posted
In the Bean Counter memorial thread, Rabbit said:
quote:I don't believe the war he was fighting was defending America in any meaningful way. And in my mind that makes his death all that much sadder.
He had a naive faith in an American Ideal that made it easy for unscrupulous leaders to manipulate him into serving in a poorly conceived, ill-planned, badly executed and unethical war that had almost nothing to do with the ideals he believed in.
BeanCounter was serving in Afghanistan. I'm curious as to why you think that the war in Afghanistan is unethical.
EDIT:
Really that's a question for anyone that wants to answer it. The Afghan government-that-was directly supported terrorists that threatened and managed to harm America.
I haven't heard much opposition to American involvement in Afghanistan; I'm curious to know the reasoning behind the position.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:* February 2009: Angus Reid poll: 65% of Canadians say no to keeping troops in Afghanistan should President Obama request it, while only 20% said yes.[29] * January 2009 - Ekos poll: 55% of Canadians oppose an extension of the mission in Afghanistan if requested by President Obama, while only 30% support it.[30][31]
quote:At issue is Canada's military role in Afghanistan. Canada is one of 26 NATO countries in the International Security Assistance Force, which is attempting to stabilize Afghanistan and neutralize the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But Canada is one of only a handful of NATO countries that have embraced the task of actual war-fighting. The Canadians, who have 2,500 troops on the ground, have suffered 82 fatalities, a death rate that is higher than the U.S. military's in Iraq. In an increasingly two-tiered NATO alliance, Canada occupies the fighting tier, alongside the U.S., Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands. ... The Afghan war had broad public support in Canada in 2002, but is now seen as one front in George W. Bush's hugely unpopular "war on terror." The discontent also has deeper roots. Since World War II, when Canada sent more than a million troops to fight (and lost 45,000 lives), the country has stuck mainly to U.N. peacekeeping missions--a practice invented (as Canadians are fond of reminding visitors) in 1956 by Canadian Foreign Minister Lester Pearson. Having taken few casualties in the past half-century, Canadians have found it jarring to watch flag-draped coffins return to what can feel like a very small country. A public that has long seen its military as innocently patrolling the peace has had trouble adjusting to its forces engaging in a full-fledged, unconventional war.
Perhaps most important, Canadians do not see the Afghan conflict as directly relevant to their own security. Al-Qaeda has never staged an attack on Canadian soil. And although 24 Canadians were among the victims of 9/11 and terrorists were planning to blow up two Air Canada flights in the British terrorism plot of 2006, Canadians worry that fighting alongside the U.S. will increase--not decrease--the risk that they will become a target.
posted
Personally I do not think that the war in Afghanistan suffered from unethical justifications, like Iraq. For the most part, we made the right move going in there. The casus belli was sound.
The way we've conducted the war in Afghanistan may be different, considering how ineptly it was prioritized.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said at the time, and still think now, that it wasn't going to be an effective method of fighting terrorism. The terrorist threat is an international movement, not a problem rooted in any single country. I felt that invading countries in a blunt way to destroy terrorist threats was only going to increase support for terrorism abroad and destabilize neaby countries like Pakistan.
As for ethics, I'm inclined to think most wars are unethical - unless they are absolutely necessary.
Having said that, I don't agree with the statement that soldiers in Afghanistan aren't defending America in any meaning way. Those soldiers are part of something much larger than any single war. They are performing their part for a nation that is facing many different simultaneous threats and that is continuously adapting as we better understand those threats. Even if we fail in any single instance, that failure becomes a lesson that facilitates our future successes. So while I did not agree with Iraq and Afghanistan, I also think they (Afghanistan in particular) were mostly inevitable steps along the timeline towards eventual success. Each individual soldier gives himself or herself to this process. I think most understand and have faith that, even if a given strategy or war fails, they are still contributing to the larger American effort. In that way, all soldiers in all our wars, whether successful or unsuccessful, should be considered to have defended America in a very meaningful way. They fulfilled their role to bring us to the point we are at today.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Someone asked my brother, who is a pilot in the AF, about his thoughts on that (follow the link), and being the wise man that he is, he sort of shrugged and didn't give a real reply except to say something about a bidding game. This isn't being mentioned for any reason except to provide background, but he was a military history major at the Academy. Anyhow, having my only brother in the AF, you can probably figure out where I stand on such things.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Canadians do not see the Afghan conflict as directly relevant to their own security. Al-Qaeda has never staged an attack on Canadian soil. And although 24 Canadians were among the victims of 9/11 and terrorists were planning to blow up two Air Canada flights in the British terrorism plot of 2006, Canadians worry that fighting alongside the U.S. will increase--not decrease--the risk that they will become a target.
Does this sentence sound incongruous to anyone else?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Canadians do not see the Afghan conflict as directly relevant to their own security. Al-Qaeda has never staged an attack on Canadian soil. And although 24 Canadians were among the victims of 9/11 and terrorists were planning to blow up two Air Canada flights in the British terrorism plot of 2006, Canadians worry that fighting alongside the U.S. will increase--not decrease--the risk that they will become a target.
Does this sentence sound incongruous to anyone else?
It's a level beyond incongruous. You may call it incongruous II.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
ETA: I can think of many reasons why, when dealing with a widespread terrorism, that knocking out a single location - even a major one - would not make someone safer. Would the organization just move? Possibly to a place where we don't have such good survellance? Would the war create more bad feeling and more terrorism.
Our invasion of Iraq has arguably made us less safe. Could be that we just don't have a whole lot of credibility anymore.
posted
Traceria, I'd be curious to hear why that article about Russia is important to the justification of the Afghanistan war.
I've always thought the war in Afghanistan was justified, though perhaps not well-thought-out or 100% necessary, especially given the immense trouble the Soviets had holding ground there.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: ETA: I can think of many reasons why, when dealing with a widespread terrorism, that knocking out a single location - even a major one - would not make someone safer. Would the organization just move? Possibly to a place where we don't have such good survellance? Would the war create more bad feeling and more terrorism.
There's finite space on the earth and there's few places lawless, poor, and crazy enough to be a home to a group like the Taliban.
Not that our strategy has worked anyway since they just oozed on over to pakistan, so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Afghan government-that-was directly supported terrorists that threatened and managed to harm America.
Do you think this situation gives America a 'moral blank check' with regard to their response?
Does it need to? It's not as though Bush responded by turning Afghanistan into a parking lot. An invasion is generally considered a reasonable reply to an act of war. If the former government of Afghanistan insisted on attacking a much more powerful state, and then didn't have the army to defend itself against the inevitable retaliation, well, tough noogies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Afghan government-that-was directly supported terrorists that threatened and managed to harm America.
Do you think this situation gives America a 'moral blank check' with regard to their response?
Does it need to? It's not as though Bush responded by turning Afghanistan into a parking lot. An invasion is generally considered a reasonable reply to an act of war. If the former government of Afghanistan insisted on attacking a much more powerful state, and then didn't have the army to defend itself against the inevitable retaliation, well, tough noogies.
That seemed to be the implication behind Scott's comment so I was getting clarification.
Is your characterization of events correct? In particular, did Afghanistan commit an act of war against the US? My understanding is that Afghanistan provided a haven for bin Laden and terrorists were trained at their military facilities. However, I'm not sure that any of the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan and, certainly, none were Afghans. I have not heard that Afghan government members were actively involved in any of the planning. Restating: is the Taliban's indirect contribution sufficient to be regarded as an act of war?
Brief disclaimer: this discussion is of academic interest to me only; I did not have any serious qualms about the initial decision to invade, although that probably had more to do with disgust with the Taliban regime than anything else.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harboring someone who planned and coordinated a brutal attack on our soil is an act of war. The invasion of Afghanistan was soundly rooted in international law.
Of course, we mismanaged the occupation horribly, which is a sad judgment of the conduct of our executive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Harboring someone who planned and coordinated a brutal attack on our soil is an act of war. The invasion of Afghanistan was soundly rooted in international law.
Of course, we mismanaged the occupation horribly, which is a sad judgment of the conduct of our executive.
Do you have a citation?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
International law is largely a matter of consensus, and for that the proof is in the pudding: lots of people joined us in invading, and most who didn't voiced support.
We were also firmly within the coverage of the UN charter, in that we had solid evidence bin Laden both had carried out and intended to carry out further attacks against us, and Afghanistan was unwilling to turn him over. That's squarely within the self-defense mandate.
Not that the UN ideal re: war is actually followed in practical international law, and we were on even firmer footing for traditionally acceptable reasons to go to war.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Harboring someone who planned and coordinated a brutal attack on our soil is an act of war.
This is wrong. For instance, if we were to discover that Pakistan knows where Bin Laden is and is secretly trying to prevent us from getting to him, it would not follow that they've declared war on us. Or, for that matter, if Pakistan were intentionally harboring the Mumbai attackers, I seriously doubt the U.S. would agree that such an act puts India and Pakistan in a state of war.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it isn't wrong. First, declaring war and committing an act of war are not equivalent. Many countries commit acts of war with no intention of declaring war or otherwise going to war (frequently because they correctly believe the other country will accept the situation as still preferable to war). So your initial statements about Pakistan just don't make any sense.
And I am quite confident the US would voice no opinion at all on if Pakistan harboring the Mumbai attackers was an act of war, as that would be a serious destabilizing statement. They would, of course, work to reduce tensions and end the conflict, but that would be the case even with a clear act of war (which has happened a few times -- the US has consistently been for de-escalation, even so. Not surprising, given our preferences regarding nuclear wars).
Your equivalence of act of war and being in a state of war is the error.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's still wrong. There is a huge difference between attacking a country and harboring someone who attacked a country.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its worth noting that whether or not the US was morally justified in starting the war, the question at hand for each nation involved in the war is whether one should continue fighting in Afghanistan in the present day.
There are situations in which an continued occupation can be justified even if the initial cause is suspect and vice versa.
My personal position is Canada really shouldn't be there from for lack of a better word, an actuarial POV (i.e. Canada's involvement has probably increased our risk of death from terrorism rather than decreasing it) and from a cost-effectiveness POV (foreign wars are extremely expensive endeavors and ill-suited to saving or improving lives compared to other possible ways of spending money).
I daresay that I am however in favor of the US continuing* to fight there, not because I think any particular good will come out of Afghanistan specifically, but for the secondary global effects that accompany the US being distracted by relatively minor, but costly wars. (e.g. better for the world that the US distract itself by fighting a relatively predictable and contained war in Afghanistan, than have an idle US start unpredictable wars with Iran or North Korea, or rattle sabres with Russia or China)
* or rather have continued during Bush's administration, I was much more worried about the US starting stupid wars under Bush than I am with Obama
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've been pretty clear on the range and intensity of my disgust with our dealings with Iraq.
On Afghanistan, I just don't know.
There's a much stronger case to be made for our invasion there, for our presence there. But unless we're actually willing to take over- not just invade, not just occupy, but actually run the country- it really begs the question of who will run the country. Terrorists, warlords, opium dealers, religous fanatics: pick at least two.
My understanding is that right now the Taliban is at pains to differentiate itself from Al-Qaeda in the hopes of regaining the sort of legitimacy that might allow them to retake control of Afghanistan without immediately causing another military invasion. That situation in and of itself reeks of black humor.
And then there's the memory of Russia, begging the question of whether any exterior force really can control Afghanistan in the long run.
One shudders to think on a country where only being the world's supplier of opium would be an improvement.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: International law is largely a matter of consensus, and for that the proof is in the pudding: lots of people joined us in invading, and most who didn't voiced support.
I'm guessing there is a bit more rigor to it than this . The UN passed two resolutions following 9/11, neither of which authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. Had the war been authorized by the UN, by most standards, it would be legal.
quote: We were also firmly within the coverage of the UN charter, in that we had solid evidence bin Laden both had carried out and intended to carry out further attacks against us, and Afghanistan was unwilling to turn him over. That's squarely within the self-defense mandate.
At the time of the invasion was there solid evidence linking bin Laden with the attacks? As I recall, the Afghans denied he was involved and asked for evidence, which was not produced. If there was a terrorist attack in Cuba, and they claimed an ally of America were responsible, would America turn him over no questions asked? Certainly bin Laden intended to do America harm (and we know this because he said so), but surely simply the stated intention is insufficient to trigger the self-defense clause?
There is apparently (or so wiki says) ample evidence suggesting that war with Afghanistan was to be joined even had 9/11 not occurred. The speed with which efforts to capture bin Laden were abandoned also suggests that regime change was the primary target, casting doubt on the need-to-apprehend-bin-Laden-for-self-defense argument. Also, unless the intelligence community had not yet come to grips with the decentralized nature of al-Qaeda (which would be sad), it is definitely approaching unethical (in terms of civilian casualties) (in addition to being bad policy) to have treated this as an inter-state conflict.
If I were to argue for the legality of the war, I would probably use the more controversial 'humanitarian grounds' doctrine. The Taliban regime is so fundamentally unpleasant that this argument should carry a lot of weight. This grounds is not one that could be voiced domestically: given the quagmire-that-is-Afghanistan, the American taxpayer would have ample reason to be furious with a government that committed them to such a course with the attendant expenditure.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
______________________________ Originally Posted by fugu13: Harboring someone who planned and coordinated a brutal attack on our soil is an act of war. The invasion of Afghanistan was soundly rooted in international law. ______________________________
I'm with fugu on this one. I understand war is a terrible thing, but necessary for the greater humanity. Imagine we are all in a playground in Elementary school (of course some of you will come back and say that we aren't in a playground or in elementary school, but go with me on this). Imagine there's a bully who likes to beat up the other kids, and otherwise take advantage of everyone. This bully, if allowed by the governing body- the teachers, could rule over all the other kids with fear. The other kids would do what he wanted them to do because they feared what he could do to him. The bully then has his most loyal lackies do most of his dirty work, and enforcements, and he sits back and watches it all take place, reaping the benefits- other kid's lunch money and rights to whatever playground equipment he wants. So- one day his actions are carried a little too far, and his lackies knock several kids off of the towering jungle gym, injuring them all to varying degrees. The governing body finally steps in and threatens to have this bully expelled, only they can't find him because he's found an invisible spot in the school yard where he can hide. He's in hiding where no on can find him, and his lackies, greater in number because of the latest and most terrible things he's done continue to do his bidding. Until he is found and dealt with, everyone- including the governing body of teachers is at threat. His lackies become good at hiding too, and are able to disguise themselves as some of the normal and more obedient kids. We need to be looking for this bully so the rest of the world can finally climb the jungle gym without fear.
I also think for those of you who take your "I hate the military, and this military objective" stance because of a loved one you either lost in war, or currently have in the military and at war, well I think it's selfish of you to think such a thing. Why can't you be proud of the selfless decision your loved one made by joining the military. Our military is formed to defend our rights and liberties. The mere idea of a military and fighting with the military is noble. Certainly, war is unpleasant, since many people die, but the idea behind the war is to find the bully responsible- to scare all the bully's lackies into reform or complete submission. I am proud of anyone who joins the military, and fights for something believed in.
Everyone has their opinions, and I'm sure I'll hear yours. As for me, I have my American flag flying, and am proud of everything it represents!
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
________________________________________________ Natural Mystic Posted: There is apparently (or so wiki says) ample evidence suggesting that war with Afghanistan was to be joined even had 9/11 not occurred. ________________________________________________
I think we're really in trouble if we start consulting wiki for our facts.
All these complaints of yours are unsubstantiated excuses. We have a dripping faucet, and a crowd of people surrounded, all pointing fingers to the possible suspects as to who might have been the last to use it to leave it dripping like that. "I saw walk into the bathroom at 10:15, so he must have washed his hands after that, meaning the faucet has been dripping for over an hour!" someone might have said. You are one of those watching the faucet drip talking about who might have been involved. In the meantime our military had the place on surveilance, and they KNOW who the last to use the faucet was, and have sent someone to make sure it is turned off while they hunt the guy down to teach him a lesson. Of course it might be better if someone closer to the faucet would have just turned the water off themselves, but the US military had to intervene on both accounts. The water faucet represents an injustice that's easily recognizeable (the tree hugger environmentalists would appreciate my use of the water faucet as being an injustice I think). The military represents big brother, able to see things and know things none of the world (the people around the faucet) is aware they can see.
My point with this is none of the public knows what the military knows, and perhaps for good reason. We are in this fight to eliminate a threat to the world. If this isn't handled now- especially now that we're in so deep, then we could be in a much worse off position later.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: International law is largely a matter of consensus, and for that the proof is in the pudding: lots of people joined us in invading, and most who didn't voiced support.
I'm guessing there is a bit more rigor to it than this . The UN passed two resolutions following 9/11, neither of which authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. Had the war been authorized by the UN, by most standards, it would be legal.
1. Yes and No. Fugu is right, in that international law is (for the most part) consent based, and created by states. While a few countries deciding to take an action will not in and of itself render that action lawful, if enough countries (widespread and representative) do something (which is called state practice) with the belief that the action is lawful (opinio juris) then a norm of customary international law is formed.
Were the various actions and statements made by the "coalition of the willing" enough to form a norm of custom? That's up for debate.
2. While the UN is important in international law, it must be recognised it doesn't make international law. UN resolutions are evidence of norms, but are not norm creating in and of themselves. A lack of a UN resolution does not mean that something is illegal at international law.*
* I should make a note of terminology here - illegal/legal as we understand them for domestic law are slightly different in the international sphere. Really, the terms that should be used are permissible/not permissible, or the like.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: who said there wasn't? A country's responses are often quite different between the two. That they aren't equivalent doesn't mean they don't both rise to the level of act of war. Your statement doesn't argue against it being an act of war at all.
imogen: That every country (except Pakistan, I think, though they might have just at the end?) also withdrew recognition of Afghanistan's gov't is a good piece of contributing evidence. And as I noted, it isn't just the 'coalition of the willing'. The governments of most nations in the world made statements that boiled down to "go and get 'em!" Some might be regretting that, now, but there was clear, large international consensus when the war was initiated.
And I definitely agree about the permissible/not permissible bit. International law has pretty much always been a question of what you can get away with.
natural_mystic: Nope, there really isn't much more rigor to speak of. And imogen didn't mention it, but she's a lawyer with some background in international law .
Yeah, we knew bin Laden was involved at the time. Once we knew who they were, the FBI quickly determined the direct perpetrators of the attack were members of Al Qaida, which at the time was a relatively centralized organization under the command of Osama bin Laden. And of course we had plans ready for invading Afghanistan, they were a potential flash-point in any international conflict in the region. The US military makes lots and lots of plans like that, so we don't have to draw them up on the fly. I am also utterly unsurprised that the Taliban could not be satisfied bin Laden was guilty with evidence. They believed we were wretches (albeit powerful wretches).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our military is formed to defend our rights and liberties. The mere idea of a military and fighting with the military is noble.
I think people who actually hate the military would disagree with both these sentences.
Actually, I think most people who like the military would, especially the second. Heck, I suspect a substantial number of members OF our military would.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I'm sorry it’s taken me so long to respond, but I don’t have a short answer to your question.
I think I should begin with full disclosure. I would describe myself as a pacifist with reservations. My natural sympathies lie with Gandhi, there are many causes for which “I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.” And while I consider that the morally superior position, I also think that killing in self defense can be an acceptable choice. People should have the right to choose whether they prefer to die rather than kill; it would be unethical to force that choice on anyone.
