End the Occupation of Iraq - and Afghanistan
By Marjorie Cohn
Submitted to portside
So far, Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S.
military presence in Iraq has been stymied by
resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's
timetable for withdrawal of American troops has
evidently been joined by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and
John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving
between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there
indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry
out "counter-insurgency operations." That would not end
the occupation. We must call for bringing home - not
redeploying - all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing
all U.S. military bases, and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.
In light of stepped up violence in Afghanistan , and for
political reasons - following Obama's lead - Bush will
be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan . Although the
U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the
invasion of Iraq , many Americans see it as a
justifiable response to the attacks of September 11,
2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower
than those in Iraq - so far. Practically no one in the
United States is currently questioning the legality or
propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan .
The cover of Time magazine calls it "The Right War."
The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must
settle their international disputes by peaceful means,
and no nation can use military force except in
self-defense or when authorized by the Security
Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed two
resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of
military force in Afghanistan . Resolutions 1368 and
1373 condemned the September 11 attacks, and ordered
the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist
activity; the prevention of the commission of and
support for terrorist attacks; the taking of necessary
steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity,
including the sharing of information; and urged
ratification and enforcement of the international
conventions against terrorism.
The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate
self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because
the attacks on September 11 were criminal attacks, not
"armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not
attack the United States . In fact, 15 of the 19
hijackers came from Saudi Arabia . Furthermore, there
was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the
United States after September 11, or Bush would not
have waited three weeks before initiating his October
2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense
must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of
means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic
principle of self-defense in international law has been
affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that
it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training
terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument
to attack the United States after they overthrew the
vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe
haven in the United States . The people in Latin
American countries whose dictators were trained in
torture techniques at the School of the Americas could
likewise have attacked the torture training facility in
Ft. Benning, Georgia under that specious rationale.
Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill
thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes
against humanity. They must be identified and brought
to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation
by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only
lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghanis.
The hatred that fueled 19 people to blow themselves up
and take 3,000 innocents with them has its genesis in a
history of the U.S. government's exploitation of people
in oil-rich nations around the world. Bush accused the
terrorists of targeting our freedom and democracy. But
it was not the Statue of Liberty that was destroyed. It
was the World Trade Center - symbol of the U.S.-led
global economic system, and the Pentagon - heart of the
U.S. military, that took the hits. Those who committed
these heinous crimes were attacking American foreign
policy. That policy has resulted in the deaths of two
million Iraqis - from both Bill Clinton's punishing
sanctions and George W. Bush's war. It has led to
uncritical support of Israel 's brutal occupation of
Palestinian lands; and it has stationed more than 700
U.S. military bases in foreign countries.
Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a
political analysis of why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred
and a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S. foreign
policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who
despise American imperialism. The "Global War on
Terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this
country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You
cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat
terrorism is by identifying and targeting its root
causes, including poverty, lack of education, and foreign occupation.
There are already 60,000 foreign troops, including
36,000 Americans, in Afghanistan . Large increases in
U.S. troops during the past year have failed to
stabilize the situation there. Most American forces
operate in the eastern part of the country; yet by July
2008, attacks there were up by 40 percent. Zbigniew
Brzezinski, national security advisor for Jimmy Carter,
is skeptical that the answer for Afghanistan is more
troops. He warns that the United States will, like the
Soviet Union, be seen as the invader, especially as we
conduct military operations "with little regard for
civilian casualties." Brzezinski advocates Europeans
bribing Afghan farmers not to cultivate poppies for
heroin, as well as the bribery of tribal warlords to
isolate al-Qaeda from a Taliban that is "not a united
force, not a world-oriented terrorist movement, but a
real Afghan phenomenon."
We might heed Canada 's warning that a broader mission,
under the auspices of the United Nations instead of
NATO, would be more effective. Our policy in
Afghanistan and Pakistan should emphasize economic
assistance for reconstruction, development and
education, not for more weapons. The United States must
refrain from further Predator missile strikes in
Pakistan, and pursue diplomacy, not occupation.
Nor should we be threatening war against Iran , which
would also be illegal and result in an unmitigated
disaster. The U.N. Charter forbids any country to use,
or threaten to use, military force against another
country except in self-defense or when the Security
Council has given its blessing. In spite of the U.N.
International Atomic Energy Agency's conclusion that
there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear
weapons, the White House, Congress, and Israel have
continued to rattle the sabers in Iran 's direction.
Nevertheless, the antiwar movement has so far fended
off passage of HR 362 in the House of Representatives,
a bill which is tantamount to a call for a naval
blockade against Iran - considered an act of war under
international law. Credit goes to United for Peace and
Justice, Code Pink, Peace Action, and dozens of other
organizations that pressured Congress to think twice
before taking that dangerous step.
We should pursue diplomacy, not war, with Iran ; end the
U.S. occupation of Iraq ; and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan .
Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers
Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of
Law. She is the author of Cowboy Republic : Six Ways the
Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and her new book, Rules of
Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military
Dissent (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd), will be
published this winter. Her articles are archived at
Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it.
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment