Lupe Fiasco and Bill O’Reilley debate the merits of the American military campaign in Afghanistan,

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGMZ6H8cSu4]

I do not know if you can call President Obama a “terrorist.” What is a “terrorist?” So, to avoid a long politically incorrect debate as to how we can title Obama, I would like to comment on the two separate justifications for the Afghanistan War.

The two reasons,

Lupe Fiasco: To hunt down and kill/arrest Osama bin Laden; Bill O’Reilly: To remove a government that was harboring terrorism (to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven).

I was fourteen on 9/11/2011 — I do not remember the exact casus belli used by the United States. I feel as if both Fiasco’s and O’Reilley’s rationales were used by the Bush administration — and the American government, in general — to bring the United States into war with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and whatever other Afghani resistance there may be. It seems as if after 9/11 the American population was so bloodthirsty that just about any reason that screamed bloody revenge was a good one. With that being said, even at the time, I do not think that any reason for war in Afghanistan can be justified on any basis of justice.

(1) Since October 2001, the United States armed forces have suffered 1,863 killed in action (KIA). According to Wikipedia, another 9,971 have been wounded (WIA). For the sake of simplicity, let us leave out the casualties suffered by other coalition allies. Through June 2011, as recounted in this paper by Neta Crawford, at least 12,000–14,000 Afghan civilians have died. All in all, no less than ~13,863 people have been killed in the hunt for Bin Laden (who, by the way, was not directly responsible for 9/11).

You could make the argument that the United States government had no means of knowing how many lives it would take to track and kill/arrest bin Laden. I do not think that this is a good excuse. There was an idea of how many lives would be lost within the amount of time the mission was expected to take. Furthermore, at the time, the United States knew it was toppling the Taliban regime and replacing it with an alternative (probably formed, in large part, by the Northern Alliance), and understood that the mission went beyond the scope of a simple manhunt (which could have been dealt with through alternative means — Clinton had limited success in finding and [nearly] killing bin Laden during his presidency).

When bin Laden was finally found and killed in May 2011, I do not think justice was delivered by any definition of the word “justice.” It would be like claiming that justice was delivered after a murderer was found and shot, after one hundred police officers and one thousand innocent bystanders were killed in the process.

(2) Even at the time, it was well understood that Afghanistan was only one of many countries harboring Al-Qaeda. I remember the media suggesting that the war against Al-Qaeda would require a multi-prong effort, with military strikes and political bargaining having to take place in countries like Somalia and Yemen. I think it was understood that there was a good probability of bin Laden, and much of the rest of Al-Qaeda, escaping to Pakistan. I do not know when Bush decided to invade Iraq, but I do not think that it was expected that Iraq would soon also be a major haven for Al-Qaeda (despite an extensive American military presence). Anyways, the fact is that it was understood that if the mission was to deny Al-Qaeda a safe haven then Afghanistan was only a fraction of it.

How I interpret the fact that Afghanistan was only part of the whole mission is that it was admitted from the very beginning that Afghanistan would be a failure. I do not think there was any intention in persecuting Al-Qaeda throughout the world, because this was seen as unfeasible. This is how I reason that this mission was not justifiable before it was launched (I think that we all agree that it has not become justifiable since; the ends have not been accomplished).

***

What this all suggests to me is that there were ulterior motives involved in the decision to invade Afghanistan. I do not mean to make it sound like a conspiracy theory. I think the “ulterior motive” was simple. We had just been attacked. The Bush administration was looking for a good, just response. They also were looking to fulfill an agenda with regards to the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, and the strategic situation in the region, and they saw an opportunity. There was no clear casus belli — any supposed justification based on revenge was readily accepted, because nobody took the time to weigh the pros and cons.

It was, and continues to be, a foolish war. To some degree, we can forgive ourselves for making such a stupid decision. But, it is time to admit that there is no good justification for the war in Afghanistan. It is time to stop defending ourselves and, instead, take responsibility for our mistake.