Diplomacy
and
War
in
Afghanistan
By
Jesper Jensen
Pollyanna Vorbeck
Yang Chaoyue
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Case Study.................................................................................................................................................................... 8
History...................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Geography.............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Culture ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Economy ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Religion .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Highly Islamic Society ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Politicized Islam under the Control of Islamic Extremism and Terrorism .............................................................. 13
Theory ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Diplomacy .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Traditional Diplomacy ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Public Diplomacy ................................................................................................................................................... 17
Soft Power.............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Just war theory ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Just War and the Bush Doctrine ............................................................................................................................ 26
Warfare .................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Traditional War ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
Clash of Civilizations .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Theory of Terrorism ............................................................................................................................................... 32
The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism........................................................................................................ 32
The Ideological Roots of Islamic Terrorism ............................................................................................................ 33
Shift of War theory ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Diplomacy and Soft Power..................................................................................................................................... 37
Traditional Diplomatic Approach ........................................................................................................................... 38
Cultural Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Religious Approach ................................................................................................................................................ 43
Geopolitical Approach ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Just war .................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Geography and Culture .......................................................................................................................................... 46
War in Afghanistan................................................................................................................................................. 48
Religion and Politics ............................................................................................................................................... 50
Warfare .................................................................................................................................................................. 54
The ineffectiveness of traditional war in a new era............................................................................................... 54
Terrorism in a new era ........................................................................................................................................... 56
Islam and the West in a Historic Conflictual Background .................................................................................. 56
The characteristics of the extremity of Islamic terrorism .................................................................................. 57
Extremity from religious source in extremists’ mind ......................................................................................... 57
Characteristics of Terrorism Organization.............................................................................................................. 58
A Great Shift of Warfare into War on Terrorism in Afghanistan ............................................................................ 62
Opponent in the war has changed..................................................................................................................... 62
Warfare form has changed. ............................................................................................................................... 62
Warfare in the shift of Globalization .................................................................................................................. 63
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Reflection ................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Literature list .............................................................................................................................................................. 67
Books: .................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Websites: ............................................................................................................................................................... 69
Introduction
The contemporary world is under constant transformation after the end of the Cold War, in which
the United States was the only super power trying to preserve the hegemony formed without the
Soviet Union.
In terms of diplomacy, the concepts of traditional diplomacy as well as public diplomacy will
theoretically be introduced and empirically analyzed in order to better visualize their peculiar
objectives regarding the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Additionally, soft power will be presented as a
powerful weapon used by the public diplomacy in order to persuade its target audience by
conquering their “hearts and minds”. At the present time, the main features of public diplomacy are
being improved in order to deal with non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda. Moreover, the traditional
diplomacy is playing a vital role by getting allies trough mutual cooperation.
Despite of the existing traditional threats and conflicts, non-traditional security issues have
appeared in a massive way. The proliferation of nuclear and bio-chemical weapons, environmental
problems, and the rise of terrorism are playing more important roles in the human society.
Following the “ 9.11 ” terrorist attack, many countries with historical ethnic, religious, and political
conflicts have suffered more on the same areas. Additionally, the manifestation of the antagonism is
not in a battlefield anymore, but a hide-and-seek game between Islamic terrorists and the West.
Just as what Huntington claimed in the theory of clash of civilizations, our world has become more
complex and dangerous in the post-Cold War era, because of the cultural and religious conflicts and
the rise of radical fundamentalism. In this new era, warfare, diplomacy, and the way a war is
justifiable have been changed into new types, especially after the United States of America hasted
to declare a counter-terrorism war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in 2001.
The war on terror in Afghanistan has lasted for 10 years, which reflected in a remarkable shift on the
paradigms of war and diplomacy. In our project, we will make comparisons of warfare and
diplomacy within old and new paradigms, through which the reasons and means that make this
shift happen, will be researched and concluded. This leads us into our main research question.
How could the evolution of war into the war on terrorism, and the war in Afghanistan, change the
concept of just war, and how diplomacy is used to justify the ongoing war in Afghanistan and the
war on terror?
The methodology will provide a walkthrough of the project trying to clarify which approaches we
have taken into consideration in order to reach our conclusion. We have chosen the Afghanistan war
with the United State of American to illustrate the parameters that have been changed after the
terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, the project will deal with Afghanistan through
different perspectives with the purpose of gaining a better understanding of how the situation is.
Moreover, there will be a look upon the changes that happened with the American foreign policy
after the terrorist attack in order to understand the development of diplomacy, just war, and
warfare.
The theoretical section will be divided into three main subdivisions, i.e., warfare, diplomacy, and
just war theory. Furthermore, it will individually try to establish a valid basis for analyzing the
changes of each singular concept. Additionally, it will be done by illustrating the historical view and
the modern development.
The analytical section of this project will additionally be divided into warfare, diplomacy, and just
war theory. Moreover, each part will individually be analyzed based on the theoretical material and
the empirical evidences regarding the current war in Afghanistan.
Methodology
The main goal of this project is to understand how a change in the concept of war to a war on terror
also had an effect on the concept of just war. Furthermore, how this change influenced the foreign
policy to be based more on public diplomacy.
