Angelo Codevilla is author of Advice to War Presidents: A Remedial Course in Statecraft. He’s a professor of international relations at Boston University and vice chairman of the U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors. I asked him a few questions this weekend on the purported end of the war on terror.

LOPEZ: Can the global war on terror possibly be over?

CODEVILLA: The global war on terror is indeed over, officially, as far as the U.S. government, under present leadership, is concerned. The U.S. government no longer uses the term. Nor does it have in mind any enemy which, once eliminated, would give us the peace we want. In fairness to the Obama administration, however, we must keep in mind that it differs from its predecessor mainly rhetorically. The Bush administration, rhetoric aside, also never identified an enemy, never mind a set of operations which, if completed successfully, would rid us of that enemy.

LOPEZ: Is the Obama administration making a mistake with this kinder, gentler approach?

CODEVILLA: The Obama administration’s approach is “kinder, gentler” mainly rhetorically. This, however, merely aligns words with deeds. The Bush policy had nothing in common with his words of September 20, 2001: ”All who are not with us are against us.” In fact, beginning in May 2003, Bush sought to please the UN and the EU. He never confronted Saudi Arabia or Syria for their roles in terrorism in general or Iraq in particular. In Iraq, Bush was desperate to give in to Sunni demands. The “surge” consisted primarily of paying and arming the Sunni tribes who had been shooting at Americans to take over the areas where they are a majority. The Obama folks are accepting Iran’s nuclear weapon not one whit more than the Bush team was accepting it.

LOPEZ: Is it wise to be attacking the previous administration so 200 days in?

CODEVILLA: It is as unwise internationally as it is dishonest personally. But it is entirely in the Obama team’s political character. It makes sense politically to appear more different than is the case. Both for example, confuse military operations with nation building — a stupidity of historic proportions.

LOPEZ: The idea that the Bush administration was anti-Islam or too negative toward Muslims is ridiculous, isn’t it?

CODEVILLA: George W. Bush bent over backwards — to the point of appearing ridiculous — to show friendliness to Islam. So far did he go that he made it politically incorrect for Americans to point to Saudi Arabia’s key role in worldwide terrorism because it is the mother house of Wahhabism, which is rapidly becoming Islam’s driving element.

LOPEZ: What is going to happen in Iraq? In Afghanistan?

CODEVILLA: Iraq is breaking into its three constituent parts. The sooner the better. Let us hope that the Turkish government’s peace initiative with the Kurds provides Kurdistan with what it needs to hold off whatever united Shia-Sunni assault Prime Minister al-Maliki can cobble together. Other than being anti-Kurdish, Iraq’s Sunni and Shia will not agree on anything.

In Afghanistan, things will go from bad to worse, unless and until Pakistan wins its war against the new “Taliban.” These are not to be confused with the version that existed up to 2002. The new breed are a product of the juncture between the Saudi-financed Madrassa movement and Nawaz Sharif’s party. In Afghanistan itself, the attempt by foreigners to impose central government control will do nothing but increase opposition. We will not be as brutal as the Soviets, and will be less successful. Nation building is another manifestation of liberal hubris.

LOPEZ: Will Afghanistan soon become Obama’s war?

CODEVILLA: It is already.

LOPEZ: Is Gitmo ever going to close?

CODEVILLA: It will close, but the policy that it embodies — namely, holding to no good purpose prisoners who either should not have been taken or should have been killed — will continue. The notion that important intelligence can be gathered from persons about whose knowledge one knows little, months or years after their capture, is largely a product of our intelligence agencies’ poverty of sources, and insouciance about the quality of information they put into the system.

LOPEZ: Is there a possibility Obama knows that closing/moving/etc. Gitmo is a bad idea, and this delay is his way of not owning up to a mistake?

CODEVILLA: Closing Gitmo was a successful campaign issue. In this sense it was not a mistake. Of course this promise is now an embarrassment, but it served its purpose. I doubt he regrets it.

LOPEZ: How should those who support keeping Gitmo open be making use of this time?

CODEVILLA: They should be thinking about the basic issues: Who are these detainees? Who says they are toxic? If they are, and a summary trial shows they were caught, arms in hand, making war out of uniform, it should be pointed out that international law permits us to shoot them. If, on the other hand, they are judged to be toxic on the basis of our intelligence agencies’ conclusions, those conclusions should be scrutinized in open court. Damage to “sensitive sources” is less likely than damage to inflated reputations at CIA.

LOPEZ: Is America in a weakened position?

CODEVILLA: Much weakened. Our armed forces are in harm’s way and overworked, without an end in sight. Just as bad, they are being reconfigured chiefly to play a constabulary role. This disables them from serious war.

LOPEZ: If the president would listen to you, what advice might you give him right now?

CODEVILLA: I would advise him to take his job seriously, read some history, and stop looking in the mirror.