The tragic “friendly fire” incident at the weekend, in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were allegedly killed in a Nato airstrike, raises many questions. Who shot first? How should Pakistan respond? What is the future for the already traumatised US-Pakistan relationship?
But surely the biggest question, after a decade of conflict, is this: Should the United States even have launched military action in Afghanistan in the first place? And was the magnitude of the attacks on September 11, 2001, as great as to mean there was no choice but to launch military operations?
Setting aside the support of the international community, the United States still chose to act unilaterally against Afghanistan, claiming self–defence. There was much debate at the time over the legality of the initial use of force. Yet the devastation that the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan have experienced over the last decade as US and coalition forces have battled Taliban militias almost makes that debate seem trite.
Interestingly, the justification for the war has transformed from self-defence, to an even less well defined fight against global terrorism. Meanwhile, Pakistan-based Taliban have replaced al-Qaeda as the central enemy in a war that has gradually come to be seen by Afghans as regime enforcement.
Whatever the reason given for military action, it has become increasingly clear that a dangerous precedent was set in Afghanistan. The justification for the use of force as self-defence has been increasingly utilised by opportunistic states to meet the challenge of insurgents and rebels, and this unwanted development of the doctrine of pre-emptive and preventive self-defence now poses a grave threat to international peace and security.
The folly of drone strikes [continued]
No related posts.
