| Number 413 | July 25, 2008 |
|
This Week: The War in Afghanistan Not the "Good War"
|
|
Greetings, As Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama returns from his trip overseas, we have heard of his plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and build up U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In response, I devote this entire issue to Afghanistan. Due to various factors (namely a series of medical emergencies over the past couple of months and a six-day vacation that starts tomorrow), the better part of this issue is two reprints earlier Nygaard Notes. They are both from October of 2001, the dawn of The War Against Terror (The WAT?!) The reason these articles are still relevant is that the basic points about the U.S. military attack on Afghanistan haven't changed: 1. The problem of "terror" cannot be effectively addressed by military means; 2. Such a military approach is immoral and, arguably, illegal; 3. A majority of the world's people opposed the military approach in 2001 and, if anyone would bother to ask in 2008 (I plan to try to find this; maybe someone has asked), I think most would still oppose it. Here's another thing I wrote in these pages back in October of 2001 that may be worth remembering: "Consider that the two major stories these days—the terror within the United States and the U.S. attack on Afghanistan—may be better understood if they are untangled from each other and thought about separately. Then, after you have done that, you need to put them back together in order to understand their relation to one another. You may be surprised to find that they are not connected in quite the ways that you think." I'll be revisiting the War Against Terrorism (the WAT?!) in future issues. Stay tuned. Nygaard |
|
"Despite the apparent failure of the armed approach taken by Washington in Afghanistan, both presidential candidates and the majority of Congress support not merely continuing this approach but intensifying it. McCain and Obama are not only in agreement that the Pentagon needs to send more troops into Afghanistan, they are also in agreement that it is the war that the US must win. Operating under the pretext that killing more Afghanis is somehow going to end the desire of Washington's Islamist enemies to attack it has not only created the current stalemate in Afghanistan, it has also spread the anti-American resistance into the tribal areas of Pakistan and threatens to engulf the Pakistani city of Peshawar. The recent killings of civilians by US and NATO forces only adds to the resistance, especially when the US denies the killings ever happened. "This is not the ‘good' war. It is just as wrong as the US adventure in Iraq. Likewise, it can not be won, no matter what the politicians and the generals say. The government put in Kabul by Washington is comparable to a new branch head of a multinational corporation. Its power is dependent on the whim of corporate headquarters and will never garner the support of those not on its payroll. There are clearly human rights being abused in Afghanistan, but those abuses are committed as much by the occupying forces as they are by the forces opposed to the occupier. The solution to Afghanistan begins, just like in Iraq, with the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of the US military." From "Afghanistan Is Not a Good War" by Ron Jacobs, July 19th, 2008. For citation see "Resources for Further Reading" in this issue of the Notes. |
|
The Summer 2008 Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive has been a success! Thanks to ALL who sent in your Pledges, increased your Pledges, and/or renewed your Pledges. I'm pleased to report that the overall Pledge totals remain strong. Thank you so much, all of you! Your generous and ONGOING support makes it possible for me to continue to do this newsletter, despite new jobs, family emergencies, and other distractions. Without your support I would have to spend all my time working at my other jobs. Those jobs are fine, but what I really feel called to do is to work as a public intellectual, making my work available and useful to as wide a range of people as possible. For those who don't know, here's how Pledges work here at Nygaard Notes International Headquarters: 1. You send in a Pledge of support The monthly "wage" that you all make possible now stands at just a hair under $600.00 per month. This seems to me to be very respectable for a project like this (not that there are many projects like this). September 5th marks the Tenth Anniversary of Nygaard Notes. As I reflect on this, and on the generosity and solidarity of the many hundreds of readers and supporters of the Notes, it makes me want to do something special to mark the occasion. If you have any ideas about what I might do, please send them along. I already have one idea myself, about which I'll say more in September. |
|
The following article is reprinted from Nygaard Notes #127 of October 5th, 2001, just two days before the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in the wake of the terror attacks against the United States of September 11th 2001. Many citizens of this country take for granted that the United States has the right, should it decide to do so, to go and attack other countries that may be "harboring" or otherwise offering support to the criminals who attacked the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Our leaders claim that they indeed do have the right under international law to mount such an attack if it is in "self defense." It may be instructive in this regard to look at a very similar case from 1985, where the United Nations Security Council considered a closely analogous case, and made an interesting judgement. On October 1, 1985 Israeli planes bombed the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation organization at Hammam-Plage, near Tunis, Tunisia. In explaining its action to the Security Council, Israel argued that the bombing was justified by Tunisia having knowingly harbored terrorists who had targeted Israel. Here is what Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Benjamin Netanyahu, said to the Council: "A country cannot claim the protection of sovereignty when it knowingly offers a piece of its territory for terrorist activity against other nations, and that is precisely what happened here. Tunisia knew very well what was going on in this extraterritorial base, the planning that took place there, the missions that were launched from it, and the purposes of those missions: repeated armed attacks against my country and against innocent civilians around the world. Tunisia, then, actually provided a base for murderous activity against another State and, in fact, the nationals of many States who are the objects and victims of this terrorist organization. The protection of sovereignty cannot be