Obama Acts to Curtail Drones President Obama on Counterterrorism: At the National Defense University, the president delivered the first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term. WASHINGTON - President Obama on Thursday announced new restraints on targeted killings and narrowed the scope of the long struggle with terrorists as part of a transition to a day he envisions when the nation will no longer be on the war footing it has been on since the attacks of Sept. In a widely anticipated speech at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama offered his most expansive defense of the drone war he has waged since taking office, but he signaled that he planned to wind down the strikes, which have stirred controversy at home and abroad. He referred obliquely to a new secret order imposing a higher standard on authorizing such attacks and shifting responsibility more from the C.I.A. to the military. Beyond that, Mr. Obama proposed the creation of a secret court or some other independent body that would have to sign off on strikes in the future. He also called on Congress to revise the authorization of force it passed in the aftermath of Sept. 11 to reflect the changing nature of the war on terrorism. And he renewed his moribund effort to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by saying that he would lift a moratorium on transferring scores of detainees to Yemen. Taken together, the president's words and deeds added up to an effort to move the country away from the perpetual war on terrorism envisioned by his predecessor, George W. Bush, toward a more limited campaign against particular groups that would eventually be curtailed even if the threat of terrorism could never be eliminated. "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue," Mr. Obama said. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands. Mr. Obama rejected the notion of an expansive war on terrorism and instead articulated a narrower understanding of the mission for the United States. "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," he said. The president's moves stirred immediate skepticism among Republicans, who have long questioned whether he was playing down the continuing threat of terrorism for political reasons, as in the case of the attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, last year. Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, issued 10 questions to the president in reaction to previews of his speech. "Is it still your administration's goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda?" he asked. If you are scaling back the use of unmanned drones, which actions will you be taking as a substitute to ensure Al Qaeda's defeat? Is it your view that if the U.S. is less aggressive in eliminating terrorists abroad, the threat of terrorist attacks will diminish on its own? Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, was sharper in reaction. "The president's speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory," he said. Rather than continuing successful counterterrorism activities, we are changing course with no clear operational benefit. Some on the left were disappointed that he did not go further or that it had taken him so long to recommit to closing Guantánamo. Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the activist group Code Pink, interrupted Mr. Obama's speech, shouting that he should release Guantánamo detainees, stop C.I.A. drone strikes and apologize to Muslims for killing so many of them. "Abide by the the rule of law!" she yelled as security personnel removed her from the auditorium. You're a constitutional lawyer! Mr. Obama then went off script. "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to," he said. Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said. And obviously she wasn't listening to me and much of what I said. But these are tough issues. And the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong.