[R-G] End the Occupations Of Iraq and Afghanistan

[Anthony Fenton]

July 29, 2008
Of Iraq and Afghanistan
End the Occupations
http://counterpunch.org/cohn07292008.html
By MARJORIE COHN

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 (which the United States  
has not ratified).

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 author of Cowboy  
Republic. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.