![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Is the use of armed force by international forces in Afghanistan ethically justified? The answer is one of degree: the fighting is neither completely just nor completely unjust. To evaluate the extent of justification, a novel Just War Index (JWI) is introduced. It is a composite indicator: the average of estimated values for seven criteria from the long-standing Just War tradition – Just Cause, Right Intent, Net benefit, Legitimate Authority, Last Resort, Proportionality of Means and Right Conduct, each of which are evaluated on a 7-point scale. Because the two international missions using armed force in Afghanistan – the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) – have different mandates, different histories and different approaches to the use of force, they are evaluated separately. The ISAF mission is found considerably more justified than OEF though still ethically deficient.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was derived from a keynote address given at a conference titled War, Human Dignity and Nation Building: Theological Perspectives on Canada's Role in Afghanistan. A longer version, which includes a proposal for a UN peace force in Afghanistan, is provided in the conference proceedings and online (Dorn Citation2011). The research work for this paper was funded, in part, by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). The author thanks Courtney Hood for research assistance, and Davis Brown, Ryan Cross, Cameron Harrington, LCol. Richard Kelderman, Prof. Chris Madsen, Dr. David Mandel, Dr. Peter Langille, and reviewers for Journal of Military Ethics for feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. The views are the responsibility of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian government.
Notes
1. A standard modern work on Just War theory is Walzer (Citation2006). Original texts with commentary, showing the evolution of Just War tradition, are provided in Reichberg, Syse & Begby (Citation2006).
2. President Barack Obama (2009) stated in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: ‘The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence’.
3. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ concept was developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS Citation2001), established by the government Canada in 2000. R2P adopts the following principles explicitly: Just Cause, Right Intention, Last Resort, Proportional Means, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Right Authority, and a series of ‘operational principles’, including adherence to international humanitarian law. Endorsement of R2P was made by a summit of world leaders in 2005 (United Nations General Assembly Citation2005: paras. 138-9).
4. A survey of over 100 experts in international affairs was made for wars and conflicts fought by the United States since 1900 (Dorn 2011). Experts who self-identified themselves on the ‘political right’ tended to evaluate US conflicts higher (JWI more than 1.0 point higher on the scale −3 to +3) than those who consider themselves on the ‘political left’. However, the two sides tended to rate US conflicts in a similar order.
5. Though one frequently cited criterion, ‘reasonable prospect of success’, was not included explicitly in the evaluation here, it is implicit in the evaluation of net benefit and other criteria. For instance, if the Afghan war is unsuccessful, it is hard to imagine that it would result in a net benefit. For instance, ‘proportionality of means’ is often considered a component of right conduct (jus in bello). And ‘right intent’ and ‘net benefit’ are closely linked to the ‘just cause’ criterion.
6. General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of OEF and ISAF forces, said he needed additional troops within the next year or else the conflict ‘will likely result in failure’ (Schmitt & Shankar Citation2009).
7. For instance, members of the ‘Toronto 18’ cited the presence of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan as an inspiration for their attempted terrorist attacks (see CTV News Citation2010).
8. Combined with Operations Iraqi Freedom and Noble Eagle (homeland security), ‘war funding’ in the decade after 9/11 totals well over $1 trillion (Belasco Citation2009).
9. See, for instance, Harding (Citation2011) and International Crisis Group (Citation2008: 11).
10. The concept of ‘legitimate authority’ in international law can be distinguished from the more traditional criterion of ‘proper authority’, which means a ruler or government in the more traditional Just War literature. For examples of the latter, see Cole (Citation2002: 78); Johnson (Citation2005: 38) and Brown (Citation2008: chap. 4).
11. The monopoly of the Security Council on the use of force is drawn from the UN Charter. Article 53 states that ‘no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council’.
12. Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 expresses sympathy and condolences to the victims of the 9/11 attack and to the US Government. It calls on states to bring to justice the perpetrators and expressed ‘its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism’. The Council's next resolution on terrorism, Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001, creates the Counter-Terrorism Committee but, like Resolution 1368, makes no mention of Afghanistan or Al Qaeda.
13. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been a point of contention for the governments for decades, especially since 1993 when the Durand Line Agreement is alleged by Afghanistan to have expired, one hundred years after its signature.
14. In the US Supreme Court, three relevant cases are: Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S.Ct. 2686 (2004); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006); Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008).