We chose Afghanistan and the war on terror with America after September 11, 2001 as our case
study, once it is a unique and outstanding case following the change regarding the concept of war
and policy. Most of the world was condemning the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda and wanted to end the
possibilities of terrorists across the globe, but America took action to capture and kill the leaders
who attacked them, even inside another sovereign nation. There was no other place where a
government at this time had completely been removed because of it was hiding and supporting a
terrorist organization.
For sources, we looked into books at the university library as well as the online version of the
university library for those we could not locate in hardcopy. Moreover, the Internet was used as an
important source, specifically regarding journals and speeches that we found useful in our mission
to find relevant empirical material. The information found on the Internet has since been backed up
by other academic sources found in the library. Aalborg University was kind enough to help us with
support, the needed time, and the books that were needed to reach a fulfilling conclusion on our
research question. At this time, we wanted to base our research on a qualitative interview with
either a soldier who had been in Afghanistan or a diplomat, but we found that with the limited
timeframe for our project it seemed to be more prudent to focalize mainly on the written sources
we have found.
We decided to divide the project into three main parts, where each part should have the same focus
in order to create a basis for answering our research question. In terms of diplomacy, the theories
that have been used are: traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy, and soft power. Next part will be
on the just war concept and its change. The final part will be dealing with warfare and how it has
been changed into the war on terror.
As far as theory is concerned, some respected concepts were utilized in order to portray the
traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy, and soft power. Additionally, these concepts were used in a
manner able to preserve their essence, and able to give to the reader a general notion of the main
terms to be further examined in the analysis section. Theoretically speaking, it is of a great
relevance to understand the basic features and relevance of both diplomacy and soft power, once
they are one of the most important premises of this project. The theoretical diplomatic section of
this project was done through carefully research using some of the most renowned authors
regarding traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy, and soft power.
The part of just war theory deals with a set of criteria to which a war can be justified or attempted
to be justified. It deals with the questions of what a just war is and how to make a war into a just
war. This has been done in order to understand the concept of just war, to use it, and to see if the
criteria were met in our case study, but also to analyze how these criteria fit into the modern times
of international conflict. First we will establish what the criteria was in the beginning and what they
mean in the current situation. Then we will look at the changes that has happened to the concept to
fit the war on terror.
The first part about the theory of traditional warfare is to explain the types and roots for the
eruption of traditional war. In the second part, the theory of clash of civilizations and the theory on
terrorism are used to explain the reason why the war between the West and the radical Islamic
extremists is inevitable. Regarding how the new characteristics of war in Afghanistan differ from
others’, the theory about clash of civilizations is suitable to help us to understand the cultural
features of the war. Based on the theory of clash of civilizations, especially the historical hatred and
conflicts, the theory on terrorism can further explain why there is a war on terrorism, and tells us
how traditional war has been changed into new one in Afghanistan. There will be some comparisons
of the definitions and characteristics between traditional war and new war, which will give us a
method to understand what the shift of war is and how it happens.
Next is the analysis section, which uses the three main outlines of the theory and applies them to
the case study to provide a base for a possible conclusion. The theory will be reviewed according to
as many factors in the case study as possible.
The analytical diplomatic section of this project was divided into four approaches, i.e., traditional
diplomatic approach, cultural, religious, and geopolitical approach. This section was divided with
the purpose of working individually with each single approach in order to identify possible
conundrums, paradoxes, and dilemmas between the theoretical material and the empirical
evidences regarding the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, this division has made possible a
thorough analysis in order to justify the righteousness of American cause. This analysis was done by
the intercalation of public diplomacy and soft power with culture, religion, and geopolitics.
Additionally, President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, and
Obama’s address on his withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan were utilized in order to
give some empirical examples.
In the analysis of just war theory and the case study we will look at the Afghanistan war and how
this war was trying to be justified. Furthermore, we are going to look upon some of the different key
elements that made Afghanistan a country that the United States had to invade. The reason why
this is done is first of all to show how they tried to justify the war on terror in Afghanistan. Secondly,
it will be relevant to describe the different possible factors that took part in the change of how just
war concept is perceived. The different aspects of the concepts of just war theory will be used to
identify problems with the criteria of the concepts in the war on terror in Afghanistan. Then the
project will use the concept itself to analyze how it would fail or succeed in today’s settings. This is
done in order to find out if the concept has changed and what it could have changed into.
In the analysis part, we not only apply the three chosen theories to explain the war in Afghanistan,
by which the new shift of warfare is caused, but also take several opinions from other articles
having different stands and perspectives as a necessary supplement to make our analysis more
comprehensive. We want to know how counter-terrorism in Afghanistan differs from other wars in
the past as well as its new characteristics and influence to the world. With respecting to Afghan’s
situation and debating the compatibility between theories and reality, we will form a clear image of
essence of war on terrorism in Afghanistan. For achieving this goal, we will make some necessary
comparisons between counter-terrorism war in Afghanistan and traditional ones regarding their
types, roots, motivations, and characteristics with serious concern on the historical, political, and
religious conditions that have fundamentally and objectively made a shift of war in the new era.
These sectors will provide us with a foundation to answer our research question as good as possible
in a conclusion that is based on all parts of the analysis section as well as the case study.
Case Study
In order to have a general picture of the country to be analyzed in this project, this short
introduction has the purpose of briefly presenting some of the most relevant aspects of
Afghanistan.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a particularly poor nation located in Central Asia. Afghanistan
shares border with Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and China.
History
In terms of history, Afghanistan has been the link between Central Asia, the Middle East, and the
Indian sub-continent. It is, therefore, a nation constituted of diverse nationalities resulting of
innumerable invasions and migrations. There are at least a dozen of major ethnic groups within
Afghanistan’s borders.
The Arabs brought the Islam to Afghanistan during the eighth and ninth century. Prior to that,
various Central Asian empires had ruled Afghanistan. Following a subsequent break down in Arab
rule, small break-off states began to develop. These local states, however, were overwhelmed and
destroyed during the Mongolian invasions of the 1200s. Following the collapse of Mongol rule,
Afghanistan found itself in a situation much like what has continued into modern times – caught
between the vice of two great powers. During this time it was Northern India and Iran that fought
over the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan.
In the early 1800s, Afghanistan’s internal affairs became dramatically aggravated by the increasing
intervention by two new imperialist powers, i.e., the British Empire and the Czarist Russia. The
British were expanding and consolidating their colonial holdings on the India sub-continent, and
they were looking at the Hindu Kush Mountains of Afghanistan as a natural barrier to prevent
invasion by rival imperialists. Moreover, several formerly independent sultanates and emirates in
Central Asia were swallowed up by the Russians, which were expanding south and east. The two
great powers essentially engaged in a race for Afghanistan, and their great struggle was globally
known as “the great game”. At this time, the British armies would try to invade Afghanistan and
install a “puppet” government to assist them in their further conflicts. The first British-Afghani war
took place in 1838.
The country stayed under British protection until 1919 where Afghanistan tried to achieve
independence. Then the king of Afghanistan, Amanullah, declared his country’s full independence
by singing a treaty of aid and friendship with Lenin, and declaring war on Great Britain. After a brief
period of border skirmishes, and the bombing of Kabul by the Royal Air Force, Great Britain
conceded Afghanistan’s independence. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and handed
the power over to a man named Karmal, who was the leader of the most moderate faction of the
growing communist party in Afghanistan. At this point, fundamentalism was growing in Afghanistan
and resistance groups were gaining influence. The United States decided to support and train these
radical groups in order to overthrow the pro-soviet government. In 1989, the Soviets withdrew
leaving the communist government to protect itself. The CIA soon lost interest in its mercenary
forces, once they had accomplished their mission of bringing the Soviet forces to their knees. This
was the start of years of civil war were the Taliban was slowly coming into power. In 1996, the
Taliban movement captured the capital city of Kabul and forced most of the remaining warlords into
a small pocket in the far north of the country. These warlords subsequently formed a defensive
alliance termed the Northern Alliance. By the time of the start of the current war, Taliban offensives
had reduced their enclave to a mere 10% of the country.
The war after September 11, 2001 with The United States presented the Afghan people with a
conflict. To support their government in their sovereign nation or to fight the invaders, who had
supported them in history against the Soviet Union? The United States’ government demanded that
the Taliban handed Bin Laden over. The Taliban’s response was to demand proof of Bin Laden’s guilt,
and after receiving none, they refused to hand him over. This finally led to the invasion from the
Americans who have been fighting over the last 10 years.
Geography
In terms of geography, Afghanistan is a landlocked country and its climate varies from arid to
semiarid with hot summers and cold winters. Furthermore, Afghanistan is an “extremely
mountainous country with dramatic and often spectacular scenery”1. Despite its terrain is mostly
rugged mountainous, Afghanistan has a strategic geographical location, which was used by
Alexander the Great as the gateway to India. Additionally, its position is of a great significance, once
it connects Middle East and Asia.
Culture
In terms of culture, Afghanistan “bears the traces of many civilizations … Afghan art, architecture,
literature, and music reveal the interaction of these various cultures over the centuries”. 2
At the
present time, Afghanistan is divided among distinct ethnics groups as, for instance, Pashtun, Tajik,
Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Baloch, and others minorities. Additionally, Afghanistan’s culture is
highly influenced by the Islamism, which is the official religion of the country. The Islamism, in turns,
is divided between Sunni Muslim and Shia Muslim. The official Afghan’s languages are Pashtu and
Afghan Persian (Dari). Nevertheless, other minor languages are also spoken.
The rate of literacy presents a huge discrepancy between men and women. Generally speaking, the
gender role is well defined in this culture, once it is completely forbidden and dangerous to interfere
in each other duties.
Economy
In terms of economy, Afghanistan “has improved significantly since the fall of the Taliban regime in
2001 (…) because of the infusion of international assistance, the recovery of the agricultural sector,
and service sector growth”.3 Moreover, narcotics trafficking and the opium production “contribute”
to Afghanistan’s economy. Nevertheless, despite of this economic improvement, Afghanistan
continues being extremely dependent on foreign aid. The Afghanistan’s current environmental
1
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/cs-enviro.htm 7/12/2011
2
http://geography.howstuffworks.com/middle-east/afghanistan-geography3.htm 7/12/2011
3
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html 7/12/2011
issues refer to soil degradation, pollution of water and air and, consequently, limitation of natural
freshwater resources.
