To What Extent Was the War in Afghanistan a Just War?
On October 7, 2001, the United States and its British ally initiated
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in
Afghanistan. The war had the backing of most just war theorists those who believe that wars must meet certain criteria before they can be deemed just. This essay will discuss various aspects of the causes and conduct of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they fit into established ethics of war in Western traditions. First, this analysis will deal with the justifications to go to war (jus ad bellum). While second, it will focus on the conduct of war (jus in bello). The analysis is divided further into the reasons behind the decision to wage war and the chief ideas of the conduct of warfare that will be examined both by the validations given and the individual ideologies of the ethics of war.
A military response, to the attack on the United States on the 11th of September was justified in terms of self-defence. In modern interpretations of just war theory there are two legitimate reasons for aggressive war: ‘self defence against an aggressor and humanitarian intervention against a sovereign state in response to acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind’. Evidently, if the US singled out Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as its targets, it would have run up against the widely held view that terrorist attacks, in and of themselves, do not justify military responses against sovereign states. Subsequently, in order to maintain the coalition against terrorism and establish a ‘just cause’ for OEF, the US adopted a two-pronged legal strategy. It began by expanding its focus to include the Taliban. By giving refuge to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and refusing to hand him over, the Taliban were alleged to have directly facilitated and endorsed his acts. The US in this way broadened the claim of self-defence to include the state of Afghanistan. Thus, the Taliban regime assumed responsibility for the armed attack
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in
Afghanistan. The war had the backing of most just war theorists those who believe that wars must meet certain criteria before they can be deemed just. This essay will discuss various aspects of the causes and conduct of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they fit into established ethics of war in Western traditions. First, this analysis will deal with the justifications to go to war (jus ad bellum). While second, it will focus on the conduct of war (jus in bello). The analysis is divided further into the reasons behind the decision to wage war and the chief ideas of the conduct of warfare that will be examined both by the validations given and the individual ideologies of the ethics of war.
A military response, to the attack on the United States on the 11th of September was justified in terms of self-defence. In modern interpretations of just war theory there are two legitimate reasons for aggressive war: ‘self defence against an aggressor and humanitarian intervention against a sovereign state in response to acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind’. Evidently, if the US singled out Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as its targets, it would have run up against the widely held view that terrorist attacks, in and of themselves, do not justify military responses against sovereign states. Subsequently, in order to maintain the coalition against terrorism and establish a ‘just cause’ for OEF, the US adopted a two-pronged legal strategy. It began by expanding its focus to include the Taliban. By giving refuge to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and refusing to hand him over, the Taliban were alleged to have directly facilitated and endorsed his acts. The US in this way broadened the claim of self-defence to include the state of Afghanistan. Thus, the Taliban regime assumed responsibility for the armed attack