 |
No Longer A Just War |
 |
After the extraordinary events of 9-11, there were few who objected to the idea of invading Afghanistan. Even ethicists (both religious and secular), who as a group tend to be more pacifist than hawkish, were cautiously supportive on the grounds of just war theory. Afghanistan met most, if not all, of the traditional requirements for just war:
(1) All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. With the Twin Towers rubble still smoldering and with nobody knowing if and when there might be another attack, it appeared that there was no time to wait for diplomacy and other non-violent efforts to work. The last thing we wanted to do was not to act decisively and have another attack kill thousands more.
(2) A just war can only be fought in self defense - to redress a wrong suffered. This criterion was met once it was determined that Al Qaeda was responsible, that they had found a power base in Afghanistan with the Taliban, and that they intended to strike again.
(3) The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. The stated intention of going into Afghanistan was to capture bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda’s power base - to bring peace by preventing further attacks. While the Bush adminsitration certainly had other political motives for the invasion, this criterion is met at least in part.
(4) The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. This is a highly subjective criterion, but the just war proponents at the time argued that success in Afghanistan would prevent immeasurable deaths that Al Qaeda might cause in the future if not confronted. After all, they had already shown a willingness to kill thousands of innocent civilians.
(5) The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. There have been varying reports of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, but the invasion was originally sold on the idea that innocent deaths would be kept to a minimum.
That was then, this is now. Scholars such as Michael Walzer are no longer sure that just war theory applies:
I think we were justified in going. I thought that was a just war, a war of self-defense, because the people who attacked us in New York in 2001 were not simply a terrorist organization harbored in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was an active partner of the Taliban regime and they had received from the Taliban the benefits of sovereignty, a territorial base, and a place to organize and to train their people.
Where we went wrong–because we obviously did in Afghanistan–was in not committing the resources to political reconstruction that were necessary. After all that we had responsibilities in Afghanistan which we did not fulfill, and we’ve now dragged NATO in–and it is a very good thing that NATO has come in–but even with the NATO forces there is not the commitment to political and economic reconstruction in Afghanistan that there should have been.
Walzer’s basic point is that the goals and the strategies that were appropriate in 2001 are not appropriate in 2009. Things have changed dramatically in Afghnaistan and in the world. After more than seven years of fighting and with little to show but a desperately ravaged nation and a persistent Al Qaeda organization, I would say that none of the five criteria listed above are currently being met. Although the threat of terrorism is still to be taken seriously, the sense of urgency and the perceived threat of imminent danger within US borders no longer exists as it did in the days following 9-11. Also long gone is the belief that this would be a brief and relatively painless mission.
The tasks of eliminating the terrorist threat and stabilizing the nation of Afghanistan are not going to be accomplished by more troops, but rather by actions of diplomacy, humanitarianism, and economic development - but I’ll leave those points to the other writers on this project. My contribution is to emphasize the fact that an escalation in Afghanistan would only compound the sins of a war that is no longer just.
I’m a huge proponent on non-violence and diplomacy but you must live in fantasy world if you believe diplomacy will stop the Taliban from killing little girls who are on their way to school or prevent them from burning down their school before they arrive. As long as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are lurking, no amount of diplomacy or rebuilding of Afghanistan will be effective because they will always be around it destroy an progress.
Rebuilding Afghanistan and finding a political solution is very important but you can never have peace and normalcy there as long as they have religious extremists killing them because they refuse to comply wit their brand of Islam.