Afghanistan Online Book Group: Week 1
This July ICPJ will be hosting an on-line and in-person discussion of Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer by David Wildman and Phyllis Bennis.
To participate, all you have to do is add your comments about the book below.
For the first week, we will discuss the first 2 sections, pages 1-58.
Here are the questions to get you started, or comment on whatever interests you!
- Do you believe 9/11 was a special circumstance that did not need to adhere to international law? Should a new international law be drafted? How do you think the US would have responded if a different country (such as Great Britain, Israel, or Venezuela) had ignored international law like the US did? (pg. 19)
- How does it make you feel that Obama calls this an international security threat, and yet does not involve the United Nations in its decisions? What do you think should be done? (pg. 40)
- How do you feel about the Obama Administration spending billions of dollars on Pakistani schools instead of in the United States? Where should that money go? (pg. 40)
- How do you feel about the fact that President Bush created a coalition of countries backing him – including those that were formally against the US? Do you approve of the US’ bullying tactics when it comes to international cooperation? (pg. 46)
We will also have a face-to-face discussion of the book on Monday, July 19 at 7:00 p.m. at Dominick’s (812 Monroe Street, Ann Arbor).
To get your copy, just call 734-663-1870 or email chuck@icpj.net. They are just $10 each (plus shipping and handling).
Stay tuned next Monday for the next section and next week’s questions.
The questions will be for the first 2 sections, pages 1-58
1. Do you believe 9/11 was a special circumstance that did not need to adhere to international law? Should a new
international law be drafted? How do you think the US would have responded if a different country (such as
Great Britain, Israel, or Venezuela) had ignored international law like the US did? pg. 19
2. How does it make you feel that Obama calls this an international security threat, and yet does not involve the
United Nations in its decisions? What do you think should be done? pg. 40
3. How do you feel about the Obama Administration spending billions of dollars on Pakistani schools instead of in
the United States? Where should that money go? pg. 40
4. How do you feel about the fact that President Bush created a coalition of countries backing him – including those
that were formally against the US? Do you approve of the US’ bullying tactics when it comes to international
cooperation? pg. 46
Also, if you have any ideas for future questions, or feel that I’ve missed an important point, just let me know!
In response to question number 2, it really bothers me that the United States is calling this “war on terror” an international security threat, and yet either pressures the United Nations (UN) to agree with all of the US’ decisions, or it ignores the UN all together. The UN was built and designed to achieve peace and stop war, but it seems that when the US wants war, it’s going to have war.
Since the Obama administration is calling the war in Afghanistan and on terror an international security threat, the US needs to be involving the UN more because that is why the UN was created. The US is not setting a good example for the rest of the world by only using the UN when it feels it can gain something from it, instead of going through the proper channels the UN and the countries belonging to it have set up.
In response to the first question above I definitely do not think 9/11 was a special circumstance that was above internat’l law. We could have requested authorization under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to invade Afghanistan instead of going it alone unilaterally, a violation of the UN Charter and internat’l law. However, I would have preferred we not invade Afghanistan, period. By the time we did Osama Bin Laden may have been long gone.
I do not think that a new international law needs be drafted since the UN charter seems to have all the bases covered. What’s ironic is that although the special Council Resolution 1368 passed the day after 9/11 calls for “full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council Resolutions,” the U.S. had previously refused to sign several of these aforementioned conventions. Sound typical?!!
As to how the US would have responded if a different country had ignored international law like we did, I think we would have been down on some countries and lenient with others. The examples of Gr. Britain, Israel and Venezuela were given. We probably would have been okay with the likes of Israel and definitely not with countries such as Venezuela.
I admit I was struck right from the beginning about the facts about Afghanistan. A 28% literacy rate, 6.5 children born per woman, and the top industries are “small-scale production of textiles, soap, furniture, shoes, fertilizer, cement.” It doesn’t seem like bombs are what this country needs.
That said, when the authors quote generals saying there isn’t a military solution to the conflict, I wonder if they are mis-representing the statement. It seems to me that the point the generals are making is that they don’t think there is a military ONLY solution to the conflict. I imagine they still see a need for the military as part of the process.
I am looking forward to reading the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on “Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War” (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22619)
President Obama said that ‘ “military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan” ‘ and told about a plan to invest $1.5 billion per year in Afghanistan and Pakistan for such things as schools, hospital and refugees. I really don’t begrudge them this amount but am very much against the many times that amount which we’re spending on the war — over 224 billion by mid-2009 on military actions, and what has been accomplished? That is the money that should be spent right here at home.