Canadian cultural influence on the way we rationalize wars.

[Machjo]

I was wondering how you rationalize the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a war. For me, it's generally the folowing:

1. National self-defence. I don't mean theoretical arguments about how if we don't fight 'them' 'there' that they'll get us here. But clear proof that if we don't fight them now they'll fight us later, along with evidence that they're doing it to some other nation already.

2. To maintain international laws, with our own military abiding by international laws itself.

Generally speaking, these are the only two reasons for which I can call a war just.

What about you?

 

[gerryh]

Then I assume you find the war in Afghanistan as being "just" since it meets your first criteria.

 

[darkbeaver]

I was wondering how you rationalize the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a war. For me, it's generally the folowing:

1. National self-defence. I don't mean theoretical arguments about how if we don't fight 'them' 'there' that they'll get us here. But clear proof that if we don't fight them now they'll fight us later, along with evidence that they're doing it to some other nation already.

2. To maintain international laws, with our own military abiding by international laws itself.

Generally speaking, these are the only two reasons for which I can call a war just.

What about you?

I agree with you except the blue which is the present justification used for American crimes against humanity. There can never be entrenchment of preemptive rights of attack. For with that declaration the Americans have revealed thier true intents, full spectrum dominance.

 

[Machjo]

Then I assume you find the war in Afghanistan as being "just" since it meets your first criteria.

How does it meet the first criterium? If we pulled out of Afghanistan, how could the Afghan military ever touch us? Does it even have a yacht, let alone a ship?

Now as for individual persons from Afghanistan trying to come to Canada, that's what airport security is for.

Now as for the second criterium, that's more debatable. The UN did approve the mission. Plus.

It's not a UN-led mission but a NATO-led one. Minus.

The UN had initially approved the mission to get Bin Laden, and since the Taliban stood in the way, they were a legitimate enemy. Plus.

As for the US, going into Afghanistan was initially illegal as per international law, and that also distracted from the war in Afghanistan. Minus.

The lies surrounding the WMD's raised eyebrows and suspicions concerning the real motives behind Afghanistan. Minus.

Later, our mission in Afghanistan changed from getting Bin Laden to trying to establish stability. As far as I know, that was approved by the UN. Plus.

So as for the first point (i.e. national self-defence), that's a non-issue. The Afghan army would have no way to even get a yacht to Canada, and any individual terrorist from Afghanistan would have to get past our airport security.

As for the second, it's a harder one to answer and that's why I tend to be less decidedly pro or anti-Afghan war. Though I do dispute certain points about it. It would be best transformed into a UN-led mission so as to avoid any further suspicions of hidden motives owing to association with the WMD fiasco in Iraq, also caused by a NATO member country. This would help to make a clearer distinction between the two nations and their operations.

 

[Machjo]

Iraq however fails to meet either criterium. As for self-defence, Iraq was in no way a threat to the US and the US could not even prove it.

As for international law, unless it's self-defence, which it wasn't, it needs approval from the UN, which Bush failed to get. That made the war in contravention of international laws, and thus set a bad example to other nations giving them the message that international law is meaningless and that all nations are free to do what they want.

 

[gerryh]

sorry...... 9/11 showed that they were capable of hitting the U.S. at home. Therefore criteria number 1 has been met.

 

[Machjo]

I agree with you except the blue which is the present justification used for American crimes against humanity. There can never be entrenchment of preemptive rights of attack. For with that declaration the Americans have revealed thier true intents, full spectrum dominance.

Good point. Perhaps I could reword that as defence of an allie.

 

[gerryh]

Iraq however fails to meet either criterium. As for self-defence, Iraq was in no way a threat to the US and the US could not even prove it.

As for international law, unless it's self-defence, which it wasn't, it needs approval from the UN, which Bush failed to get. That made the war in contravention of international laws, and thus set a bad example to other nations giving them the message that international law is meaningless and that all nations are free to do what they want.

"International Law" is meaningless since not every country in the world has signed onto it. It is, for the most part, unenforceable.

 

[Machjo]

sorry...... 9/11 showed that they were capable of hitting the U.S. at home. Therefore criteria number 1 has been met.

But 'they' was not the Taliban, but Al-Qaeda. Are we fighting Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?

In Afghanistan we're fighting the Taliban, which is not a threat at all to the US homeland. Thus point one is out. Now the Taliban was defending Bin Laden, and so the UN approved the attack since the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. That made it a war to uphold the desire of the international community for the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden to face justice, not because he was personally a threat. In that respect, it's a legal war to uphold international law, but not to defend the US homeland, which could more effectively be defended simply through more security at airports.

As for Al-Qaeda, yes it is a threat, but like I said, it could best be tackled at airports than in a particular country where its members might or might not be.

 

[Machjo]

"International Law" is meaningless since not every country in the world has signed onto it. It is, for the most part, unenforceable.

Some are more universally accepted. For instance, the UN generally expects a nation to request permission to wage war for any reason other than defence. Based on that, Iraq was an ilegal war.

 

[gerryh]

yes....some country's ask...it is not nessary, as Iraq has made quite plain...asked and ignored, and the U.N. could do nothing about it.

 

[Machjo]

yes....some country's ask...it is not nessary, as Iraq has made quite plain...asked and ignored, and the U.N. could do nothing about it.

Whether international law can be enforced is a separate matter though.

But getting back to the OP, what do you believe to be legitimate reasons to wage war, or illegitimate reasons to wage war?

 

[Machjo]

Another point I'd make is that the only kind of war that should be acceptable is an all-out war, whereby the goal is to destry an enemy government and then pull out.

None of the ishy washy wars of liberation, as they get confusing since they are essentially half war and half diplomacy. Soldiers are not diplomats. They're trained to kill and as such should not be put into any diplomatic mission.

To take Afghanistan as an example, the army shoud have gone in and taken Bin Laden. If the Afghan government should stand in the way, then destroy the Afghan government first and then get Bin Laden. If they can't find bin Laden within let's say a 24-hour period after the collapse of teh Afghan government, it's time to pull out.

 

[L Gilbert]

Nations are simply extensions of people. So I tend to loosely justify violence as necessary if attacked, or if another has been wrongfully attacked. It depends upon circumstances, though, so it isn't a hard and fast rule of mine.
I happen to think that some good things can come of the thing in Afghanistan and some already have. In general, I think the Taliban are just really nasty people the rest of the workd could do without and no nation should support them..