Thursday, December 10, 2009

President Obama picks up the Nobel Peace Prize... awkward timing...

President Obama has picked up the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Coming off the heels of a 30000-soldier troop surge in Afghanistan, the "ironing"... well, it burns.

To his credit, Obama has acknowledged that his "accomplishments are slight" with regards to promoting peace in comparison to previous winners as well as those who "toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering".

Obama also referenced the fact that the U.S. is fighting two wars:

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.


It is well-known that the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy pretenses. What is somewhat less known was that the U.S. may have possibly averted the war on Afghanistan as well if it had been more open to negotiation in the first place. The Taliban had actually been willing (almost desperate) to hand over Osama bin Laden and his high-ranking associates in order to preserve its rule over Afghanistan. Indeed, the atrocities committed by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 were significant and caused nearly 3000 deaths. At the same time, one must remember that the attacks were carried out by a relatively small number of criminals and terrorists, who may have been given up by the Taliban with more negotiation. Raining death and destruction upon Afghanistan reeked more of revenge, and it actually gave a chance for Osama bin Laden to escape in the chaos. Eight years later, Osama bin Laden and most of the high-ranking members of al Qaeda are still free. Ultimately, the problem was that the U.S. government didn't even try to negotiate for bin Laden's extradition... they went straight to war.

While no one can argue that the Taliban was a repressive regime, the current Afghan government is effective only in major cities while most of the country is still controlled by warlords. Furthermore, the current Afghan government (even in its limited range) functions more like a "tyranny of the majority" than a real democracy (majority rule with minority rights) given the disparity in rights given to males and females.

Obama also invokes the Second World War in his argument about the necessity of war as an option, although he does note the disproportionate number of civilian casualties with respect to military ones:

And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.


Defeating Hitler and the Third Reich ultimately ended the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. Defeating the Japanese Empire prevented the continuation of crimes against humanity across southeast Asia. Those are the undisputed good that came out of the Second World War.

At the same time, the Second World War is an easy out when used as an example. Hitler was itching to go to war with nearly everyone in continental Europe (Poland to take back the territory ceded by Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, France to avenge the loss in the First World War, the Soviet Union because of the Communists, etc.). Hitler also declared war on the U.S. after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. As for Japan, it wanted an empire (like the European powers at the time, most notably Britain and France), and the U.S. was a potential competitor, so it preemptively attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. didn't have to start a war with the Third Reich nor the Japanese Empire: it just had to respond.

Had the Third Reich and Japan limited their crimes against humanity within their borders and not declare war on anyone, would anyone have stepped in to stop them? The answer is probably not. Japan had already been committing war crimes in China for years before Pearl Harbor (the Nanjing Massacre being a major example, and others like the bombing of Chongqing). The U.S. responded with trade embargoes and a small American volunteer group known as the "Flying Tigers" (which actually first saw action only after December 7, 1941 due to the length of training). The British offered some planes to the Chinese, and the Soviet Union offered a Soviet volunteer group until the Soviets and Japanese signed a non-aggression pact. With regards to Nazi Germany, one should also take note of the fact that the U.S. refused (or made it as hard as possible for) Jewish refugees desperate to flee the Third Reich prior to and during the Second World War. In particular, the S.S. St. Louis was turned away from Canada and the U.S. (amongst others) in 1940, only to unload its passengers in Belgium, the Netherlands, the U.K., and France. Those in Belgium, the Netherlands, and France were unlucky enough to be trapped and subject to the Holocaust after Germany invaded.

One, though, should also remember the lesser war crimes committed by the Allies as well, such as the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo (not even mentioning the atomic bombings).

Drawing on the Second World War as a crutch for the "war is needed" argument is flawed. Germany and Japan (and the other Axis powers) were the aggressors, and they were defeated. (It's a valid argument for keeping a military around for deterrence, though.)

Escalating the war in Afghanistan, which is what a troop surge will result in, no longer has any point. No one has any clue where bin Laden is, nor does anyone know where al Qaeda operates from anymore. NATO cannot dictate legislation that will result in equality for women. NATO cannot purge corruption from the current Afghan government. NATO cannot diminish the power of the warlords. Ultimately, NATO cannot eliminate the Taliban. Aside from the unknown whereabouts of al Qaeda, all of the other problems facing the NATO mission requires societal change. That cannot be made through force. Reducing poverty will help as well, since people with something to live for will be less easily converted into becoming insurgents. Unfortunately, poverty abounds when warfare goes on.

It's time to negotiate with the Taliban insurgents and withdraw. That will give the civilians of Afghanistan a chance for peace.

Peace and long life.

No comments:

Post a Comment