I would add a fourth requirement: [to the use of military force.]I agree that this would be nice to have, but we can't make it a requirement. 12 million Germans died defending their country from the Allies, which to me signals rather conclusively that we weren't welcome. In retrospect, the Germans may now feel different, but we had no idea that would be the result at the time.
is the 'war' supported by the civilians who actually live where it's happening???
The opinions of citizens of the invading forces are another matter.
It's important to distinguish between the simple use of military force, and the idea of "humanitarian intervention." For HI, you could argue that an invitation, or at least the acceptance of the population, should be required. But Afghanistan, bears some comparison with an actual war, not traditional HI missions. The Taliban was seen to have comitted an act of war by harboring Al Qaeda, so they had to be destroyed. Liberating the Afghan people is really secondary, just as the liberation of Germany was secondary to the goal of destroying the Nazi government.
I bring this up simply to ask a question - what is our mission in Afghanistan, specifically in the south? Are we there as peacekeepers, humanitarian workers, or are we still at war with the Taliban? This is an important question, it seems to me. My conception of it is that we're still effectively at war, but I welcome counterarguments.
1 comment:
first of all, I appreciate that you read your comments and gave mine some thought. Even if our thinking diverges slightly.
The ambiguity you've raised about our mission in Afghanistan has led me to reread some of the relevant security council resolutions and give some thought to your comments.
You're right to bring up WW2. After all, International law is based on the idea that it was criminal for Hitler to invade other countries (act of war); and it was just for the allies to intervene in response (defense). This also justifiies the pacification of germany on defensive grounds.
You're also correct (by proxy) that the Bush doctrine, that the act of harboring aggressors is tantamount to aggression itself, was de facto embraced by the security council. However, Just because the UNSC invoked chapter 7, does not mean that this is the moral or tactical equivalent of post-war germany. Germany was an aggresive semi-global industrial super-power, which quite literally threatened the physical security of the entire world. Afghanistan is a tiny, devasted, starving, broken little country with a few fanatics, et al. I'll leave it to you to compare/contrast the relative threats (and the relative ethics).
Yes the security council invoked chapter 7, but they also built that on a large body of resolutions and affirmations precisely concerning Human Rights, democracy [ex. "Deeply concerned by...serious violations by the taliban of human rights and international humanitarian law.", "supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime," UNSCR 1378, were they making such efforts?]. Furthermore these are the same ideas with which the war was, and is, described domestically.
So is it HI? I'm willing to concede that by law it probably isn't. But the ambiguity is certainly highly pronounced.
Could we help them? sure.
Should we help them? probably.
Are we? I don't know.
I don't see any Marshall Plans on the horizon.
Post a Comment