On October 7, 2001, the United States and its British ally initiated Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. The war had the backing of most just war theorists those who believe that wars must meet certain criteria before they can be deemed just. This essay will discuss various aspects of the causes and conduct of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they fit into established ethics of war in Western traditions. First, this analysis will deal with the justifications to go to war (jus ad bellum). While second, it will focus on the conduct of war (jus in bello). The analysis is divided further into the reasons behind the decision to wage war and the chief ideas of the conduct of warfare that will be examined both by the validations given and the individual ideologies of the ethics of war.
A military response, to the attack on the United States on the 11th of September was justified in terms of self-defence. In modern interpretations of just war theory there are two legitimate reasons for aggressive war: ‘self defence against an aggressor and humanitarian intervention against a sovereign state in response to acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind’. Evidently, if the US singled out Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as its targets, it would have run up against the widely held view that terrorist attacks, in and of themselves, do not justify military responses against sovereign states. Subsequently, in order to maintain the coalition against terrorism and establish a ‘just cause’ for OEF, the US adopted a two-pronged legal strategy. It began by expanding its focus to include the Taliban. By giving refuge to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and refusing to hand him over, the Taliban were alleged to have directly facilitated and endorsed his acts. The US in this way broadened the claim of self-defence to include the state of Afghanistan. Thus, the Taliban regime assumed responsibility for the armed attack against the United States and opened the way to the exercise of forcible US response in self-defence. It needs to be noted that the US can also be seen to have satisfied the jus in bellum criteria for a ‘legitimate authority’. Under article 42 of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has become the sole legitimate authority for authorising the use of armed force ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’ and several legal commentators have argued that it authorized the United States to go to war against al Qaeda and the Taliban by pointing to two resolutions unanimously adopted by the Council in the aftermath of 9/11:Resolution 1368 of September 12, 2001, and Resolution 1373 of September 28, 2001. However, others have argued that a close reading of the resolutions, and a comparison of these resolutions with an earlier resolution, shows that they did not authorize war. Nevertheless, it has further been argued that there was an implicit authorization following from the references to the inherent right of self-defence and the lack of notable opposition from any government to United States actions in Afghanistan. Additionally, the secretary general of NATO, declared that ‘the evidence linking Al Qaeda to September 11 provided the factual basis 5 for invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty’. Evidently whilst they may not have explicitly authorized it, it can be argued that Operation Enduing Freedom received some legitimate authority from both NATO and UN Security Council. Further, the criteria of ‘last resort’ cannot be ignored, particularly seeing as though OEF commenced merely four weeks after the attacks of September 11. The criterion of last resort requires that reasonable measures be taken to seek the achievement of the just cause of the war through non-violent means as ‘war can be morally legitimate only when a state has made every effort through measures short of war to seek to redress the evil’. It has been argued that since the US...
...The War in Afghanistan and its Aftermath
Date of submission
The War in Afghanistan and its Aftermath
The war in Afghanistan has deep-rooted historical causes and aftermaths that are hard to assume or ignore when analyzing it. The war began officially during the Cold war era when Russia and the entire Soviet Union were not in unity with the US and friendly nations. Considering the closeness to Afghanistan, the Soviet Union stationed its army in Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries with view that it would later reap forfeited minerals and resources in the region (Robinson, 2013). Unfortunately, the US had prior knowledge of the potential of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular. This understanding coupled with the friendship with oil-rich Saudi Arabia aroused and multiplied its interest towards Afghanistan and Central Asia as whole. The US positions itself as the leading advocate for human rights and democratic form of leadership within and outside its borders. The motive behind the roles is partially by virtue of its position as the world’s superpower and the need to retain the position. The war against terrorism in Afghanistan is a remarkable example of what the US can...
...The War in Afghanistan
A basic overview of the war in Afghanistan
After 9/11, President George W. Bush gave the rulers of Afghanistan an ultimatum: hand over the terrorists responsible for 9/11, or “share in their fate.” The Taliban—the Islamic fundamentalists who ruled the country—refused to surrender their ally, terrorist leader Osama bin-Laden. Air strikes began on 10/7/01, less than a month after 9/11.
American, British and other soldiers fought together with Afghans opposed to the Taliban. The goals: remove the Taliban from power, find bin-Laden and his lieutenants, and destroy his organization, known as Al-Qaeda.
Taliban forces fled from Kabul, the capital city, on 11/12/01, and retreated toward the mountainous border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. With U.S. support, a new government was installed, with Hamid Karzai as President.
The Taliban gradually rebuilt its fighting forces and carried out attacks against the new government and American soldiers.
Noting the Taliban’s growing strength and the difficulty of fighting an enemy hidden in remote caves and mountains, many observers said that the warwas unwinnable. On 12/1/09, President Obama announced a new strategy: the rapid deployment of 30,000 additional troops, to break the Taliban’s momentum and turn the war around.
Despite slow progress, serious obstacles remain....
