# Is Canada's Role in Afghanistan Really Just?



## Quag (25 Feb 2007)

Hey Guys,

I'm just finishing up a paper for a War and Political Theory Class.  I don't know if many of you have the time for this, but if you find something that could be useful to add to this paper, let me know.  If not, I thought it might be a good read.  I know that I will do poorly on the paper, because it is written pro-Afghanistan, which is against what academics believe in.  However, any comments or suggestions are appreciated.

_Please note that the footnotes and references did not carry over.  If anyone wants references or footnotes, just leave a message.  Also, the format did not cut and paste well either, so understand that the real paper is in better format (tabs, spacing, sectioning)._
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

What are Canadian soldiers fighting and dying for in southern Afghanistan? 

Is it "retribution" for the 9/11 terrorist attacks (24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center attack) as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently stated ?

Is it at the request of the Afghan government as stated on the official government website?

Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society. 

With mounting casualty rates, growing intensity of battles, and skyrocketing economic costs associated with war, many Canadians have begun to question Canada’s role in Afghanistan.  What was the initial purpose in sending Canada’s military to Afghanistan?  Has Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan changed?  Is Canada’s role in Afghanistan just?  
This paper will examine Canada’s role in Afghanistan in an effort to determine if in fact Canada is fighting a just war.  To arrive at a conclusion, this paper must first define the term “just war” and then establish whether or not Canada’s mission in Afghanistan fulfills the criteria of being just.  

A Brief Overview of Military Involvement in Afghanistan

When the Soviet Union withdrew its armed forces from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1989, the US government, who had backed guerilla fighters known as the Mujahideen for a number of years to counter the Soviet control in the oil-rich Middle East, did little to help stabilize or rebuild the war torn country.  With no support or clear leadership, the country degenerated into a number of warlord states that continually battled against each other.  The Taliban took control of Kabul in 1996. By the year 2000, they controlled 95% of the country and had begun to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law .  

The Taliban ruled for about six years (1996 – 2002) during which time much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women in particular bore the brunt of Taliban rule and were banned from jobs and forbidden to attend schools or universities.  Communists and anyone who dared to oppose the Taliban regime were punished instantly.  Thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet as dictated by Sharia law. The Taliban initially destroyed the majority of the opium production but in more recent years have turned to opium to finance their terrorist efforts .  

After September 11, 2001, the Taliban were implicated by the US as supporters of terrorists.  The US believed that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was based in Afghanistan.  They launched Operation Enduring Freedom, a military campaign aimed at destroy the Al-Qaeda network and eventually overthrew the Taliban government.   An interim government was agreed upon by representatives of Afghanistan's various factions during talks held in Bonn, Germany. On December 22, 2001, Hamid Karzai, an Afghan tribal leader, was sworn in as interim chairman of the government.   After nearly seven years as Afghanistan's leader, President Hamid Karzai has very little authority over large parts of his country.  Warlords, militants, and drug smugglers continue to disrupt and destabilize most of the country.  In 2006 Afghanistan's opium harvest reached record levels, increasing by 50% and representing 92% of the world's opium supply .
In 2003, when the United States shifted its military efforts to fighting the war in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda began to regroup.  Despite the Taliban's threats to kill anyone who participated, Afghanistan's first democratic presidential elections in Oct. 2004 were a success. Ten million Afghans, including more than 40% of eligible women, registered to vote.  The polls were reasonably peaceful and the elections deemed fair by international observers. 

In 2005 and 2006, the Taliban continued its resurgence.  Throughout the spring of 2006, Taliban militants focused their efforts on southern Afghanistan.  Many villagers were killed and U.S. and Afghan troops were targeted.  In August 2006, NATO troops took over military operations in southern Afghanistan from the U.S. led coalition.  

Canada now has a contingent of approximately 2,300 troops attempting to bring security and stability to southern Afghanistan, where Canada has had complete command of the multinational brigade headquarters.

A Just War

Throughout history, many wars have been fought.  Some of them have been declared just while others have been declared unjust.  The question that has lingered, long after these declarations have been made, is what defines a just war.  Augustine, bishop of Hippo, developed what has today become a cornerstone formulation of just war.  It is known in modern times as the Just War Theory.  Augustine thought that just war could be identified through a formulation of criteria, divided into jus ad bellum and jus in bello.  This paper will focus on five main points of jus ad bellum (deciding if a war is just before declaring war).  