Religion
Afghanistan, which is one of the most turbulent regions in the world, is one of the Islamic countries
with Muslim inhabitance. It is the overwhelming majority of the whole population. Between 80 and
85 per cent of Muslims are Sunni and 15 to 19 percent are Shia.
Highly Islamic Society
The unique geographical location of Afghanistan, which is “at the juncture of Central, South, and
West Asia, landlocked on all sides, has contributed to the country’s complicated and violent past”. 4
Moreover, Afghanistan has been known as the “cross roads of Central Asia”. Its history can be
divided into two relevant parts, i.e., pre-Islam era and Islam era.
Alexander the Great, Kushans, Huns, Persians, Hindus, Arabians, Turkish, Mongols, British and
Russians, for instance, have conquered or encroached this region. Accompanied by the military
action, cultures and religions from rest of the world were also introduced into Afghanistan and then
fell into fierce integration with each other. Before the Islamic conquest, the main religions were
Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, among other polytheism beliefs. In 642 CE, the Arabs overran the area of
present-day Afghanistan, introducing the religion of Islam and continuing the pattern of violence
and invasion besetting the country. “Since the 9th century, Islam has dominated the country’s
religious landscape. Islamic leaders have entered the political sphere at various times of crisis, but
rarely exercised secular authority for long”.
5
For people in Afghanistan, Islam is not only a belief,
but also an invisible social intermediary to offset the divisiveness, which frequently rises from the
existence of a permanent pride in tribal loyalties. Additionally, Islam is also an abounding sense of
personal and familiar honor found in multi-tribal and multi-ethnic societies such as Afghanistan.
4
Morrison, Maley Kathleen: state violence and the right to peace – 2009 – page:3
5
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/afghanistan
Politicized Islam under the Control of Islamic Extremism and Terrorism
Islam in Afghanistan is deeply politicized and has great influence on Afghan internal political affairs.
From the pre-modern time till 1990s, Islam had been a spiritual weapon waged by Afghans to
contest the Russian and British invaders. Long-time violent conflicts in Afghanistan hastened the
penetration and expansion of Islamic fundamentalism and extremism in Afghan society. After the
victory of the war against Soviet Union, organizations such as Mujahidin (another name of Jihad)
failed to convert this country into democratic and modern style. In the fall of 1994, a radical Islamic
group called Taliban appeared on the political stage and tried to clean out all the enemies who did
not obey their own strict interpretations of the Shariah.
“By the end of 1998, the Taliban occupied about 90 per cent of Afghanistan”6, consolidating their
control with few parts of the country free, but its regime got admissions from three countries
consisted of Pakistan, United Emirates of Arab and Saudi Arab. Because of being not in the same
lockstep, Taliban and Al-Qaeda were not on the same side at first, although Osama Bin Laden
escaped to Afghanistan after Taliban took the power. The Terrorism of Al-Qaeda and Extremism of
Taliban have assimilated into one ideology, which could be a terrible threat to the existed world
order and international security. “Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Taliban
repeatedly refused to surrender bin Laden”7, and then the United Stated and its allies began a
military campaign there. Although the war on terrorism in Afghanistan has exerted a deadly attack
on the Taliban and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan,
“the Taliban, with extensive support from factions in Pakistan and elsewhere, have been regaining
their strengths (…) Their rising success in gaining control of Afghan territory has begun to threaten
the substantial developmental achievements in almost every sector (e.g., education, health,
transportation, rule-of-law, banking and finance, and agriculture)”.8
6
Morrison, Maley Kathleen: state violence and the right to peace – 2009 – page:
7
Nyatepe-Coo Akorlie A., Zeisler-Vralsted Dorothy, (Edited) Understanding Terrorism-Threats in an Uncertain World, 2004 Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey – page:7
8
Nyatepe-Coo Akorlie A., Zeisler-Vralsted Dorothy, (Edited) Understanding Terrorism-Threats in an Uncertain World, 2004 Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey – page:7
Finally, the last part of the case study refers to the American foreign policy and how it has changed
from cold war times to post 9/11 era. “During the cold war, the United States developed and
implemented foreign policy that responded primarily, if not always exclusively, to its bipolar struggle
against the Soviet Union”.9
Furthermore, the American policies were based on the containment policy created by Georg F.
Kennan. This was to contain the spread of the communism from the Soviet Union as far east as
humanly possible. The different administrations after this time committed them to contain and push
the eastern influence back by whatever means were necessary. The Truman administration started
the Marshall plan to develop Europe so the Soviet Union could not influence the western thinking
and the Reagan administration enhanced the military spending’s to a level where Moscow could not
follow anymore. Then the Georg Bush administration was left to spread democracy in most of the
European countries.10
“Clintons foreign policy team (…) struggled to develop a model to fit a system no longer conditioned
on the actions of two superpowers grappling for power and influence across the world”. 11 There
was at this time no real focused structure, which could provide the United States with a clear
formulation of its goals. In 1999, Clinton’s administration tried to formulate new grounds for the
American foreign policy with the launch of National Security Strategy (NSS). It consisted of three
sections: “First to enhance American security, second, to bolster America’s economic prosperity, and
third, to promote democracy and human rights abroad”.12 It has been argued that the Clinton
Administration did not do any difference and it was still at this time based on the cold war
doctrines.
After September 11, 2001, it took a year for the Bush administration to formulate their response to
9
Pauly, Robert J.: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group – Farnham surrey – GBR –
page:242
10
Pauly, Robert J.: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group – Farnham surrey – GBR –
page:243
11
Pauly, Robert J.: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group – Farnham surrey – GBR –
page:243
12
Pauly, Robert J.: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group – Farnham surrey – GBR –
page:245
the NSS. They formulated three clear national interests: “the defends, preservation and extension of
the peace by way of collaborating with the world’s great powers at the expense of its terrorists and
tyrants”.13 The Bush administration waited a year to promote their new NSS, but now the focus was
on their new enemy, terrorists, and their state sponsors. Less than 48 hours after the attack, Bush
released a statement wherein he said that: “on September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked America in a
series of despicable acts of war”.14 Next in the following days, Bush prepared for his speech for
congress, where he declared a war on terror and on the allies of terror.
Theory
Diplomacy
As one of the most prominent premise of this project, diplomacy intercourse will theoretically be
regarded as an “instrument of foreign policy”, whose main goal is to prevent conflicts, promote
global peace, and honouring national interests. Firstly, the concept of traditional diplomatic
13
Robert J Pauly: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group – Farnham surrey – GBR –
page:245
14
Robert J Pauly: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group – Farnham surrey – GBR –
page:245
relations will be introduced in order to better visualize its peculiar features. Secondly, the
emergence of a new concept of diplomacy, i.e., public diplomacy will be presented due its relevance
concerning the war on terror. Finally, soft power as an intricate phenomenon used by both nation
states and terrorist organizations in order to ‘conquer’ “hearts and minds” will be presented as a
complement to public diplomacy.
Traditional Diplomacy
The art of diplomacy is an ancient phenomenon, as decrepit as civilization itself. The traditional
diplomacy has one of its roots from the classical Greek civilization, where Demosthenes, a
distinguished Greek statesman and orator of antique Athens, for instance, observed: “Ambassadors
have no battleship at their disposal, or heavy infantry, or fortress; their only weapons are words and
opportunities”.15 Thus, the conventional diplomacy explicitly emphasizes the use of communication
and opportunity as its most efficient method of conflict prevention.
Traditionally, diplomacy is defined as “a process of negotiation and communication between states
that seeks to resolve conflict without recourse to war”. 16 Thus, both diplomatic negotiation and
communication are, indeed, the most crucial utensil used by diplomats with the purpose of
influencing other nation states. The referred influence occurs with the aim of finding a solution for
verbal conflicts before they are turned into a real armed war. Diplomatic communication is,
furthermore, metaphorically described as “being to diplomacy as blood is to the human body.
Whenever communication ceases, the body of international politics (and diplomacy die) … resulting
in violent conflict or atrophy”.17 On the one hand, communication is addressed in diplomacy as a
15
Paul Gordon Lauren,. Gordon A. Craig, and Alexander L. George. Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Challenges of Our Time. 4 th ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Page:4
16
Andrew Heywood,. Global Politics. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. – page:7
17,
Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall. “Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy”. In Diplomacy: Theory of Diplomacy, ed. by
Christer Jönsson and Richard Langhorne. Volume 1. London: Sage Library of International Relations, 2004.page:397.
powerful weapon that, if used appropriately, secures peace and consequently guarantees a safe life
to everyone. On the other hand, if communication between state actors fails, violent conflict or
atrophy will emerge.
Moreover, the conventional diplomatic relations can solely occur in the presence of two or more
state actors. The manifestation of the referred relations is either bilateral or multilateral.
Multilaterally speaking, “communication is conducted principally by means of verbal, face-to-face
exchanges rather than in the predominantly written style of bilateral diplomacy (Webster 152)”. 18
One the one hand, multilateral diplomacy occurs through face-to-face negotiations among
minimum three sovereign countries at congress or conferences. The United Nations is a classical
example of multilateral diplomacy. On the other hand, bilateral diplomacy occurs between two
states seeking for cooperation and mutual benefits. As just two countries are involved in the process
of negotiation, it is easier to reach a consensus. Nevertheless, the outcomes are generally too
narrow if compared to multilateral diplomacy.
In peacetime, the strategy of traditional diplomacy, as described earlier, is to use the art of rhetoric
in order to avoid possible conflicts. Nevertheless, there are some crucial strategies that are also
employed in wartime. These strategies are both utilized during the war and in the post-war with the
objective of ceasefire, pacification, and conciliation. Diplomacy, in wartime, “conducts relations with
allies and neutrals, and continues to deal tacitly with the enemy, threatening defeat, or offering a
possibility for peace”.19 This illustrates how diplomacy can effectively be used as a conciliatory
instrument, whose purpose may vary according to the occasion.
In summary, traditional diplomacy deals with state actors and is crucial for the preservation of
peace, order, and sovereignty.
Public Diplomacy
18
G.R. Berridge Diplomacy Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. - Page:146.
19
Aron Raymond, Peace and War-A Theory of International Relations. 1981 Robert E. Krieger publishing company Malabar, Florida.
p.24.
Public diplomacy is theoretically regarded as being “one of the soft power’s key instruments, (…)
recognized in diplomatic practice long before the contemporary debate on public diplomacy.”
20
Public diplomacy is, thus, an instrument used in order to promulgate soft power. Its major aspiration
is to conquer people to be at one’s side by persuading theirs approach, belief, and perspective. In
other words, public diplomacy seeks to disseminate one’s values and to restore trust and friendship
among nations.
On the one hand, it is argued by several scholars that public diplomacy emerged with the rise of the
globalization phenomenon and the advancement of technology, facilitating and improving the
vitality of diplomatic communication. This revolution resulted in the effectively transformation of
tactics and strategies of foreign policy making. Additionally, with the rise of a contemporary intricate
sort of war, as the war on terror, where the efficiency of the traditional diplomacy is restricted,
public diplomacy had to be introduced in order to better induce the opponents, conquer the public,
and expand the means and the actors the traditional diplomacy is used to dealing with. As quoted
by Melissen, “E. H. Carr wrote that ‘power over opinion’ was ‘not less essential for political
purposes than military and economic power, and has always been closely associated with them.”21
This illustrates how relevant is to have power in order to “manipulate” the public opinion.
On the other hand, Melissen argues that public diplomacy it is not a contemporary phenomenon.
“Image cultivation, propaganda and activities that we would now label as public diplomacy are
nearly as old as diplomacy itself. Even in ancient times, prestige-conscious princes and their
representatives never completely ignored the potential and pitfalls of public opinion in foreign
lands.”
20
22
Whether public diplomacy is a contemporary or an old phenomenon is not of a great
Jan Melissen,. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in
International Relations, ed. by Jan Melissen. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. – page:4
21
Jan Melissen,. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in
International Relations, ed. by Jan Melissen. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Page:4
22
Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in
International Relations, ed. by Jan Melissen. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Page:3
relevance for this project. Nevertheless, it is important to note that since the beginning of the
civilization, public opinion had a crucial role to play not being ignored even by princes.
Public diplomacy, in this project, will assume a crucial role in trying to justify how diplomacy is used
to legitimize and explain the on-going war in Afghanistan and the war on terror.
Public diplomacy uses the channels of communication in order to delivery information instantly and
‘popularize’ its own policies affecting, thus, its target audience. Moreover, public diplomatic
relations, as opposed by traditional Westphalian diplomacy, has a broad set of non-state actors. In
the contemporary global environment, the relation between public diplomacy and non-state actors
is extremely important, once, as it will further be addressed in this project, national governments
through public diplomacy “must interact not only with other sovereign national governments, but
also with numerous non-state actors, such as multilateral organizations, global firms, civil society
organizations (CSOs) and non-state movements or groupings that engage in violent or ‘terrorist’
tactics.
Furthermore, according to Melissen, “the democratization of access to information has turned
citizens into independent observers as well as assertive participants in international politics, and the
new agenda of diplomacy has only added to the leverage of loosely organized groups of
individuals”.23 The aim of the public diplomacy, regarding the interaction with non-state actors, is to
inform, influence, and engage global forums with the public of determined nation, and
consequently, to get this public to require changes from their own government in terms of foreign
and domestic policy.
In summary, the primary discrepancy between the conventional diplomacy and public diplomacy is
that, “the former is about relationships between the representatives of states, or other
international actors; whereas the latter targets the general public in foreign societies and more
23
(Constantinou, 1996; Watson, 1984) in ”.23. Jan Melissen,. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” in The
New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. by Jan Melissen. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Page:24
specific non-official groups, organizations and individuals”24.
Moreover, the promotion of national interests together with the creation of an open, trustful and
receptive atmosphere is one of the quintessence of public diplomacy.
Soft Power
Joseph Nye25 describes power as being “the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the
outcomes one wants. (…) You can coerce them with threats; you can induce them with payments; or
you can attract and co-opt them to want what you want.”26
This illustrates how soft power uses its
ability of seducing and attracting others in order to reach its desired goal.
Soft power is normally used within three distinct parameters, which regards to a country’s foreign
policy, its culture, and its values.
Soft power is of a great relevance for this project, once, as described by Nye, “it (soft power) will
become increasingly important in preventing terrorists from recruiting supporters, and for dealing
with transnational issues that require multilateral cooperation.”27 This illustrates how soft power
can be useful in order to getting allies to one’s side through cooperation. Sustainable cooperation
and interdependence among nation states and non-state actors is extremely important in order to
stagnate the terrorist organizations.
Additionally, on the one hand, the Americans have used soft power in order to demonstrate to the
Muslim world that there was a just cause for their decisions on going to war, and to get some
support from allies in the war on terrorism.
24
Jan Melissen,. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in
International Relations, ed. by Jan Melissen. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Page:5
25 Joseph S. Nye Jr., former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He has served as Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for
Security Assistance, Science and Technology.
26 Joseph Nye,. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004 – page:2
27.Joseph Nye. “Soft Power and European-American Affairs” in Hard Power, Soft Power and the Future of Transatlantic Relatiosn, ed.
By Thomas Ilgen. England: Ashgate, p.26.
On the other hand, terrorists have also utilized soft power in order to defeat the hard power used
by the superpowers in the war on terror.
