The Fog Of War: Examining The Justification Of The Afghanistan Conflict

The war in Afghanistan was the longest war in American history. Launched in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the initial justification for the war was to cripple Al-Qaeda and punish the Taliban government for harbouring them. The war received widespread international support and was regarded as a legally appropriate use of force. However, as the war progressed, the objectives morphed into something much larger, and the moral justification for the war became questionable. By examining the just war theory and the changing circumstances on the ground, this article will explore whether the Afghanistan War can be justified.

Was there a legitimate authority for the war?

The invasion of Afghanistan by the US and its allies in 2001 was widely regarded as a "legally appropriate use of force" and received widespread international support. The UN Security Council recognised its legitimacy, and even rival powers acknowledged the justice of the US cause. The war was also supported by the internationally recognised sovereign government of Afghanistan, the GIROA.

However, the Taliban disputed the legitimacy of the GIROA, claiming that the central government in Kabul had rarely spoken for or exerted control over the Pashtun tribes of rural Afghanistan. From a multiculturalist perspective, this objection is valid, and the GIROA did not represent the entire Afghan population. Nevertheless, the majority of the international community recognised the government of Afghanistan as legitimate, providing a legal foundation for the war.

Some critics argue that the war was not authorised by a legitimate authority, as the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorise the use of military force. Instead, it laid out responses such as freezing assets, criminalising the support of terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists.

In conclusion, while the war in Afghanistan had the support of the internationally recognised government of Afghanistan and was endorsed by the UN Security Council, there were questions about the legitimacy of the Afghan government and the extent of the UN's authorisation. Ultimately, the determination of whether the war was authorised by a legitimate authority depends on one's perspective on these issues.

Did the war have just intentions?

The war in Afghanistan was initially justified as a response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, with the goal of crippling Al-Qaeda and ensuring they could no longer launch terror attacks against the US. This was a just cause with broad global support, and the initial objectives were quickly achieved, including the killing of Osama bin Laden.

However, the war's justifications became more tenuous over time. The US and its allies sought to destroy international terrorist networks in Afghanistan and establish a stable, democratic government that respected human rights. While these goals were just, the means of achieving them became increasingly disproportionate and questionable. The US attempted to impose Western-style reforms on Afghanistan, including women's rights and anti-corruption campaigns, which may have been impractical and even immoral in the context of Afghan culture and traditions.

The war also lacked a clear exit strategy and continued for two decades, far longer than anticipated. This prolonged conflict caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths and casualties, and the Taliban eventually reassumed power upon the American withdrawal, calling into question the effectiveness and justness of the war.

In conclusion, while the initial intentions behind the Afghanistan War may have been just, the changing objectives, prolonged duration, and questionable means of waging the war raise serious doubts about its overall justification.

Was the war a last resort?

The invasion of Afghanistan by the US and its allies in 2001 was justified as a response to the 9/11 terror attacks. The war was intended to punish and destroy al-Qaida, and to dismantle the Taliban government that provided safe haven to the perpetrators of the attacks. The war received widespread international support and was regarded as a "legally appropriate use of force". However, questions have been raised about whether war was a last resort.

Some sources argue that the war was not a last resort, as diplomatic options were not fully explored. The Taliban had responded to a request by the US authorities to hand over Osama bin Laden by seeking evidence of his complicity in the 9/11 attacks and offering to deliver him for trial under certain conditions. This offer was not explored, as President George W. Bush was reportedly bent on "killing somebody" and had no patience for diplomacy.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the severity of the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban's belligerent response to ultimatums to turn over Osama bin Laden justified the use of force. The Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden came after the bombing had begun, and they refused to negotiate with the internationally recognised government of Afghanistan, the GIROA.

While the initial counterterrorist objectives of the war were generally seen as valid, the expansion of the mission to include cultural reforms and nation-building was more controversial. The efforts to impose Western-style reforms on Afghan family and societal norms were seen by some as impractical and immoral. The war's objectives became increasingly disproportionate to the means employed, particularly as the situation on the ground changed and the initial justifications for the war became less relevant.

In conclusion, while the use of force may have been justified in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the failure to fully explore diplomatic options and the expansion of the war's objectives beyond counterterrorism call into question whether war was truly a last resort.

Did the war have a reasonable chance of success?

The war in Afghanistan was the longest war in American history. It was launched in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks to punish and destroy al-Qaida. The initial core objectives were to cripple al-Qaida's presence in Afghanistan, ensure the organization could no longer launch terror attacks against the U.S., and punish the Taliban for harbouring them. These objectives were quickly achieved, and U.S. forces eventually killed Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, in Pakistan.

However, the mission in Afghanistan soon morphed into something much larger and unsustainable. The U.S. aimed to restructure Afghan society and establish a liberal democracy in its image—a goal that was never going to work in a country with deep political and cultural divisions.

The U.S. and its allies did have a reasonable chance of achieving initial success in terms of counter-terrorism objectives. The war received widespread international support and was generally regarded as "a legally appropriate use of force." The U.S. sought to destroy international terrorist networks and create security structures to prevent future attacks. This effort was perceived as just, and there was broad support for the idea that ridding the world of terrorism is a just goal.

However, the longer the war continued, the more the objectives became disproportionate and inappropriate. The U.S. and its allies became entangled in the Afghan civil war, supporting the internationally recognized government, the GIROA, against the Taliban. While the counter-terrorism goals may have been achievable, the attempt to reshape Afghan society was not.

The coalition probably could have achieved a greater degree of success if it had been willing to be more flexible in its support and simply provided logistical and operational backing to whichever Afghan faction was winning, whether the GIROA or the Taliban. However, the author of the source material is skeptical that even this approach would have succeeded, as the coalition never had the ability to project enough power into rural Afghanistan to reshape society there.

In conclusion, while the counter-terrorism objectives had a reasonable chance of success, the broader goal of reshaping Afghan society and establishing a stable, democratic government did not. The war's objectives became disproportionate and unsustainable, and the U.S. and its allies became entangled in a civil war that they could not win.

Were non-combatants protected?

The protection of non-combatants was a key consideration in the justifications for the war in Afghanistan.

The Just War Theory states that military forces must limit the use of force and protect non-combatants. The theory also includes the principle of discrimination, which is the legitimacy of targeting, and its most important embodiment is a prohibition on intentionally attacking non-combatants.

In the case of the war in Afghanistan, the protection of non-combatants was a concern from the start. The initial justification for the war was to defend against the aggression of the September 11th attacks, and the war was regarded as a "legally appropriate use of force". However, as the war progressed, the protection of non-combatants became more challenging. The war resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, with the United Nations documenting a record-high of 10,993 civilian casualties in 2018. The use of airstrikes and drone strikes by the US and its allies also raised concerns about the protection of non-combatants, as these tactics often resulted in civilian casualties.

The war also had indirect effects on the civilian population, including the disruption of essential services such as education and healthcare, as well as the destruction of infrastructure and the economy. The war also led to the displacement of millions of Afghans, who fled the country as refugees.

Overall, the protection of non-combatants was a complex issue in the war in Afghanistan. While there were efforts to minimize civilian casualties and protect non-combatants, the reality of warfare, including the use of airstrikes and drone strikes, often resulted in civilian casualties and displacement. The war also had indirect effects on civilians, disrupting essential services and the economy, and leading to displacement and refugee crises.

Frequently asked questions