Augustine proposed that to be a just war a war must, first, have a just cause.  Second, the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, gain power and other selfish desires.  Thirdly, the war must be waged by a legitimate authority.  Fourth, war must be used solely as a last resort.  Fifth and last, the war must have a reasonable probability of success.

Augustine’s jus ad bellum when applied to the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, must be compared to both the standard government reports regarding Canada’s role as well as independent assessments of the situation regarding Canada’s decision to send armed forces to Afghanistan.  

Officially, the Afghanistan deployment is not, nor has it ever been, a traditional peacekeeping mission. There are no cease-fire arrangements to enforce and no negotiated peace settlement to respect. Negotiation is not an option with insurgent groups who are not interested in the kind of peace that the Afghan people seek. 
Approximately 2,500 members of the Canadian Forces are currently serving as part of Joint Task Force Afghanistan.  They play a key role in the NATO-led ISAF mission whose goal is to help bring security and stability, and foster development in Afghanistan. 

The Canadian government has made it clear that the military’s role in Afghanistan is not one of peace-keeping, however, they maintain that the underlying goal is to bring security and stability to the region.  To that end, it would appear that there is a just cause to the deployment of troops to the region.  Of course, the main purpose behind any military deployment in any country is to protect the safety and security of the country of military origin.  September 11, 2001 changed everything in the world in terms of safety and security.  For the first time in history, western nations were proven to be vulnerable to attack.  Traditional aspects of war no longer applied.  War had become subversive – hidden from plain view.  Terrorist cells were now the new armies; attacks that targeted mass destruction and death in highly populated areas were now the new battlegrounds. 

The chief concern of the Canadian government is to protect Canada, at all costs.  There are continued threats and reports of terrorists who justify attacks on and from Canadian soil as part of their war against the western world and in particular the United States.  For example, seventeen Muslim men were convicted in 2006 of terrorism related charges for their involvement in the plot to murder thousands of innocent Canadians .  

There are people in this world who want to hurt Canada and Canadians. They want to do that in order to force us to bow to their will. We need to prevent those attacks and the best way to do that is to make it harder and harder for radical, barbaric, terrorist movements to find a secure base from which they can mount attacks on us. That is what a Taliban government in Afghanistan provided for al Qaeda: a secure base. That is what a Taliban government will do again – if we allow them to regain power. Helping the legitimate, elected Government of Afghanistan defeat the Taliban insurgency is the key. It is in our national interests to have a stable, free Afghanistan which can, at its own pace, work its way into the modern, connected world. 

Taking a few key points from the preceding quote, one can see that al Qaeda provided a secure base for the terrorists to coordinate and plot deadly terrorist activity.  Because it has already been proven that terrorists have plotted attacks against Canada, it is easy to infer from this that it is in Canada’s national interest to prevent these terrorists from establishing a secure base from which they can form networks and launch these attacks.  

From these arguments, one can conclude that Augustine’s first condition of the Just War Theory has been satisfied.

The second condition of Augustine’s Just War Theory is that the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, and gain power.  It is sufficient enough to use the aforementioned evidence of Canada’s role in Afghanistan to prove that it is not motivated by a desire to inflict harm or gain power.  To further this, initiatives such as the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team and the Afghanistan Compact  prove Canada’s determination to rebuild Afghanistan and attempt to minimize harm and destruction in the country.  

This second condition of Augustine’s Just War Theory does not need any more evidence to prove that it is fulfilled.

This brings us to the third condition of Augustine’s War Theory.  This condition states that the war must be waged by a legitimate authority.  The main problem with this principle lies in identifying who, if anyone, qualifies as a legitimate authority.  To date, there are over thirty-seven countries in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the UN mandated security force which is present in Afghanistan.  Canada, therefore, has the full endorsement and backing of the United Nations to be in Afghanistan.  Does this mean that the war in Afghanistan is waged by a legitimate authority?  If one agrees that the United Nations is the legitimate authority that generally speaks for the majority of nations in the world, then one can conclude that the war in Afghanistan is being waged by a legitimate authority.