Now comes my serious reservation with pacifism. Should I be prepared to kill to protect innocent babies? In the abstract it seems clear that in a situation where I could save the lives of a hundred innocent babies if and only if I kill one gunman, ethics would demand that I kill the gunman. The difficulty is that I don’t think such situations arise inevitably (although I will admit they do occasionally arise). By keeping war and violence on the table as acceptable alternatives, I think we become less likely to make the sacrifices and invest the time, resources and creativity needed to avoid the crisis situations. A guy that is two meters tall, 100 kilos of pure muscle, trained in karate and carrying a pistol is much more likely to take risks that lead to the necessity of self defense than a person who is half that size and unarmed. The same principal applies to nations.
So it is with some reluctance that I accept the concept of a just war at all, but I do think that war does sometimes become the lesser evil and that just war theoreticians have established a useful framework for evaluating the ethics of war.
Because the one inescapable truth of war is that innocent people will suffer, I think it prudent to place the burden of proving that a war is just on its proponents rather than its opponents. To be considered just, a war must be justly entered into (jus ad bellum), justly conducted (jus in bella) and justly concluded (jus post bellum). In my studies, I have yet to discover a war fought by any country outside its own borders that would qualify as fully ethical in all three stages. I believe that the Afghan/US war has failed in all three.
It will take me a while to explain my reasoning but I will be back to do that. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
[ March 04, 2009, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: A guy that is two meters tall, 100 kilos of pure muscle, trained in karate and carrying a pistol is much more likely to take risks that lead to the necessity of self defense than a person who is half that size and unarmed. The same principal applies to nations.
I am very sympathetic to Ron Paul's philosophy on war. He believes in the just war theory. He does not think we should police the world or even have permanent bases around the world. He abhors war, tho he did vote for the initial use of force to go after Osama.
I would consider him a pacifist. We could replace "he" with "I."
I hate war, the idea of a draft, and am very anti-violence.
However, I disagree with your above statement. I think someone who is 2 meters tall, pure muscle, and trained in karate carrying a pistol is MUCH LESS likely to get mugged or be placed in a situation where s/he would have to use force.
I don't think there is any reason to suggest that that person would take more risk. In fact the martial arts and gun training could/should make him/her more reticent to be in risky situations.
Now if your hypothetical person felt it was his/her duty to go to every fight or every conflict in town and try to use might to resolve it...that would be another matter.
I think we should keep America's military armed, trained, and deadly. Invest, invest, invest. However, we need to change our attitude on what the role of our country and military should be in the world. Our attitude and policy is the real danger. I see that separate then being prepared with the best weapons and training.
At the end of the day, "ours is a world ruled by force."
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our military is formed to defend our rights and liberties. The mere idea of a military and fighting with the military is noble.
I think people who actually hate the military would disagree with both these sentences.
Actually, I think most people who like the military would, especially the second. Heck, I suspect a substantial number of members OF our military would.
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: [QB] ________________________________________________ Natural Mystic Posted: There is apparently (or so wiki says) ample evidence suggesting that war with Afghanistan was to be joined even had 9/11 not occurred. ________________________________________________
I think we're really in trouble if we start consulting wiki for our facts.
I wouldn't have mentioned it if they hadn't provided citations to credible news sources.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: International law is largely a matter of consensus, and for that the proof is in the pudding: lots of people joined us in invading, and most who didn't voiced support.
I'm guessing there is a bit more rigor to it than this . The UN passed two resolutions following 9/11, neither of which authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. Had the war been authorized by the UN, by most standards, it would be legal.
1. Yes and No. Fugu is right, in that international law is (for the most part) consent based, and created by states. While a few countries deciding to take an action will not in and of itself render that action lawful, if enough countries (widespread and representative) do something (which is called state practice) with the belief that the action is lawful (opinio juris) then a norm of customary international law is formed.