“Perhaps most difficult to understand is how a military superpower has been outmanoeuvred, not
by hard power tactics, but by (…) soft power. Through strategic public diplomacy efforts, non-state
actors such as Al Qaeda, most of which would appear to be relatively inconsequential adversaries
given their relative size and access to resources, have repeatedly defeated the US in winning the
‘heart and minds’ of the Arab and Muslim peoples.”28
Controversially, according to Deos and Pigman, an apparently unimportant adversary such as Al
Qaeda has repeatedly defeated a superpower. This emphasizes that the terrorists have also used
soft power with the same purpose as the Americans, that is, to win ‘heart and minds’.
In summary, despite both traditional and public diplomacy use communication as the main utensil
to reach their goals, there is a discrepancy in the way communication is used by them.
The presented theories, i.e., traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy, and soft power are of a major
relevance for diplomatic activity as a hole.
Moreover, according to Andreasen, the concept of smart power developed by Nye as being both
soft power and hard power could be paraphrased meaning that “smart diplomacy is neither closed
diplomacy nor public diplomacy, but both”.
29
This implicitly suggests that smart diplomacy can be
a valid instrument to prevent all sorts of conflicts.
Once these theories are of a great relevance for the current war on terror, they will further be
analyzed with the purpose of showing how diplomacy is used to justify the ongoing war in
Afghanistan and the war on terror.
Just war theory
As far as just war is concerned, its concept can be dated back to the bible with reference of a just
28 Anthony Deos, and Geoffrey Allen Pigman. “Sustainable Diplomacy: Communicating about Identity, Interests and Terrorism” in
Sustainable Diplomacies, ed. by Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian. England:
29
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. - Page:152.
Uffe Andreasen,. Diplomati og Globalisering: En introduktion til Public Diplomacy. København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2007.
– page:28
war and the just treatment of one’s enemies. This introduced the idea that a war justification ought
to be presented to one’s rivals. It was the Christian theorist, saint Thomas Aquinas, who introduced
the idea of a just war theory and the basic steps of what could be seen as a just war situation.
Additionally, Aquinas and his mentor wrote: “Christians may not use force to defend themselves,
but that Jesus did not forbid using force on behalf of the political community for the service of
others in that community when threatened with injustice.” 30 . This illustrates how thinkers
understood the need to justify conflicts in order to undertake proper international relations. These
thoughts of Aquinas were organized in a composed collection of his contemplations in the 13 th
century and shaped the elementary idea of just war as it is procedure in modern thinking. The basic
idea concept behind the just war theory can be divided into three main parts:31
1. Jus ad bellum – the justice of resorting to war
2. Jus in bello – justice in war
3. Jus post bellum – justice at the end of the war
Since we will mainly be dealing with part one – jus ad bellum, we will explain more in details what
this means with the six criteria that have over time been illustrated as a necessity for a war to
become just.
The six criteria for a just war are: 1. War must be in a just cause. 2. The right intention for fighting
the war is that it is a just cause. Any other intension undermines the justice of the war. 3. The
decision to go to war must be made with the proper authority and by a public declaration. 4. The
declaration of war must be a last resort, following the exhaustion of all plausible alternatives means
to resolve the conflict. 5. A declaration of war can only be just if the state can foresee a probability
of success in resolving the conflict through war. Violence without likely gain cannot be justified. 6.
War must outweigh the evil that will most likely occur. As Machiavelli said: “The end must justify the
means.”
32
The problematic situations with these criteria are the disagreement over what is a just cause to
30
James Turner Johnson, , 2011: Ethics and the use of force – just war in historical perspective – Ashgate
publishing limited- Farnham, England – page:17
31
www.cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit3/political-philosophy/JustWarTheory.pdf
– 7/12 – 2011, Routledge – Just war theory – Michael Lacewing
32
Machiavelli 1517 – the prince
make a just war. Will it be enough if a sovereign state insists on that another state has broken some
agreements or how much does it require? On the one hand, the justification of the reason towards
the international community, which would typically be the United Nations’ Security Council or a
similar venue. However, in order to get support the reasons have to be convincible. Moreover, a
dilemma is presented here regarding the relations with the nation (s) that wish (es) to attack and
the nation (s) that need (s) to show support to the conflict.
On the other hand, the subjective view from the nations involved, of what is a just cause, is most
likely very different. The war in Iraq is an example of this situation. The United States of America
wanted to remove Saddam Hussein due to, amongst other reasons, the fact that he had been killing
and suppressing the Iraqi population year after year. In addition, Hussein was building weapons of
mass destruction. The United States was justifying the intervention in Iraq by protecting the Iraqi
people and by keeping the international sphere safe. According to Saddam Hussein, the primary
reason that the United States wanted to declare war on Iraq was to get hold of the oil that comes
from Iraq. This presents a disagreement of whether or not the United States had a just cause to
entering the Iraq and taking it over.
The modern idea of just war theory comes from the Jurist Vitoria, who lived from 1492 to 1546. If
Aquinas is considered as the father of the just war thinking, then Vitoria is seen as the creator of the
more modern perspective of the theory. Moreover, Vitoria moved the modern perspective of the
theory into realizing that it was often problematic to identify the just side in a conflict. Furthermore,
that the justification of a war is not always as simple as it might seem since the values and beliefs of
the struggling parts are often not the same33.