If all the conditions have been met so far, it is reasonable to analyze Augustine’s fourth condition.  This condition states that war must only be used as a last resort.  It is universally agreed that war is rarely considered as a first or even primary option when it comes to mediating disputes.  This does not mean that it will not become at times a necessary option.  Instead, it should be considered an option when all other options have been exhausted.  And it should only be considered an option if the cause is just (bringing the argument back to the first condition).

Pacifists may argue that diplomacy is always the preferred option while war is never justified, which completely dismisses this principle, or, more broadly, the whole Just War Theory.  To argue this matter specifically would take much space and would stray from the thesis of this paper.  It would be accurate to state that diplomacy is an excellent and preferred first option in an effort to prevent war.  However, there comes a time when even the best diplomatic efforts fail, and such a threat ensues in one’s motherland that makes it necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s interests and ensure the safety and security of the nation.  

The fifth and last condition that must be satisfied to declare Canada’s war just is that it must have a reasonable likeliness of success.  This is where many Canadians are confused.  Many Canadians are constantly seeking an answer to the question, “Is this mission winnable?”.  The answer to this is not a known one for sure.  The Ruxted Group  argues that the answer is yes, however, they assume that the mission will be an extended one.  An analogy the Ruxted Group uses sums up why the mission in Afghanistan is going to take time to achieve success:

Afghanistan is like a boat that is badly damaged after a storm - 30 years of civil strife, brutal occupation, and fundamentalist oppression have damaged what was once a stable and peaceful country under a constitutional monarchy. Like a damaged ship, Afghanistan is in danger of sinking back into the failed state it once was unless it gets the help it needs. This is where Canada and its NATO allies come in. There are big holes in the boat down below that are letting the water in. Our military forces are bailing water. The Canadian public, media and some politicians are watching this and wondering why we don't just plug the holes. We are, but if we stop bailing the boat will sink. The military have to keep bailing long enough for some other folks to get to the business of patching the holes. Those other people are other government departments, non-governmental agencies and the elected Government of Afghanistan, including the Afghan National Security Forces. They need time, and the military are buying that time. 

Conclusion

Based on the arguments presented in this paper one can conclude that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is “just”.  The issue, however, is complex.  In Augustine’s view, war is just if it meets five criteria.  Canada’s “war” in Afghanistan does meet all five of the criteria of the Just War Theory but Canada’s involvement is much more than military might and the concept of winning or losing a war.   Canada is involved to protect their own interests in terms of a global threat directed at the western world.  But, Canada recognizes that to effect change there needs to be an infrastructure that will allow the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their country and establish their own governmental structure.  This is a highly complex and improbable task.  Given the warlord factions within the country and the fragile state of the economy, the probable chances of success are limited without a major influx of cash to help build a sustainable economy and educate people to manage the affairs of the nation.  This cash influx will be limited as Afghanistan is not one of the oil rich nations and therefore has little to offer foreign venture capitalists.  

So, while the war in Afghanistan and Canada’s involvement in providing the military support to prevent the Taliban from regaining control of the country can be said to be just, the long term prognosis for success is not good.  Should Canada withdraw its troops and cut its losses?  To do so would certainly be morally wrong and “unjust” as the rationale for entering the country in the first place was to provide peace and stability in the country which would hopefully lead to less of a worldwide threat from terrorists acting from within Afghanistan.  Canada and the UN forces have removed that threat for the time being but the second aspect of their mission is far from complete.  Canada must stay the course. 

The Afghan people are relying on the international community to help them rebuild their lives and their country after having suffered through decades of instability, oppression and insurgency. The biggest threat to rebuilding is continued violence and threats from insurgents whose principal tactics are meant to disrupt and to prohibit Afghan men, women and children from going about their daily lives. 

If Canada was to withdraw its troops before the Afghan government and military was in a position to act independently to defend the interests of their country, it would send the country spirally back to where it was after the Soviet Union withdrew its troops in 1989.  More than likely, the Taliban would reemerge as the dominant group, no doubt because it has links to, and is backed by, the Al-Qaeda terrorist network which now seems to be based in Pakistan. 