...War in AfghanistanJustWar theory points out that there can be motives for going to war that do have a moral content, and justwar theory claims that war can, under certain conditions, be morally justified. Proportionality is perhaps the most utilitarian of all JustWar tenets. It calls upon leaders not to lose their head and engage in costly conflict if there are cheaper (e.g. economic, diplomatic) options available to them. There are three main opponents to the JustWar theory: the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum), how war is fought (jus in bello), and how conflict should end (jus post bellum). Jus ad bellum are often due to self-defense, the defense of others from aggressive attack, the protection of innocent people from aggressive regimes, or corrective punishment for aggression past action. All involve the ‘resistance of aggression’, the violation of basic rights by use of armed force. Jus in bello, means justice in war, and has traditionally been concerned with the treatment of the enemy (i.e. there is a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Only combatants may be targeted). Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, which includes peace treaties, war crime trials, reconstruction etc. However, theories like...
...Jason Friedkin Period 8
War has changed greatly from World War 2 to the Modern War in Afghanistan. One reason is because of the weapons today are much better and more modified. Also, soldiers today have more technology and they are trained better for what they do. One big difference is the reason why the two wars were fought. World War 2 and the War inAfghanistan were fought in very different ways. The weapons have changed greatly from both wars. First today, weapons are a lot faster and more powerful. They are also very mobile and much more reliable. In World War 2, most of the ground fire was fought with guns and small artillery. A lot of the warwas also fought on the water with submarines and war ships. Today, there are weapons that can take out many people from several miles away. They are also more threatening and need a trained person to control. There are also threats of nuclear war from many countries and if they follow through, a whole country can be destroyed. During World War 2, soldiers had to go into dangerous combat and a lot more people were killed. The soldiers in today’s war are greatly different from soldiers in World War 2.
Dxb G rd ` c` hp h X s c b rË d vÌ d t Ìvt `ds d cwvdwv h w d Ì...
...The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) refers to the intervention in the Afghan Civil War by the United States and its allies, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to dismantle Al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden and to remove from power the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist regime led by Mullah Mohammed Omar, which at the time controlled 90% of Afghanistan and hosted Al-Qaeda leadership. U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership which was supporting the Taliban in its war with the Northern Alliance. The Taliban recommended that bin Laden leave the country but declined to extradite him without evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The United States refused to negotiate and on 7 October 2001 launched Operation Enduring Freedom, which was to defeat the Taliban and set up a new Afghan government. This operation was supported by various anti-Taliban groups, especially the Afghan Northern Alliance. The United Kingdom also got involved, andwas later joined by Canada, Australia, France and other mainly western allies.
The U.S.-led forces quickly drove the Taliban from power and captured all major cities in the country. Many Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders escaped to neighboring Pakistan or retreated to rural or remote mountainous regions. In...
...Afghanistan has been in war with the U.S. mainly because, The Taliban refuses to follow through with the commands that the U.S. gave them, as well as ‘The Three Phases’, Also the planned attack in 2001, but mainly because the U.S. wants the mineral resources that are found in Afghanistan. The Taliban refused to undertake 3 simple tasks: shutting down the terrorist training camps, giving up the Al-Qaeda leaders and returning all American and Foreign citizens, which is part of the reason that we went to war with Afghanistan in 2001. The ‘Three Phases’ started in 1987-present the first phase was to topple the Taliban and destroy all terrorist camps from 1987-1997, the second phase was to defeat the Taliban military and re-build core institutes in the afghan state from 1997- September11, 2001, and the third phase was to turn to counterinsurgency doctrine due to increased military troop presence from 2001-present. America was planning an attack on Afghanistan to start off the third phase but what they didn’t know is that Afghanistanwas planning an attack to the Twin towers to get back at the U.S. for what they did in the past years. The main reason to the war in Afghanistanwas to get most of the mineral resources in Afghanistan...
...Was the Civil War a JustWar?
The Vindication of Clement Vallandigham
Clement Vallandigham believed the American Civil Warwas unjust and as a result he was “tried by court-martial, convicted, and sentenced to a term in a military prison during the continuance of the war” (234). Vallandigham’s loyalty was not to President Lincoln but to the principles that this country was supposed to stand for. The Declaration of Independence says the government is established by the people in order to protect the rights of the people, foremost among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the government become destructive towards those rights it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government. Blind obedience to government is a sign of a totalitarian state. Disobedience to government as practiced by Vallandigham, is a democratic act when that government is not fulfilling its duty to protect its obligations.
It is a tough task to criticise the righteousness of the Civil War as Vallandigham did. In retrospect we all know the benefit that was obtained by the war, the freedom of the slaves. Was it worth it? The slaves were freed, and what happened after that? Were they really freed? There was no more slavery, but the slaves,...
...two planes and also there were two other planes one was supposed to hit the White House and the other the Pentagon. This started the war in Afghanistan. It’s been eight years since this incident, and the United States and President Obama still want to keep this war going. Next year they are going to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. There are three reasons why they shouldn’t send them: one for their safety; twoAfghanistan should keep their business to themselves; and three it’s going to affect the economy big time.
First of all President Obama is going to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan next year. My first reason on why he shouldn’t is because of their safety, like for example people get killed every single day because of this war. Just the other day me and my mom were going to the mall and we saw this funeral car coming by us and there were a whole bunch of people behind it and my mom told me that must have been the soldier that had died the other day at the war. Yes it’s sad to see that stuff happen to those people who just want to serve their country and risk their lives out there to see if they are going to make it or not. Also the families that have to go through this pain seeing their husbands or wives or even their own children being killed out there, I mean it’s sad. “Public patience for such a...