Were the various actions and statements made by the "coalition of the willing" enough to form a norm of custom? That's up for debate.
2. While the UN is important in international law, it must be recognised it doesn't make international law. UN resolutions are evidence of norms, but are not norm creating in and of themselves. A lack of a UN resolution does not mean that something is illegal at international law.*
* I should make a note of terminology here - illegal/legal as we understand them for domestic law are slightly different in the international sphere. Really, the terms that should be used are permissible/not permissible, or the like.
Thanks for the clarification. I was not meaning to imply that a UN resolution of authorization is necessary for the use of military force to be permissible (e.g. military action for self defense is also permissible), but it is sufficient, right (insofar as it is a formal statement of consensus)?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
imogen: That every country (except Pakistan, I think, though they might have just at the end?) also withdrew recognition of Afghanistan's gov't is a good piece of contributing evidence.
I think they were only recognized by about three countries to begin with. Support for the US invasion is (arguably) more indicative of the lack of standing of the Taliban than a statement of the 'justness' of the invasion. In any case, the legality of a war prosecuted under a consensus basis surely does not have the ethical standing of a war fought in self defense?
quote: Yeah, we knew bin Laden was involved at the time. Once we knew who they were, the FBI quickly determined the direct perpetrators of the attack were members of Al Qaida, which at the time was a relatively centralized organization under the command of Osama bin Laden. And of course we had plans ready for invading Afghanistan, they were a potential flash-point in any international conflict in the region. The US military makes lots and lots of plans like that, so we don't have to draw them up on the fly. I am also utterly unsurprised that the Taliban could not be satisfied bin Laden was guilty with evidence. They believed we were wretches (albeit powerful wretches).
1)To what extent was it known that bin Laden was involved at the time? Was it simply that al-Qaeda was involved, bin Laden is head of al-Qaeda therefore he was involved, or did they actually know, say, that bin Laden met with hijacker A or purchased the ticket for hijacker B? My understanding is that they did not have direct evidence until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured a few years later. 2)Your claim that al-Qaeda was a centralized organization is controversial. 3)As I understand it, the US declined to provide evidence of bin Laden's involvement.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the US declined to communicate to a government known to be hostile to the US intelligence information. That's also why not all the information is in the hands of the public, now, and why I don't know the extent of 1 for sure. I do know the evidence was sufficient to convince the British and US intelligence branches, and absent information of deception, I'm quite happy to take them at their word.
As far as I'm aware, the idea that Al Quaeda was a fairly centralized organization at the time is not at all controversial. Do you have a cite? It has, of course, become a heavily de-centralized organization since then.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As far as I'm aware, the idea that Al Quaeda was a fairly centralized organization at the time is not at all controversial. Do you have a cite? It has, of course, become a heavily de-centralized organization since then.
Depending on your definition of "organization."
In Tim Noah's recent round of articles at Slate, he estimates al-Qaida consisted of about 1000 people at the time of the invasion, almost all living in Afghanistan. He cites estimates that about 80% of the members (including about 2/3 of the management) were killed or captured during the invasion. Some of this organizational structure has been rebuilt since al-Qaida moved to the Pakistan frontier region. However, they're still organizationally weak.
As for the decentralization of al-Qaida, its arguable to what degree that's appropriate terminology. It doesn't appear that remnants of the formerly centralized organization have dispersed and are fomenting terrorist attacks across the globe. Rather, most of the "decentralization" is really federation, as independent terror cells or organizations adopt the al-Qaida name in a show of solidarity and in a bid for funding, but don't take part in it organizationally (cf. "al-Qaida in Iraq," which was an independent terror shop that adopted the name for PR purposes, and subsequently was accredited by the primary organization, but evidently never had any organizational congruence with al-Qaida proper).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yes, the US declined to communicate to a government known to be hostile to the US intelligence information. That's also why not all the information is in the hands of the public, now, and why I don't know the extent of 1 for sure. I do know the evidence was sufficient to convince the British and US intelligence branches, and absent information of deception, I'm quite happy to take them at their word.
Given what happened with Iraq, and the fact that confrontation with Afghanistan was being actively considered, I am not as sanguine about taking them at their word.
quote: As far as I'm aware, the idea that Al Quaeda was a fairly centralized organization at the time is not at all controversial. Do you have a cite? It has, of course, become a heavily de-centralized organization since then.
It might be that our differing view point stems from haziness about the actual definition of Al Qaeda.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Satellite groups springing up and calling themselves Al Quaeda is also a fairly recent phenomenon.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
In Tim Noah's recent round of articles at Slate, he estimates al-Qaida consisted of about 1000 people at the time of the invasion, almost all living in Afghanistan. He cites estimates that about 80% of the members (including about 2/3 of the management) were killed or captured during the invasion. Some of this organizational structure has been rebuilt since al-Qaida moved to the Pakistan frontier region. However, they're still organizationally weak.
Is this the source of your information: "Nor is it clear that they were smart to succeed. In Afghanistan, the 9/11 attacks provoked a furious response from the United States military that destroyed al-Qaida's infrastructure of terrorist training camps and cave dwellings; unseated al-Qaida's protectors, the Taliban; and captured or killed two-thirds of al-Qaida's leaders—most notably, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11's principal architect and now Guantanamo's best-known prisoner. According to Lawrence Wright, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Looming Tower: Al-Qaida and the Road to 9/11, nearly 80 percent of al-Qaida's Afghanistan-based membership was killed in the U.S. invasion; intelligence estimates suggest al-Qaida's current membership may be as low as 200 or 300," or if I read further will I find more?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Satellite groups springing up and calling themselves Al Quaeda is also a fairly recent phenomenon.
Do you have a citation? The distinction I was thinking of was that between Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda cooperatives. If a group accepts some money from bin Laden, is that group automatically part of Al-Qaeda?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Both, particularly the first, discuss how Al Qaeda has gone from a relatively coherent organization to a name used by organizations with similar goals.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I was not meaning to imply that a UN resolution of authorization is necessary for the use of military force to be permissible (e.g. military action for self defense is also permissible), but it is sufficient, right (insofar as it is a formal statement of consensus)?
Yeah, I'd agree with this - certainly in the case of a GA resolution, with little or no abstainers/negative votes. A resolution that goes down to the wire in terms of votes yes/votes no may not be enough consensus.
(In this way, it's a little like how multilateral treaties can form norms of custom - if there are enough ratifying countries.)
And obviously, Security Counsel resolutions will only be a statement of the members of the SC at that time.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Satellite groups springing up and calling themselves Al Quaeda is also a fairly recent phenomenon.
I was particularly amused when Al Quaeda in Iraq popped up and the immediate reaction was to give 'vindication' to scores of armchair generalissimos who were under the mistaken impression that AQ was stationed in Iraq under Saddam and that this was why we attacked them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
according to santorum, we already did.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I had always thought canadians as a whole supported the war in afghanistan (I know the rank and file overwhelmingly gives their all in it, quebec regiments are absolutely swamped with Reservists volunteering for active duty) however recent parliamentary debates mostly by the NDP have led me to to admit that Canadians dont nessasarily support the war, which makes me confused as I had thought it justified.
Now I do not know if we should stay or leave, we should definetely leave if support from our allies is limited, but with suitable support should we leave? Is staying their a net positive and not something thatll collapse the second we leave irregardless of time spent there?
IP: Logged |
Both, particularly the first, discuss how Al Qaeda has gone from a relatively coherent organization to a name used by organizations with similar goals.
In my browsing the preponderance of evidence seems to support your position, so I will concede that al-Qaeda was still fairly centralized at the time of the Afghanistan invasion.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, I'm about to write my next installment in answer to your question but before I invest the time , I'd like some indication that you are actually interest in my answer.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. The UN passed two resolutions following 9/11, neither of which authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. Had the war been authorized by the UN, by most standards, it would be legal. 
