Invasion of Afghãnistãn.
The people of Afghãnistãn (Jomhürï-ye Eslãmï-ye Afghãnistãn) have very long memory of foreign invasions spanning back even prior to King Darius of Persia in 500BC, and Alexander the Great in 330BC (q.l.). Invaders have come and gone leaving behind scenes of carnage, towns and villages razed to the ground. Nothing has changed except military science. Alexander’s military personnel (both infantry and companion cavalry) were equipped with swords, slings, bows, sarissas (pike weapons), javelins, and seizure towers. Whereas todays invaders are deploying 21-century state-of-the-art weapon systems, viz: Lockheed AC-130 gunships, long-range subsonic jet-powered strategic B-52 bombers, Stratofortress, BGM-109 long-range subsonic Tomahawk cruise missiles and JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) guidance add-ons. These are the weapons the United States (U.S) and British (UK) troops have, since their invasion begun (7 October 2001), been using in their air war against the Afghãn civilians. Thomas Jefferson said:
“… all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
(Declaration of Independence, 4 July, 1776 ll. 7-9).
Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, for Whom?
Photograph © above, by courtesy of ‘Der Spiegel’.
The War in Afghãnistãn began on 7 October 2001 subsequent to the attack in New York 26-days earlier; 11 September. The US and GB were the principal protagonists whom, without issuing a formal declaration of war, launched their attacks against the people of Afghãnistãn under the US’s euphemistic title “Operation Enduring Freedom” (OEF); and GB’s ‘Operation Herrick’ [codename since 2002]. The United States has, for many years; been in numerous intense conflicts without declaring war. The attacks on Afghãnistãn, and al-ʿIrāq 18-months (q.l.) later were both unsanctioned by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Notwithstanding the absence of these Sanctions, US’s President George W. Bush asserted:
“On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan … We are supported by the collective will of the world”.
(Statement given in Washington, Sunday 7 October 2001)
On the same day, 3,458 miles (q.l.) across the Atlantic, GB’s prime minister Tony Blair said,
“ … following the attacks upon the US on 11 September that we would take action once it was clear who was responsible. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of anyone who has been through all the available evidence, including intelligence material, that these attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda network headed by Osama Bin Laden”.
(Statement given London, Sunday 7 October 2001)
On the 1 December 2009, US’s President Barack Hussein Obama II, in his address at the Military Academy, West Point, N.Y. said that US troops were sent to Afghanistan “… [u]nder the banner of … international legitimacy”. It would appear that Bush, Blair and Obama were sorely mistaken in their vague notions of ‘universal support,’ ‘available evidence,’ and “ … international legitimacy”. Nothing could be further from the facts. Obama, like his predecessor, has not been able to quote a single reference from either of the passed UN’s Security Council Resolutions numbers 1368 and 1373 – neither of which authorise military force. The U.S. bombings of Afghãnistãn were totally unprovoked aggression against an innocent nation. From that place, it can be deduced that the U.S. is in breach of the UN’s Charter, of which it has been a signatory since its inception on 24 October 1945. And will continue to be in violation unless they can produce evidential supports to justify their deployment of troops and weapons in their ongoing campaign in destroying villages and towns across Afghãnistãn.
Since the deployment of United States (US) and British (UK) troops in poverty-stricken and war-torn Afghãnistãn (Jomhuri-yenEslami-ye Afghãnistãn), 7 October, 2001, the carnage continues into 2011, costing the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children. American journalist Katie Couric reported: “In nearly a decade of war in Afghãnistãn and al-ʿIrāq, 5,620 Americans have died,” (CBS News, New York, 28 July 2010), and David Brown of the Washington Post reporting on al-ʿIrāqi 3-year mortality rate wrote: “A team of American and al-ʿIrāqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in al-ʿIrāq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred”. (11 October, 2006)
It would appear that Bush, Blair and Obama were sorely mistaken in their vague notions of ‘universal support,’ ‘available evidence,’ and “ … international legitimacy”. Nothing could be further from the facts. Obama, like his predecessor, has not been able to quote a single reference from either of the passed UN’s Security Council Resolutions numbers 1368 and 1373 – neither of which authorise military force. The US bombings of Afghãnistãn were totally unprovoked aggression against an innocent nation as well as the UN’s Charter, of which it has been a signatory since its inception on 24 October 1945, and will continue to be in breach unless they can produce evidential supports to justify their deployment of troops and weapons in their ongoing campaign in destroying villages and towns across Afghãnistãn.
President Bush demanded that the ruling Taliban movement turn over Osama bin Laden whom was ‘allegedly’ involved in the attacks on New York. Osama bin Laden was 6,930 miles or 11,152 kilometres (q.l.) from New York; on 11 September 2001. Ten days after the attack the cable news reported bin Laden ‘denying anything to do with the attacks,‘ and Taliban officials ‘repeatedly asserting that he could not have been involved in the attacks’. (CNN, 19 November 2001). The United States, Great Britain and their very obliging ‘coalition of the willing‘ including small-time players: former prime ministers of Australia, the obsequious John Howard, (1996-2007), quietly-spoken Kevin Rudd (2007-2010); and the nation’s first female leader Julia Gillard (2010- ); had no justifiable legal or ethical grounds apart from George Bush’s tiresome pretext of “war on terrorism”.