Thursday, December 24, 2009

When you hear about the "broad international support" for the attack on Afghanistan remember this:

That is that the triggering mechanism for the NATO invasion was designed to be used for when the Soviet Union invaded western Europe. Despite claims of multinational support, the U.S. had to invoke a provision designed to be used in the event of World War III to invade Afghanistan with a shred of legality. That provision said that any attack on a NATO member country [by a nation state] would be considered an attack on all of them. Since Al Qaeda is not a nation state and Afghanistan did not attack the United States even that provision is of doubtful legality. Significantly as well, the invasion of Afghanistan was not a UN operation, which would have been a test for true international support. What the U.S. did have was the sympathy of the world after 9/11, but that's a little different than the support the measure that the U.S. rammed through the UN with the help of its cronies had. I'm just saying, if you need to invoke military doctrines that have nothing to do with terrorist acts to support a war of this sort you probably don't have a leg to stand on internationally, despite whatever sympathy the world might have for you in the wake of a terrorist attack, the reason being that most governments in places other than small pacific island states [that often vote for U.S. measures in the UN] have an understanding of international law.

No comments: