In the wake of 9/11, invading Afghanistan was a war of necessity. Writing in The New York Times (August 20, 2009), President of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, concludes that what was once a war of necessity has become a war of choice.
Defining a War of Necessity
Haass writes that a “war of necessity” must meet two tests. “They involve, first, vital national interests and, second, a lack of viable alternatives to the use of military force to protect those interests.” He includes the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Persian Gulf War as examples of wars of necessity involving U.S. forces.
By his judgement, the Afghanistan conflict was also a war of necessity: “The United States needed to act in self-defence to oust the Taliban. There was no viable alternative.”
And, he hastens to point out, that there is nothing inherently wrong or right about a war of choice.
Now there Alternatives to Military Force in Afghanistan
With the Taliban ousted and a regime friendly towards the United States in power, President Obama could consider pulling forces out of Afghanistan. Of course, that might lead to the return of the Taliban and the recreation of a haven from which terrorists can plan and launch new attacks against American assets.
Remaining and reinforcing the American presence in the country is the policy President Obama has chosen. “Afghanistan is thus a war of choice,” writes Haass, “Mr. Obama’s war of choice. In this way, Afghanistan is analogous to Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, and today’s Iraq.”
But, he says there is no guarantee that the strategy of putting more boots on the ground will work either.
Criticism of Obama’s Choice in Afghanistan
Robert Kagan offers a more robust disapproval of Washington’s escalation of the military presence in Afghanistan. Kagan is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Writing in The Washington Post (August 23, 2009) he sees the “war of necessity” argument as a bit of spin doctoring: “For many, including Obama, the present purpose is to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, Obama’s ‘good’ war from George W. Bush’s ‘bad’ war. But it won’t work.”
Kagan sees this as an attempt to appear morally pure. If the war has been forced onto the Obama administration then blame for such things as civilian casualties is reduced to the unfortunate side effects of a necessary action.
“…It prevents scrutiny of one’s own motives, which in nations, as in individuals, are rarely pure,” writes Kagan.
Afghanistan War Pulling in more Soldiers
The year 2009 has been the deadliest so far in the eight-year-old conflict in terms of both civilians and military casualties.
The officer commanding the NATO forces, U.S. General Stanley McChrystal is quoted by AlJazeera.net (September 1, 2009) as saying, “The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment, and resolve and increased unity of effort.”
That new strategy seems to be a stepping up of the current one. McChrystal has signalled he wants more troops than the 103,000 he currently has under his command. He also has said he wants Afghanistan’s own army and police force nearly doubled to 300,000.
And, Al Jazeera’s James Bays, says more of those soldiers are going to be at the sharp end of the action: “I think that the general would like to see more of the troops who are here moved to frontline fighting positions.”
Meanwhile, Richard Haass comments, “It is not certain that doing more will achieve more.”
 |
