Was the Us Invasion of Afghanistan Legal

There is also a legal aspect at this point: the entire legal building of Post-Sept. 11 The United States` counterterrorism policy was linked to the war in Afghanistan. In other words, because the enemy was in Afghanistan, U.S. governments needed a legal framework that allowed U.S. forces to operate in Afghanistan. Since suspects could not be reached by traditional law enforcement means, the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations needed a framework for action involving military authorities. That setting was the war in Afghanistan. And it`s a little hard to imagine, even in retrospect, what that framework would have looked like without the war. One possibility, if analysts retroactively reject the war in Afghanistan, is that they are actually proposing to throw away much of the post-September legal edifice. 11 Counter-terrorism policy. This has implications that go far beyond Afghanistan itself.

As part of the AUMF, remember, the UNITED States conducted drone strikes in Yemen, breaking ISIS and killing hundreds of al-Qaeda members in Pakistan. He arrested activists around the world. It is fair to ask those who now casually claim that the war was a mistake: Is the rejection of the war in Afghanistan a rejection of this whole military approach to the fight against terrorism, or is it simply a rejection of that approach, coupled with an invasion and long-term presence in Afghanistan? The answer to this question certainly varies from analyst to analyst. But those who want to say the first should answer the question of what combined strategic and legal approach they think the Bush administration should have adopted instead of war. And those who want to say the latter would do well to specify what kind of conflict they envision without the underlying war in Afghanistan having taken place. In early December 2001, when the US invasion of Afghanistan was nearing completion, 7,500 Taliban prisoners were taken from Kunduz to Sheberghan prison by Junbish-i Milli, a group led by General Abdul Rashid Dostum who fought with US special forces against the Taliban. Hundreds to 3,000 Taliban prisoners suffocated in the overcrowded metal containers of trucks or were shot dead in an incident known as the Dasht-i-Leili massacre. Some were shot when guards fired at air holes in the containers. The dead were buried in graves believed to be in the Dasht-i-Leili desert, west of Sheberghan, in Jowzjan province.

[182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] Haq bitterly condemned the U.S. invasion, which he acknowledged would kill many Afghans and undermine efforts to overthrow the Taliban from within. He said that “the United States is trying to flex its muscles, win a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don`t care about the suffering of Afghans or how many people we are going to lose. Noam Chomsky: Washington`s immediate response to 9/11/2001 was the invasion of Afghanistan. The withdrawal of US ground troops coincided (almost) with the 20th anniversary of the invasion. There has been a flurry of comments about the 9/11 anniversary and the end of the land war. It`s very insightful and consistent. It shows how the course of events is perceived by the political class and provides useful background information for examining the substantive issues of the Bush Doctrine. There is also an indication of what is likely to follow.

C.J. Polychroniou: Nearly 20 years have passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. With nearly 3,000 dead, it was the deadliest attack on American soil in history and had a dramatic impact on world affairs as well as astonishing effects on national society. I would first like to ask you to reflect on the alleged overhaul of US foreign policy under George W. Bush as part of his administration`s response to the rise of Osama bin Laden and the jihadist phenomenon. First, was there anything new in the Bush Doctrine, or was it simply a codification of what we had already seen in Iraq, Panama, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s? Second, was the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan legal under international law? And third, has the United States ever advocated nation-building in Afghanistan? On the other hand, it is problematic to call the Taliban a terrorist organization. This is because the Taliban formed as a resistance group against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with funds from the United States and Pakistan. The merger of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has also led to more confusion, as al-Qaeda`s low-level infiltration of the Taliban does not mean that the two organizations are one and the same organization. Moreover, the Taliban`s ideology is based on the application of Sharia law in Afghanistan[10] and does not seek to follow al-Qaeda`s practices. The Taliban continue to fight against the occupiers of their country, and in the current context, this applies to the NATO forces stationed there.

Moreover, unlike al-Qaeda, the Taliban are not involved in terrorist attacks abroad, except in Pakistan, due to the porous border between the two countries. After the end of the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan continued to face an uncertain future and was still riddled with instability. This was due to the civil war that broke out in the country in the late 1980s and intensified in 1992 after the overthrow of the government of Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah.[4] The war itself lasted more than a decade and resulted in the deaths of about 400,000 Afghans [5]. After the Taliban took control of Kabul, a group known as the Northern Alliance was formed. This group consisted mainly of Afghan minorities of Central Asian origin and was mainly funded by Iran. But the Northern Alliance disintegrated in late 2001 and was by no means as powerful as the Taliban when it existed. On September 21, Taliban representatives in Pakistan responded to U.S. demands with defiance. Zaeef said the Taliban were ready, if necessary, for war with the United States.

His deputy, Suhail Shaheen, warned that a US invasion would share the same fate that had struck Britain and the Soviet Union in previous centuries. He confirmed that the clerics` decision was “only a recommendation” and that bin Laden would not be asked to leave Afghanistan. But he suggested, “If the Americans provide evidence, we will work with them. If I think you are a terrorist in America, is it rightly justified that you should be punished without proof? ” he asked. “It`s an international principle. If you apply the principle, why don`t you apply it to Afghanistan? As previously formulated by Mullah Omar, the request for evidence was related to the proposal to try bin Laden before an Islamic court in another Muslim country. [71] He did not respond to calls to extradite other suspected terrorists or to close training camps. In late 2001, the United States, backed by its close allies, invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban government. The public objectives of the invasion were to dismantle al-Qaeda, which carried out the September 11 attacks, and deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban government from power. [1] The United Kingdom was an important ally of the United States and offered its support for military action from the beginning of preparations for the invasion[ This was followed by the 1996-2001 Afghan civil war phase between the Taliban and Northern Alliance groups, which led to the Taliban controlling 90% of the country in 2001. The invasion became the first phase of a 20-year war in the country and marked the beginning of the US war on terror. In 2001, the Taliban controlled up to 90% of the country, with the Northern Alliance limited to the north-east of the country.

About 28,000 to 30,000 Pakistanis and 2,000 to 3,000 al-Qaeda fighters fought alongside Taliban forces. [13] [30] [31] [32] Many Pakistanis were recruited into madrassas. [30] A 1998 State Department document confirmed that “20 to 40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistanis.” The document states that many parents of these Pakistani nationals “know nothing about their child`s military involvement in the Taliban until their bodies are returned to Pakistan.” According to the U.S. State Department report and Human Rights Watch reports, other Pakistani nationals who fought in Afghanistan were regular soldiers, particularly from the Border Corps, but also from the military, which provided direct combat support. [16] [33] Brigade 055 had at least 500 men at the time of the invasion, with at least 1,000 more Arabs reportedly arriving in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks, from Pakistan and Iran, many of whom were stationed in Jalalabad, Khost, Kandahar and Mazar-i Sharif. In the weeks leading up to the September 11 attacks, there were rumors that Juma Namangani had been appointed one of the main commanders of Brigade 055. [34] Some proponents of the legality of the invasion argued that UN Security Council approval was not required because the invasion was an act of collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. [93] [94] In particular, it has been argued that a number of UNITED Nations Security Council resolutions on Afghanistan provided for the possibility of establishing that the Taliban were indirectly responsible for al-Qaeda attacks, on the grounds that Afghanistan provided them with a safe haven. .