.S. was deploying an additional 400 troops into Syria, almost as many as are currently there, ahead of the campaign to take Raqqa, ISIS's self-proclaimed capital.

The U.S. is deploying 2,500 additional troops to a staging base in Kuwait in support of the campaign against ISIS, Army Times reported, although military leaders would not speak to the paper about the plans for the troops.

"There are a number of options under consideration as the coalition looks for ways to accelerate the defeat of ISIS," a statement from the U.S. military command in Baghdad read, according to Army Times. "We continue to believe that the most effective way to achieve a lasting victory is to do it by, with and through our partner forces who have the greatest stake in the outcome. For operational security reasons, we will not discuss future deployments or contingency operational planning."

The Iraqi government took no formal diplomatic action after it was included in President Trump's first executive order travel ban, instead lobbying members of the administration to be removed from the next version. Iraq's removal from the ban was also recognized as being motivated by its assistance in the campaign against ISIS.

Finally, the Trump administration has also signaled its willingness to expand use of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling ita "very fine place" to hold unlawful enemy combatants, and suggesting the military would decide whether to hold suspects there and whether and how to prosecute them. This is a shift from Obama administration attempts to prosecute such individuals criminally where possible, and in line with the Trump administration's privileging of military decision-making priorities in the conduct of the war on terror.

During the campaign, Trump suggested he would be open to some kind of congressional vote on an AUMF specifically for ISIS. But despite a bipartisan push, no such votes have yet materialized.The Trump administration inherited battlegrounds in the war on terror all over the world and, thanks to years of congressional inaction, few limits to how to interpret the post-9/11 authorization of the use of military force (AUMF). This has been used since its passage as legal justification for just not the Afghanistan war but military actions in places like Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Iraq after the Iraq war-related withdrawal, against not just Al-Qaeda and "associated forces" but offshoots like ISIS that have become rivals.

Ed Krayewski is an associate editor at Reason.com.

(Newsweek)

Written by Anti-Media News Desk

(TFC Op-Ed) While the world reels from another attack in London, it overlooks attacks elsewhere. Pundits on western TV, who are unknowingly collaborating with Islamic State forces, are asking where “the good Muslims” are, who they feel should be condemning the attack in London. There is no question about the location of the ‘good Americans’ who should be condemning airstrikes on civilian targets in Syria.

Yesterday, the US-led coalition was blamed for an airstrike on a school sheltering 50 refugee families. 33 people have been confirmed killed, and an untold number are still missing and suspected to be in the rubble. These victims were comprised of men, women, and children who were attempting to stay out of the fight. They were noncombatants by any definition of the word. The US has issued a denial of involvement. The denial is worthless, as it has become standard practice to deny involvement in attacks on civilians until public outcry fades. Of course, now there is no public outcry. The US statement includes the expected phrase:

“…we have conducted several strikes near Raqqa we will provide this information to our civilian casualty team for further investigation.”

This is similar to statements issued in relation to the recent bombing of a mosque occupied by civilians, in which 46 were killed.

The US had admitted killing at least 220 civilians in airstrikes in Syria, a country we are not at war with. NGOs on the ground report the number is more than ten times the admitted figure, and place it at above 2400.

Many of the civilians have been related to oil production in the area. President Trump promised to conduct attacks on civilian targets during his campaign, but backed away from the statement when he was advised it would possibly constitute a war crime. He said,

“Here’s what I would do. And I’ve been saying this for a long time, I have been saying it to you. I would have — and now they’re just starting — if you remember when I said, attack the oil, because that’s their primary source of wealth. Attack the oil.”

It apparently never occurred to Trump or Obama, who enacted Trump’s plan, that targeting oil fields means targeting oil field workers. Those workers are civilians forced into working for the Islamic State at gunpoint.

As Americans wonder yet again how someone could attack innocents, they should remember this quote:

“They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

This is the man they elected. This is President Donald Trump. Americans can’t act as if there isn’t blood on their hands. They didn’t condemn those advocating terrorism, they elected one as their leader.

Opinion by Justin King / Creative Commons / The Fifth Column