End Occupation of Iraq
and Afghanistan

Marjorie Cohn, HuffPost
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.
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 the
author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has
Defied the Law and her new book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor
of Military Dissent (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published this
winter. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.