Afghanistan vs Iraq

This blog is directed to Mr. Patrick McIver. The venerable Mr. McIver asked me to clarify why I believe the invasion of Afghanistan was more justifiable than the invasion of Iraq. He correctly notes that both invasions were aimed at overthrowing a dictatorship. I will argue that there is a slight yet vital difference.

I argued that the invasion of Afghanistan was morally justifiable and in doing so implied the invasion of Iraq was not. First, I want to say (read: admit) that I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq. I said as early as winter 2001 that an invasion of Iraq was likely. I knew that the American intelligence and military elite wanted to oust Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. I recognized the tragedy of 9/11 as an event that could be used to finally get a President (George W. Bush as it were) and the American public on board. I was in favour of the invasion because the Saddam regime was dangerous (primarily to Iraqis) and illegitimate.*

But more to the point is the connection between the first strike (9/11) and the subsequent American military action. Every state has the right (and duty) to protect itself and respond to attack. The attacking organization was al-Qaeda. This terrorist organization was (is) primarily based in Afghanistan. The Afghan government at the time (the Taliban) was propped up by al-Qaeda. Without al-Qaeda's money and arms, the Taliban could have been easily ousted by a popular uprising. This is important to understanding why Afghanistan was attacked while other al-Qaeda friendly states (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) were able to avoid this fate. While other states could maintain themselves without al-Qaeda's support, the Taliban could not, and as such, any choice they made in the aftermath of 9/11 would have meant their demise (choose to oust al-Qeada and face civil war, choose to support al-Qaeda and face a NATO invasion). The more immediate threat came from the home front, so the Taliban chose to stick with al-Qaeda. This meant they were in direct conflict with the US, and consequently they were invaded.

The invasion of Afghanistan was morally justifiable because the Americans were attacked by what was, for all intents and purposes, the Afghan government. This was an odd invasion because, to be frank, the US did not know how to respond to the first strike. War with a state (an entity that has defined borders and clearly defined power structures) is easy. War with al-Qaeda is difficult. It has no territory to attack, it is almost more of an ideology than a physical organization. So the Americans opted to attack states that supported al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was just such a state. I can accept this reasoning. It was right to invade Afghanistan because there was no question that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were effectively one and the same.**

Basically, my argument is, the invasion of Afghanistan was an invasion against an attacking force. Therefore, it was morally justifiable.

The invasion of Iraq was also morally justifiable. Since there was no real connection between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda (in fact there was a rift between the two - they only ever agreed on their hatred of America), the invasion could not be justified as a response to 9/11 (even though the Bush Administration tried). The Iraq invasion was 100% justifiable on the grounds of protecting human rights. Saddam was among the worst of history's tyrants. He needed to be overthrown. He used chemical weapons against his own population (the Kurds). American soldiers may not have found WMDs, but they did find mass graves where Saddam stashed those who dared dissent.***

So, to answer Mr. McIver's question, the invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable because there was a direct connection between Afghanistan and the events of 9/11.

The invasion of Iraq, while botched beyond belief, was also justifiable (though not for the reasons the Bush Administration used).

Pat, if I have not made clear the differentiation, I blame the rye and cokes...and the beers. Ask again and I'll try to do this sober next time!
-----
* Any regime that does not have the support of the majority of its population is illegitimate, any regime that does not recognize its citizens' fundamental freedoms is illegitimate.

** When you consider the Taliban's record on human rights, the invasion appears almost to have been tardy. I could have accepted an invasion of Afghanistan even before 9/11.

*** WMDs = weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear weapons)

P.S. - I hope I don't have to clarify the difference between a regime and a government because it isn't easy for me to put into words. For example: Stephen Harper leads one government while Paul Martin lead another. Both Stephen Harper and Paul Martin were leaders in the Canadian regime. A regime is bigger than its government, it includes the laws and ideals of a state. When I say "any regime that does not have the support of the majority of its population is illegitimate," I am not suggesting that Stephen Harper's reign is illegitimate because he won less than a majority of the vote. His government is legitimate because Canadians (whether we voted for him or not) are willing to accept his authority. Our acceptance of his authority is based on our acceptance of the Canadian regime. If that's not clear, click here. Maybe Wikipedia is a better teacher than I.