Just and Unjust Wars

Darth Vader Flies Again

As the weeks pass it is more increasingly obvious that the US-led attempt to "build" a nation in Afghanistan is failing and is all but over.  The US will withdraw as soon as it is politically less damaging to do so--sometime after the elections this November. 

At this blog we have consistently opposed the war since it morphed into Obama's "War we Really Need to be Fighting" (as opposed to the war in Iraq).  That was just a cynical election ploy to convince the electoral middle that he was not nearly as anti-war and radical as his opponents were alleging.  He was just a regular American imperialist.  But Obama could not bring himself to think of war as it must be thought of: legitimate and just only when it is exclusively focused upon defence of  citizens against armed aggression.  Obama had to morph the war into progressive political ideology by other means: Afghanistan must enjoy "nation building" at the hands of the US army.


In the West, and particularly in the US, waging war has morphed from the defence of citizens against armed aggression to a defence of American interests.  In this context, American interests can mean anything, depending upon the jingoistic anthems of the day: defending against Chinese currency manipulation, cheap Japanese exports, Middle East oil, internet piracy. 

We consider that the US going to war in Afghanistan to decapitate Al Qaeda was a just war.  The US had been attacked.  Its citizens had died.  But it made some mistakes.  Arguably it could have offered terms to Afghanistan before it attacked.  If Afghanistan offered up Bin Laden and outlawed Al Qaeda within a short defined time, it would have been spared.  Otherwise war should have been formally declared: the objective would have been narrow: destroy Al Qaeda and its leadership.  A similar offer of terms could have been made to Pakistan: deliver up Al Qaeda or be regarded as an enemy of the United States.  Once the objective was completed the war would have been over.  No nation building. 

We consider Israel would be justified in going to war against Iran.  The latter nation has repeatedly declared war against Israel by calling for Israel to be annihilated and wiped off  the face of the earth.  Israel, therefore, is quite right to take whatever means necessary to protect its citizens from Iranian attack.  If this involves pre-emptive strikes against Iranian military capacity, so be it.  It should formally declare itself to be at war with Iran now, in response to Iranian denial of Israel's right to exist, so that neither the Iranians nor the rest of the world is in any doubt.

We note that Republican presidential candidates, previously jingoistic cheerleaders for the war in Afghanistan, are now mooting that the US ought to face reality and withdraw.  When US soldiers are killed by their so-called Afghani allies and when a US solider goes rogue and kills unarmed, innocent civilians who were supposed to be under the protection of the US army the writing is on the wall.  Actually, it has been there for years but folks could not bring themselves to see it. 

We note also that even in New Zealand those with military backgrounds who have previously supported NZ's military involvement in Afghanistan are now reckoning that the time has come to face reality.  We cite The Veteran from the blog, No Minister:

It maybe that the time has come for the West to pull the plug on Afghanistan, to cut their losses and get out.     Yes, such a move is fraught with danger.     That sad country may become even more so a haven for terrorists and a safe base from which they can launch attacks on all of us.

But the war was only going to be won if the Western allies could convince the local population they were offering something better than the Taliban remembering too they (the allies) were starting from behind the 8 ball having to counter the perception they were infidel invaders in a long line of infidel invaders stretching back to the 19th century.      In short, the war was never going to won unless we first won the hearts and minds of Mr and Mrs average Afghani.

It might be argued that the Americans have only ever paid lip service to this truism.    Cutting through all the bullshit it appears the (in)famous quote of LBJ which had it "grab em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow" still holds true.

Certainly the recent burning of the Qu'rans, however that event is rationalised, and now the mass murder of 16 innocents by a rogue soldier represents a major and perhaps fatal set back in the fight to establish a true and functioning democracy if indeed that were ever possible.

It gives me no great pleasure to say this but maybe, just maybe, we will need to accept that Afghanistan is a lost cause.

German military theorist, Von Clausewitz is reputed to have said, War is diplomacy by other means.  He could not have been more misleading.  One does not negotiate with a murderer or one who attempts murder.  Or, at least, one ought not.  Armed aggression, or the threat thereof, is in an entirely different league from diplomacy.  Or it ought to be.  War is just only when it is an extension of the principle that murder is a capital crime punishable by death.  Thus, Von Clausewitz's dictum needs changing: War is the act of executing the murderous by other means. 

The United States has been the most bellicose and deadly country in the world for the past fifty years.  Thus we see the fruit of the Clausewitzian  dictum.  If the US had regarded war as armed defence against actual (not potential, possible, hypothetical) armed aggression, most of its wars would never have occurred. 

As for the dictum that the United States must defend its interests with deadly force--it is an imperialistic principle which has transformed the US from a peaceful nation to one which resembles the Empire of Star Wars infamy.