Is Afghanistan to Canada, what Iraq is to the United States?  Are they both no win situations? It would appear that while the situations certainly have their similarities, the approach of the outside forces is somewhat different.  Canada recently handed over close to one million dollars to over fifty families whose land was expropriated by the building of a highway by Canadian forces.  The actual payments were negotiated through tribal elders as land ownership records were virtually non-existent.  This kind of commitment shown by Canada to “do the right thing” is indicative of the focus and intent of the entire project.  It is a humanitarian mission on a large scale that also requires the use of extreme force to remove a very real threat to the country’s stability – the Taliban.  Canada may need to stay as a military presence for a number of years to come but to leave now, when so much has been accomplished, would certainly be unjust.


----------



## reccetrooper18 (11 Apr 2007)

That was a tremendous paper. I have often struggled with the just war theory in Afghanistan because it easily satisfy's most criteria but has trouble fulfilling others. Thank you very much for writing that. I desperately want to go over there as soon as I am finished all my training. However as a Christian it is impertinent that I know I am fighting for the right reasons. I have heard these arguments before but never in response to the just war theory. You have no idea how much this paper puts my mind at ease. I fully believe in our mission and am now even more confident that we are fighting for what is just.


----------



## MediTech (11 Apr 2007)

From a format perspective, unless asked to do so, it is poor format to pose direct questions in an essay.  You're supposed to state a thesis and not ask a question. You state a position and back it up with facts.  Other than that is it relatively well done.  Take my advice or leave it but I have double As in first year english so you can trust me.


----------



## Quag (11 Apr 2007)

MedTech,

I know that it looks terrible, I agree.  But this is the way the prof wanted it done.  I even emailed him twice asking about the question instead of a stated thesis.  Stand by, another one coming I just finished.


----------



## Quag (11 Apr 2007)

OK so, this paper takes in both sides of arguments, as required by the prof.  Please know that I do not agree with all the arguments, just think that it makes solid arguments.  It was hard to keep this paper to 2500 words, as some of you might be able to tell with the "rushed" makeup of the paper.  There was so much information I had to cram into a tiny paper. Once agani references were not able to be copied and pasted so if someone wants, I will send them.  Also see works cited at bottom.  Without further a due:  

                                                              

“Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” ~Paulo Friere.

As the western world becomes more intricately involved in global warfare, debate rages as to whether the US and Canadian involvement in the “global war on terrorism” is indeed a necessary venture to protect democracy and human rights or, if it is in fact, a form of imperialism intended to protect economic and political interests.
Long gone is the contemporary, Trinitarian  warfare that was given the spotlight by van Creveld, but conceived by Clausewitz.   Taking the place of classical Trinitarian war is an effective regime of guerilla warfare tactics often carried out by non-nation organizations.  This is best exemplified by the Taliban which once held great power in Afghanistan.  This change in style of warfare, however, must bring with it a change in assessing why, and how, wars are fought.

Advocates and opponents of the “war on terrorism” typically concern themselves only with the basics, or core points, of their own arguments.   Both tend to disregard opposing viewpoints and often ignore strong arguments of the opposing point of view.  In order to analyze arguments for and against and eventually arrive at a reasonable conclusion, one must study the strongest arguments from both sides of the debate, analyze strengths and weaknesses based on set criteria and then draw conclusions regarding the validity of those arguments.  

To analyze the arguments for and against involvement in the “war on terrorism” it would be helpful to develop criteria that would define a just war.  There are many theories for evaluating war, such as Militarism, Realism, Absolutism and Pacifism.   However, the lack of solid critiques makes them not appropriate for this paper.  The reason that they are not reliable as criteria for evaluating war arguments is because they adopt an extremist position, being that they place themselves on one end of the spectrum.  A more plausible set of criteria is best introduced by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, whom established what has today become a cornerstone formulation of just war.  It is known in modern times as the Just War Theory.  Augustine thought that just war could be identified through a formulation of criteria, divided into jus ad bellum and jus in bello.  Augustine proposed that to be a just war, a war must first have a just cause.  Second, the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, gain power and other selfish desires.  Thirdly, the war must be waged by a legitimate authority.  Fourth, war must be used solely as a last resort.  Fifth and last, the war must have a reasonable probability of success .  The Just War Theory provides credible criteria for evaluating arguments for and against the war in Afghanistan because it is one of the few theories that have withstood the harshness of time itself.  Just war theory was first introduced in ancient Greek society, where some of the world’s fiercest and longest wars have been fought.  Later, it was refined by a number of Christian theologians.  The Just War Theory has been adopted by a variety of scholars that have used it for the purpose of passing judgment concerning the use of force.  The Just War Theory has even been updated and expanded to allow for the critiquing of the unconventional types of warfare previously mentioned.  The Just War Theory has been a cornerstone for modern scholars such as Jean Bethke Elshtain  and Michael Walzer , and great thinkers of the past such as Cicero and Mengzi.  For these reasons, the author of this paper must conclude that the Just War Theory is credible enough to use as a basis for evaluating arguments in respect to the war in Afghanistan.  Now the criteria must be applied to the best arguments for and against the war in Afghanistan.