claimed by any Government when it makes available such facilities, especially against the State that must protect itself." (UN Doc. S/PV.2615, at 86-7, Oct. 4, 1985) Mr. Netanyahu's words are remarkably similar to words that might be spoken by a United States representative, should we ever be called before the Security Council to justify an attack against Afghanistan. The Security Council rejected Israel's claim and voted in Resolution 573 to condemn the Israeli action by a margin of 14-0. In that resolution, the Security Council condemned "vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct." It described the air raid as a "threat to peace and security in the Mediterranean region." The resolution further requested UN member states "to take measures to dissuade Israel from resorting to such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States." Finally, it stated "Tunisia has the right to appropriate reparations as a result of the loss of human life and material damage." In accord with a well-established pattern, the United States was the only nation that disagreed with this resolution, choosing as it often does to be the sole abstention. In a previous example of the United States' attitude to the rule of law, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States in 1984, upholding Nicaragua's claim that the U.S. was violating international law when it committed "violent, terrorist, subversive, criminal acts" against Nicaragua in the course of attempting to destroy the Sandinista government. The United States ignored the ruling. While this history is completely unknown to the vast majority of Americans, I would guess it is either known or would be entirely unsurprising to many in the Arab world. International Law As I write this, the United States government is trying to assemble an international "coalition" to participate in its newly-invigorated War on Terrorism. Such a coalition already exists, and it is called the United Nations. Over the years a large body of law has been developed by this organization in an attempt to proactively define the values and responsibilities of the world community in regard to various forms of conflict, crime, and international disputes. If the United States were to decide to consider the September 11th attacks as a crime against humanity rather than as an act of war, then there are several relevant laws on the books that could become very important to us. Laws such as the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts committed on Board Aircraft of 1963, or the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft of 1970. More recently, the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (which the United States has signed but not ratified) may be of interest to those who would like to see the United States cooperate with the rest of the world rather than dominate it. For more information on international law, and specifically on the legal implications of the events of September 11th, I recommend visiting the website of the American Society of International Law at: www.asil.org/ [2008 update: This is still a good website on the topic. Nygaard] |
|
The following is an excerpt from Nygaard Notes #132 of November 16, 2001, entitled, "Act of War? Or Crime Against Humanity? The World Weighs In." Unbeknownst to most Americans, not having been reported in any of the daily newspapers of this great nation, the Gallup Organization actually did a survey of the citizens of 37 countries around the world at the end of September [2001], asking the following straightforward question: "In your opinion, once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorists are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?" This extensive survey—the only significant attempt to gauge "public opinion abroad" that I know of—revealed that an overwhelming majority of the world's citizens rejected the idea of a military response to the crimes of September 11th, preferring instead a judicial response. Remember, this survey was done at the end of September (survey results were released on September 25th), just days after the President had indicated that the United States was planning a military response. The Gallup survey showed, for example, that 64 percent of the citizens of the Czech Republic were opposed to a military response to terror. And that was as good as it got for the Bush administration in Europe. The citizens of every other European country were opposed even more strongly to the favored U.S. strategy, by margins ranging from 67 percent in NATO ally France to 87 percent in Switzerland and 88 percent in Greece. The overwhelming majority of the surveyed population outside of Europe also rejected the military response to terror, by percentages along the lines of 94 percent in Mexico, 85 percent in Colombia, 75 percent in South Africa, and 84 percent in Zimbabwe. In only two of the 37 countries did a strong majority of the citizens surveyed support a military response. One was India, with complex geopolitical realities in the region to consider. The other was Israel, the leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world and with its own long history of responding militarily to terror attacks. The third and final country in which a majority supported the U.S. government's plans to go to war—and this by a small majority of 54 percent—was the United States itself. In summary, then, just two weeks before the United States launched its ill-fated military attack on perhaps the weakest country in the world, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the world's population, as near as we can figure, opposed that attack. And now we read in the papers that the U.S. administration's main concern is to maintain "international support" for its war. This is a major propaganda victory, and if it takes Nygaard Notes to tell you this, then consider how powerful that propaganda system must be. |
|
Afghanistan is Not "The Good War"; Resources for Further Reading |
|
[Note: I don't endorse every word in every source below, but these are good starting points, for sure. Especially note Ali's footnotes in the New Left Review. Nygaard] Ron Jacobs: "Afghanistan
Is Not a Good War" Dissident Voice, July 19th, 2008 Tariq Ali, short article: "NATO's
Lost Cause." The London Guardian, June 11 2008 Tariq Ali, long article: "Afghanistan: Mirage of the Good War" New Left Review 50, March-April 2008 http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2713 John Pilger: "The
'Good War' Is a Bad War" January 9, 2008, on John Pilger.com Marc Herold: "Afghanistan:
A Socio-Economically Irrelevant Space to be kept ‘Empty' through
Least-Cost Military Means" RAWA News, May 29, 2008 This is an older article, but worth a look: James Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar: "Ending the ‘Good War'" Foreign Policy In Focus, June 13, 2007 |
