Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of
Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable?
So far, President Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence
in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack
Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops evidently has the backing
of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time
horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between
35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi
security forces and carry out "counterinsurgency operations." That
would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home -- not redeploying
-- all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases and
relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.
In light of stepped-up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons --
following Obama's lead -- Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of
Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq --
so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the
legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of
Time magazine calls it "The Right War."
The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their
international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force
except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the
9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized
the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned
the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of
terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for
terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission
of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it
urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against
terrorism.
The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51
of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not
"armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the
United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United
States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before
initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense
must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment
for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international
law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring
Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same
argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza
Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in
Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at
the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training
facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who
conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty
of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in
accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the
answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.
The hatred that fueled 19 people to blow themselves up and take 3,000
innocents with them has its genesis in a history of the U.S. government's
exploitation of people in oil-rich nations around the world. Bush accused the
terrorists of targeting our freedom and democracy. But it was not the Statue of
Liberty that was attacked. It was the World Trade Center, the symbol of the
U.S.-led global economic system; and the Pentagon, the heart of the U.S.
military, that took the hits. Those who committed these heinous crimes were
attacking American foreign policy. That policy has resulted in the deaths of 2
million Iraqis -- from both Bill Clinton's punishing sanctions and George W.
Bush's war. It has led to uncritical support of Israel's brutal occupation of
Palestinian lands, and it has stationed more than 700 U.S. military bases in
foreign countries.
Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a political analysis of
why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred and a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S.
foreign policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who despise American
imperialism. The "Global War on Terror" has been uncritically
accepted by most in this country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You
cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat terrorism is by identifying
and targeting its root causes, including poverty, lack of education and foreign
occupation
. There are already 60,000 foreign troops, including 36,000 Americans, in
Afghanistan. Large increases in U.S. troops during the past year have failed to
stabilize the situation there. Most American forces operate in the eastern part
of the country; yet by July 2008, attacks there were up by 40 percent. Zbigniew
Brzezinski, national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, is skeptical that the
answer for Afghanistan is more troops. He warns that the United States will,
like the Soviet Union, be seen as the invader, especially as we conduct
military operations "with little regard for civilian casualties."
Brzezinski advocates Europeans bribing Afghan farmers not to cultivate poppies
for heroin, as well as the bribery of tribal warlords to isolate al-Qaeda from
a Taliban that is "not a united force, not a world-oriented terrorist
movement, but a real Afghan phenomenon."
We might heed Canada's warning that a broader mission, under the auspices of
the United Nations instead of NATO, would be more effective. Our policy in
Afghanistan and Pakistan should emphasize economic assistance for
reconstruction, development and education, not for more weapons. The United
States must refrain from further Predator missile strikes in Pakistan and
pursue diplomacy, not occupation.
Nor should we be threatening war against Iran, which would also be illegal
and result in an unmitigated disaster. The U.N. Charter forbids any country to
use, or threaten to use, military force against another country except in
self-defense or when the Security Council has given its blessing. In spite of
the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency's conclusion that there is no
evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the White House, Congress and
Israel have continued to rattle the sabers in Iran's direction. Nevertheless,
the anti-war movement has so far fended off passage of HR362 in the House of
Representatives, a bill that is tantamount to a call for a naval blockade
against Iran -- considered an act of war under international law. Credit goes
to United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Peace Action and dozens of other
organizations that pressured Congress to think twice before taking that
dangerous step.
We should pursue diplomacy, not war, with Iran; end the U.S. occupation of
Iraq; and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president
of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive
committee of the American Association of Jurists.