In examining the first criteria, war must have a just cause, one arrives at a problem.  It is difficult to define what a just cause is, as there are differences of opinion concerning the definition of “just”.   St. Augustine, however, said that just cause could be three things :

a)	defending against attack
b)	recapturing things taken
c)	punishing people who have done wrong

St. Augustine felt that each of these criteria could be seen as an act of justice.  He felt that the person(s)/state(s)/entity(ies) that committed the injustice deserved to be harmed because they have done wrong.  

A modern definition of what just cause is, in relation to the Just War Theory was presented by the US Catholic Conference in 1993.  The definition that was agreed upon by this conference is as follows:

“Just cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil i.e. aggression of massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations.” 

Expanding this concept of human rights, one might easily be able to argue that “a war is just in order to put right, acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind” .  Using this expanded definition of “just cause” one must apply it to the concept of a “just war” and make a determination on who can be punished.  Augustine argues that the following three groups of people can be punished in proportion to the act of injustice committed :
a)	The whole people of another country
b)	The leaders of another country
c)	Private individuals in another country

Proponents of western involvement in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan would argue that the seeds of terrorism grow in these countries and, if left unabated, would lead to an organized strike against the western world along the same lines as the 9/11 attack or, the potentially more devastating, “dirty bomb” attack.  Advocates of military involvement in these countries argue that the only plausible manner to disrupt the ever present terrorist threat is to take the offensive and destabilize the potential organization of these supposed terrorist factions.  Opponents of this military involvement, on the other hand, would argue that the war is, in fact, not just based on the fact that there has been no direct movement by either country (Iraq and Afghanistan) to interfere with the rights, freedoms and liberty of either the US or Canada.  There has been no military effort on the part of either country to overrun the governments of, or move into territory held by, either the US or Canada.  The western world then, has no right to get involved in a military venture on foreign soil and thus any movement to that effect is unjust according to the first criteria established by Augustine.  In examining these points, there is a solid argument to be made that the 9/11 attack was in fact an “invasion” of an opposing body.  In that regard, the proponents of war might be given the edge.  Many of the points that St. Augustine put forth can be applied to prove that the motives for the war in Afghanistan are just.  Perhaps the strongest is the point about punishing people who have done wrong.  As there has been an attack on a nation, and many innocent human beings were slaughtered and seriously injured, this alone creates a just cause, according to St. Augustine.  Punishing selected individuals or groups in another country, which is what the coalition forces can be viewed as doing and which is often postulated as an argument against military involvement by those who oppose the war, still makes the war a just cause, if one accepts the criteria established by St. Augustine.  Therefore one may conclude that there is just cause for the war in Afghanistan, in many different aspects.  The argument put forth by opponents of the war follows the outdated Trinitarian style of war that assumes an attack on one nation by another.   Opponents of the war must be prepared to accept what van Creveld postulates; that the style of warfare is changing, yet it is war none the less.

The second criteria states that war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, gain power and other selfish desires.  Proponents of the war would argue that the motivation is to free the citizens of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan from the brutal regimes that existed prior to the military involvement.  In both countries, people were persecuted and murdered if they dared to defy the ruling government.  Rights were non-existent and women were especially ill treated and subject to appalling violations of their rights.  Opponents of the war would argue that the underlying motivation for western involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to inflict harm and wreak vengeance for the 9/11 attacks that struck at the very core of the democratic western world.  They might also argue that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a thinly veiled attempt to gain control of countries that are vital for the delivery of oil to the western world.  Central Asian oil reserves contain the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world.  Afghanistan itself does not harbor significant oil reserves, however, it is a gateway to the Caspian Sea region, which holds a present day estimate of 270 billion barrels of oil, or 20 percent of all the world’s oil.  As well, it contains over 665 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which is over one-eighth of the planet’s gas reserves.  This particular argument contends that the sole intention of the Coalition invasion of Afghanistan is to secure these resources by occupying a politically unstable region and establishing a new political framework in which hegemonic control can be exercised.  According to this argument, once security has been brought to Afghanistan, the United States of America can effectively exert its hegemonic control of the area, thus controlling the resources within it.  This argument of opponents of the war is very convincing especially as it relates to the movement of oil.  There is no denying that the western world can, and more than likely will, prosper from the strategic control and hegemonic power incurred from the occupation in Afghanistan.  That being said, one must wonder if that is a primary objective of the western world, or is it a secondary or even tertiary objective of the war.  After all, if the western world is constantly being threatened with terrorism and mass destruction, what good is oil or economy as a whole if it is in ruins?  However, the proponents have the strongest argument in regards to the criteria because it is more plausible that a primary goal of the wars would be for human rights and defense.

The third criteria is that the war must be waged by a legitimate authority.  For proponents of the war, there is no higher a legitimate authority than that of the western world.  In fact, proponents would argue that the war is UN led which lends itself to the argument that the world’s governing body has legitimately sanctioned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Opponents would argue that the UN is merely a puppet for its master the United States and that Canada is just a lap dog doing its master’s bidding.  The third criteria would be argued best by the proponents as the war is UN sanctioned and led.  The UN has membership of the majority of the nations of the world.  If there was such corruption and greed within the organization, surely membership rates would not be as high.  One might successfully argue that nations are simply vying for the protection of the hegemonic power (United States), however, by having membership in the United Nations, member countries accept that it is a legitimate authority and that it looks out for the best interests of the world.  Therefore if the UN sanctions actions in Afghanistan, one must conclude that it is in the best interest of the world.

The fourth criteria is that war must be used solely as a last resort.  Proponents would argue that, given the terrorist threat and invasion on western soil, there was no other resort than to go to war.  Proponents cite several attacks both on and off western soil that indicate the terrorist plot to destabilize and destroy anything associated with the western world.  As stated earlier in this essay, there is no longer a traditional mindset when it comes to war.  It is no longer one country or number of countries invading other countries with the intent to either destroy or take over.  It is, instead, a collective of like minded organizations that act either independently or collectively to undermine and inflict the greatest damage possible on its common enemy(ies), which in this case happens to be the western world and its global supporters.  Opponents would argue that the 9/11 attacks were simply the act of a deranged group of individuals that act no differently than organized criminal gangs.  They would argue that invasion of a country would be the last thing that should happen especially as the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks were associated with several different countries and could not be tracked to acting on behalf of any governing body.  Convincing arguments for this criteria can be presented effectively on both sides of the spectrum, opponents and proponents.  It would appear that neither side has an advantage in arguing for or against war used as solely a last resort.

The fifth, and final criteria, is that the war must have a reasonable probability of success.  For proponents of the war, the involvement of western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has a reasonable probability of success.  They would argue that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein happened in a relatively short period of time which effectively removed a sadistic dictator from power and set the wheels in motion for the people of Iraq to establish a democratic government.  Likewise in Afghanistan, the Taliban were quickly removed from power, reestablishing the rights of the oppressed people of that county and paving the way for democratically held elections.  Opponents of the war would argue that both countries are far from stable and that anti-western sentiment is getting stronger by the day.  They would cite the on-going civil strife within Iraq as evidence that the country is no further ahead than in the days before the American led invasion.  They would draw comparisons to the Vietnam war and how the Americans found themselves struggling with a withdrawal plan.  Again, the fifth criteria appears be a stand-off as initially the war appeared to have a reasonable probability of success but more lately has become a continuous battle against insurgency

In conclusion, it is logical to state that both sides have valid arguments to support their opposing theories concerning military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If one was to examine the arguments set against the just war theory of Augustine, one side’s arguments do not clearly outweigh the other side.  .  If there was a just war scorecard it might read: proponents 3 opponents 0, with two criteria tied.  But war is not a game and there is no score – only battles and bodies.  Future historians will decide whether western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was ultimately a success or dismal failure.  There can be no definitive conclusion as to what arguments, either for or against, would validate either continuing with, or withdrawing from, the war in Afghanistan.  It would appear that the best arguments in opposition to the war in Afghanistan revolve around economic issues, namely the notion of Imperialism.  In contrast, the best arguments in favor of the war in Afghanistan are predicated on the premise of defense of democracy and human rights.  

