Inhumanity of Wars

By Doug Bandow

The American military has been constantly engaged since the end of the Cold War. Washington has initiated conflict against Serbia, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan.

U.S. forces have occupied Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans. There has been much talk of attacking Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration apparently even considered striking Russian forces during Moscow's battle against the country of Georgia.

Most of these interventions or potential actions were justified as being in America's security interest. When that argument was implausible to start with (Kosovo) or collapsed on the ground (Iraq), U.S. policymakers quickly played the humanitarian card. The military was killing and destroying to promote moral ends.

Unfortunately, war is rarely humane. It certainly has not been humanitarian in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, Americans should be ashamed of the horror that the U.S. government has loosed in their name. In Iraq, for instance, estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003 start at 100,000 and race upward. The number of maimed or injured almost certainly is far greater. Murders, kidnappings, beatings and theft reached epidemic proportions.

Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes and many their country. The indigenous Christian community has been devastated. The disruption of lives and families has been pervasive.

Afghan casualties are fewer, but rising. Estimates of civilians killed start in the low thousands and approach 10,000. Many more have been wounded and social dislocations are widespread.

None of this is surprising. By its nature, war is horrible. Even the best efforts to limit harm to civilians ― and the U.S. military has done a much better job than the armed forces of other nations in past wars ― cannot prevent the innocent from suffering.

And one cannot blame American military personnel. If their government sends them into combat, they must be allowed to protect themselves, even when that means noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire.

But the cost of war, especially for those on whose behalf Americans supposedly are fighting, requires asking whether the conflict can be justified. Consider Afghanistan, where President Barack Obama's escalation inevitably will result in more civilian deaths.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently spoke to U.S. personnel in Afghanistan about shootings at checkpoints: ``We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.'' He added that he knew of no case when ``we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone and it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it.''

What is Washington doing in Afghanistan?

Yes, the Taliban are bad news, as was Saddam Hussein. Taliban guerrillas, like Iraqi insurgents, also kill innocents; terrorists have killed indiscriminately in both nations.

But it was the U.S. invasions that triggered or spread the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively; it is the continuing American presence that results in shooting ``an amazing number of people'' in Afghanistan. And that doesn't count the ``collateral damage'' from bombing missions, drone strikes, and other military actions.

War is sometimes necessary despite its costs. Ousting the Taliban was imperative after the Kabul government provided hospitality to al-Qaida as the group trained to attack Americans.

But that is where America's vital interests (and those of America's allies) end. Attempting to build a strong central state allied with the West is a quixotic venture that would offer little value even if successful.

There is little more benefit for the U.S. to wage war in order to deliver control of Afghanistan to Hamid Karzai and his warlord allies rather than to the Taliban and other warlords.

A resurgent Taliban is unlikely to again host a terrorist organization whose activities could bring down the wrath of the American military. Moreover, anti-American terrorists can operate from anywhere ― not just failed states like Somalia or weak nations like Pakistan and Yemen, but also countries throughout Western Europe.

Afghanistan has little to do with U.S. security. If anything, the conflict spurs terrorism by reinforcing the terrorist meme of Washington warring against devout Muslims.

Finally, the conflict cannot be justified as a form of humanitarian intervention. The conflict is horrid. It will be horrid without U.S. and coalition forces, as fighting likely will continue.

But it would be less horrid if allied personnel no longer were being killed or shooting ``an amazing number of people,'' none of whom had ``proven to have been a real threat.''

The Obama administration should be withdrawing U.S. troops, not expanding America's force presence in Afghanistan. When considering war, officials should bear in mind the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. Washington is failing to meet that obligation in Afghanistan.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire" (Xulon). He can be reached at ChessSet@aol.com.