Bullmoose

By: Procopius

I was debating with my father the other day whether the war in Afghanistan was “just.” It got me thinking. What was the justness of the various wars since the second world war (WWII)?

My first thought was the Korean War. Starting in 1950 with the North Korean invasion of South Korean, the United States (US), as part of a United Nations (UN), entered into the conflict to protect the “capitalist” client of the West, South Korea. After initial losses, the coalition forces pushed the North Korean military back well beyond the former boundaries of South Korea, nearly to the Chinese border.

This resulted in Chinese intervention and the subsequent death and destruction that ultimately led us to the current status quo of a capitalist “democratic” South Korea, and a “Communist” totalitarian North Korea. The final tally, of a Cold War conflict can obscure the initial aims of the war. To defeat North Korean aggression and Communist bloc domination of the Korean peninsula. Not only can this easily by characterized as just (the war was started by the North Koreans, the US came to South Korea’s defense, and the US was part of a UN coalition), but the initial war aims were accomplished. South Korea remains an independent nation, despite General Douglas MacArthur’s failures to conquer North Korea. On top of this, the South Korean government and populace firmly were on the side of the coalition, with South Korean troops making up a significant portion of the fighting force.

This is out of the context of a Korean peninsula that had been dominated by Japan for years prior to the end of WWII, and had long been subject to Chinese influence. Despite these facts, Korea maintained a clear sense of itself outside of its neighbors. In other words, Korea ended at the ocean and at the border with China (and the small border with Russia), and had a clear national identity, even if that identity was eventually split between North and South.

Contrast this with the Vietnam War. Vietnam had a dominant ethnic group, the Vietnamese, but was arising out of the ashes of French Indochina. Importantly, Indochina had a variety of different ethnic groups and kingdoms that had been squished into one broader colonial administrative regime. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam were created out of whole cloth, with other nations getting slices of territory. Before the French arrived, the region had gone through literally thousands of years of changes. Societies had risen and fallen from what is now Central Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and importantly, the Mekong River Delta region (the core of what became South Vietnam) and the Red River Delta region (the core of what became North Vietnam). After a long process of Vietnamization, the Vietnamese established themselves as the dominant ethnic group through what we now call Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh himself, despite being an avowed Communist, had clear Nationalist inspirations that superseded his Communist sympathies, as evidenced by his willingness to treat with the colonial powers following World War I.

Once the French colonial authorities indicated Vietnamese nationalist aspirations were disfavored, this allowed Communist interests to coincide with the Vietnamese desire for independence and the long, grinding war that resulted in French withdrawal in 1954. After the negotiated settlement resulting in the Cold War split between the “Communist” North and the “capitalist” South, the stage for a conflict was set, not all that different from the Korean War.

From an American perspective, however, the differences could not be more significant. A Korea liberated from Japanese occupation having never been colonized by a Western power, facing a full military invasion, and asking for and receiving a UN intervention, presented a vastly different partner than South Vietnam. South Vietnam was not geographically isolated, and the border between Cambodia/Laos and Vietnam was not only porous, but provided an active pathway for enemy forces to invade from almost any direction. Further, the UN was sufficiently divided and Soviet/Chinese interests sufficiently strong enough that a UN mission was never going to be allowed in the context of the Cold War. The post-colonial legacy also colored how Americans would be viewed by the local Vietnamese compared to how they would be viewed by the Koreans. The allies of your former occupiers versus the vanquishers of your former occupiers. How would you feel?

Finally, the South Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese, despite having their different histories, different river deltas, and different economic models, did not have significantly different interests other than moving past colonization. The North Korean demand to dominate the South was an existential threat to South Koreans, while North Vietnam posed a threat of reunification ad Communist rule, but not complete and utter domination. Geography alone prevented that. This led to a tepid and unwilling local population that was uninspired to spill their blood, which was shown by the immediate collapse of South Vietnam after American withdrawal.

That being said, there is a case for intervention being just. An independent state was facing an insurgency and invasion from its neighbor, the Communist bloc had clearly indicated it saw itself in an existential battle with the forces of Western capitalism, and the idea of appeasing aggressive powers has long been debunked. That perhaps is the ultimate distinction. North Korea has shown a willingness to remain insular, violent, and invested in chaos on the international stage, while Vietnam has opened and become an independent state uninterested in domination by Chinese or Russian interests. Perhaps the “justness” required knowing the actual hearts of those involved.

Later American wars are fare clearer. The American intervention in Kuwait was a clear situation where an American ally and client was being invaded by an American opponent, and allowing the Iraqi government to control a significant amount of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf was an existential threat to American security, particularly energy security, along with Kuwait’s sovereignty. Whether or not it was good policy, the Gulf War had a clear “justness” to it.

The wars of the 21st century live in a gray area. Iraq and Afghanistan happened in a world that was far more chaotic than the relatively simplified Cold War dynamic that dominated the earlier three cases we evaluated.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was effectively the government of the state, and provided a safe haven and support for Al Qaeda. The attacks on September 11th killed thousands of people on sovereign territory of the US. The justness of the American attack on Afghanistan hinges entirely on whether or not the actions of Al Qaeda can be attributed to some extent to the Taliban/Afghan government. A state refusing to police an extremist group that is undertaking attacks on another state clearly is a sufficient cause for war. Was Afghanistan a true nation state? Quite frankly it doesn’t matter. The ability of Al Qaeda to be independent and unaccountable demanded a response from the American government. Further, material support by the Taliban by providing a physical site to host Al Qaeda clearly forces Afghanistan to bear some responsibility.

The American invasion of Afghanistan was thus justified. The Battle of Tora Bora was justified. The subsequent occupation of Afghanistan is a different question. While preventing Al Qaeda from reinstalling itself in Afghanistan was a legitimate aim, there were serious questions of whether or not it was a policy mistake. The long-term occupation of Afghanistan cost both the US and Afghanistan immensely in blood and treasure, and after the American withdrawal, the immediate Taliban takeover undermines the efficacy of the occupation. However, after toppling a regime, the invading party does likely have some responsibility. These are not questions of “justness,” but of whether or not its a policy mistake. Further, the US did obtain UN backing via the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), giving international legitimacy and coalition backing.

The invasion of Iraq has many similarities and many differences to the war in Afghanistan. However, there was no cause for war. Despite Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and previous illegal invasion of Kuwait and war with Iran, Saddam did not actually have “weapons of mass destruction.” Iraq posed no threat to the United States. Iraq was not meaningfully involved in 9/11. Further, American security partners generally eschewed involvement. Aside from some loyal allies in the coalition of the willing like the UK and Australia, the US went into this war without significant foreign support.

The reasons for invasion were unclear, so we must evaluate the behavior of the invader’s to determine their true motives. After toppling the Ba’athist regime, the new American leadership disbanded the Iraqi army, leading to thousands of armed, trained, and angry soldiers to engage in the sectarian conflict that followed. Further, rather than protecting the key Iraqi sites that would signify American respect for Iraqi history, like the Iraq Museum which was looted following the 2003 invasion. Rather, the invading forces occupied the Oil Ministry. While oil obviously was critical to any postwar Iraq, just as it was critical to prewar Iraq, it shows the true motivations of the Bush administration. This was an oil war, pure and simple.

Since the Iraq War, the US has contributed to a regime change throughout the Middle East in Libya, Syria, supported a Saudi war in Yemen, and attempted regime change in Iran after assassinating the Ayatollah with Israeli assistance. Combined with the kidnapping of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, President of another major oil producing state, we have now lived in over two decades of almost uninterrupted oil wars.

This provides one potential avenue to legitimize these conflicts. Are resource wars, like oil wars, just? Perhaps. However, as a nation that purports to be energy independent, a war for oil significantly undermines America’s identity as a nation that does not “need” others. Further, the idea that invading other countries that have oil, seemingly at random, can be legitimized purely because a country “needs” that oil is ludicrous.