One cannot arrive at a definitive conclusion, as both arguments are very convincing.  However, this author presents what he thinks is the strongest argument yet for military involvement in any number of areas in the world - human rights should always take priority over everything else.  Control of oil or other economic power may be a secondary issue or motive in terms of engagement but the overriding duty of mankind is to protect human rights whether it be oppression by a tyrannical regime or genocide by way of ethnic cleansing. There are many other areas of the world that need intervention, particularly in Africa (Darfur) and it is incumbent upon those that have the will and the power to intervene.  To sit and watch and do nothing is morally irresponsible and shockingly egocentric. 

Works Cited:

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Small, Brad. Thomas Aquinas "The Just War Theory." The Lincoln-Douglas Great 
Philosopher Library Series.

Van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War. The Free Press, 1991.

Walzer, Michael.  Just and Unjust Wars. Basic Books, third edition, 2000.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Apr 2007)

Quag,

While you may be running out of time, I suggest you stick to discussing Afghanistan and remove any references to Iraq. Any mention of the latter, even in passing, tends to inflame and obscure the issues surrounding the war in the former. Second, in discussing the war for oil theory, you should refer to the US policy of weaning itself from foreign (or at least non-NAFTA) oil, which hardly fits with the giant, evil pipeline plot. In my opinion it would be politically unacceptable for any American interest - commercial and/or political - to advocate expending US resources to build a vulnerable pipleine through one of the more unstable regions of the world, when the demand is for both self-sufficiency and security.


----------



## Quag (11 Apr 2007)

Thanks for the input.  You are right, I involve Iraq when it shouldn't be.  I like your suggestion of adding the American policy ref oil.  Thanks for the suggestions! They will be implemented!


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2007)

Quag: Afstan in nowhere near the Caspian Sea oil, and Kazakhstan, which has other large oil reserves, has no common border with Afstan.  
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/caucasus_cntrl_asia_pol_2003.jpg

The whole oil thing is a complete black herring.  Here are the facts.  Kazakhstan (the major oil source in the area) is planning a pipeline through its own territory to link up across the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan with the existing Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.  This pipeline ends at the eastern Mediterranean in Turkey.  It transits no Russian territory.  Existing pipelines go via Russia and to China.

There is a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and (maybe) India.  But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest, and  such a pipeline is not likely to be built for quite a while.   In any case most of the gas would be for Pakistani or Indian consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/b8cadc86-b102-44ea-bce5-6d68c87b6ec9.html

Details on oil and gas in the region as a whole here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caspian/Background.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Quag (11 Apr 2007)

MarkOttawa,

I had a hard time seeing the Caspian Sea argument myself.  However, this was a huge issue in my class and is what the professor asked me to use.  Therefore I incorporated it and backed it a little, simply to please the prof.  I have learned in my time at university that having completely different opinions than your prof is perfect and you should have them, but not when passing in a paper ;D.  As you can see though, I supported the war in Afghanistan, which went against the prof's stance, so we will see how this plays out.  I'm going to use the info you provided me to put a slant on things and show that this argument is definately not credible as a primary or even secondary motivation for the war. Thanks for the help! Much appreciated!

I'm interested to see what people think about my argument in the end about how human rights triumph all arguments.  Is this too soft?  I think it is a valid argument though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2007)

Glad to see that our Institutes of higher learning are still a bastion of free speech, free though and critical thinking….. :
Keep up the good fight, if you believe what you feel, it makes it harder for people to put you down, show doubt and they will be like sharks.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2007)

Quag: Glad to help.  The oil angle had some slight relevance in the 90s before the BTC pipeline project got off the ground.  It was hardly in any way a factor in the military intervention after 9/11.  In the 90s the idea of the gas pipeline through Afstan was a more realistic possibility, but even then as I note hardly a major American national or economic interest .

Mark
Ottawa


----------