Moreover, the six criteria; right authority, just cause, right intention, right aim, proportionality and
last resort34, play a vital role in the way “just war” is seen by the modern international community.
Thus, when looking upon the old criteria’s of what a just war would represent, Jason Gatliff presents
how just war and the just war theory become the same ideology and can be seen as ”….a body of
moral wisdom deeply and broadly rooted in Western ideals, institutions, and experiences.
Developed over history as a result of contributions from both secular and religious sources, (it
33
Based upon information from: Michael Waltzer,: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA
34
Jason Gatliff ,: Terrorism and just war tradition - 2007 - VDM Verlag – page:35
reflects) the practice of statecraft and war as well as moral and political theory….”35. This gives a
good indication to what complications that can occur in an international conflict. First of all, there is
no guarantee that nations will follow all of the criteria previously stated in this section. Moreover,
extremists like terrorists do not follow any gentleman agreement of what just war is. Thus, the war
on terror becomes a whole new occurrence.
At the present time, the main critiques of the “Just War Theory” are whether all of these criteria are
really appropriate in a world where sovereign nations have been infested with extremists groups
such as terrorists, and if the war on terror is a global phenomenon.
“Politicians and generals who adopt the categories are deluding themselves – though no
more than the theorists who developed the categories in the first place. Maybe new technologies
kill fewer people, but there is no point in arguing about who those people are and whether or not
killing them is justified”36.
Here it is shown that no matter how just you try and make a war, people will still die. Furthermore,
the bipolar balance that had arisen from the aftermath of World War two is no longer dominant and
Russia does no longer presents the imminent danger as it did before. In addition, another critique is
what the just war theory was based upon. Previously in this section we have seen that the theory is
not only based on Western values and thinking, but also on religious ideas and beliefs. The values
do believe in the good of all men and women, but is this the case in modern warfare and modern
politics? Are all people working for the good of all men and women? This leads us to having to
answer what makes a good person. This will be hard to define in this project, once we recognize the
diversity of values and beliefs, and that the fundamental ideas of what is good and bad might vary.
As stated earlier, the just war theory is based upon ancient ideas and religious beliefs. Therefore, it
is controversial that modern terrorist groups often fight in the name of Allah.
At the present day, the old ideas and criteria’s of a “just war” do not completely correspond to the
expectations of the contemporary world. “Old ideas may not fit the emerging reality: the “war
against terrorism”, to take the most current example, requires a kind of international cooperation
that is as radically underdeveloped in theory as it is in practice”37. The actors, nowadays, are harder
to identify than in earlier centuries, and the values and beliefs are not always based on a single
35
Jason Gatliff: Terrorism and just war tradition - 2007 - VDM Verlag – page:23
36
Michael Waltzer: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA – page:13
Michael Waltzer: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA – page: 15
37
religion or philosophy. The just war theory has become strengthened and weakened by the diversity
of the nations. On the one hand, most countries experience and understand to certain extent the
values displayed by each other. On the other hand, the referred values and beliefs have become
severely more extreme in some peculiar cases. Furthermore, this presents a problem when trying to
identify who have a just cause to instigate war. The introduction of a war against terror and the
claim that the main reason for today’s warfare is terrorism also provides the just war’s framework
with some difficulties. The war on non-state actors, whose main feature is to work outside the
traditional realm of international relations, will carefully be identified.
In addition, Waltzer states another critical point of view in his book “arguing about war”, “soldiers
running away, unlike soldiers trying to surrender, are usually said to be legitimate targets: they may
hope to fight another day”38. Theoretically speaking, this theory is presented with moral issue. They
will have to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and make sure that anyone will die during
the process. Waltzer, moreover, presents an interesting question with this criticism. Should you kill a
soldier running for his life, which might the next day go and kill 100 civilians?
The presented theory has evolved to follow the contemporary wars. The objectives of the nations
involved in a conflict are not easily recognizable. Thus, a just war has become harder to identify. The
interesting aspect is that terrorist fulfills the criteria for jus ad bellum, the reasons for going to war.
Right authority, just cause, right intention, right aim, proportionality, and last resort is all some
criteria that can be discussed and with a certain point of view, they can all be satisfied. This means
that according to old traditions, the terrorists, and certain political groups, the bombing on
September 11, 2001, was a just war. “Once, it has been shown that non-governmental entities,
including terrorists and terrorist organizations can exercise such authority, the ability to satisfy the
remaining criteria become no more difficult than it would be for any other commonly recognized
sovereign”39. This explicitly shows how terrorist groups can be included in the theoretical section of
just war. Furthermore, “Jus in bello” is where terrorist fails to maintain the just war. It is clearly the
distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Moreover, according to the theory, once
terrorist’s targets are usually in public places, they fail in this category and, consequently, it cannot
38
39
Michael Waltzer: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA – page:97
Jason Gatlif,: Terrorism and just war tradition - 2007 - VDM Verlag – page:216
be completely regarded as just war. When a terrorist organization expresses that its fight is in order
to protect its rights and way of living, just war theory emphasizes that there should be a right
authority to attack military goals as long as it does not only hit non-combatants. This presents the
main issue with terrorist having a just war. How can one portray the right authority in the just war
theory if the non-combatants are attacked with the purpose of inflicting as much damage as
possible?
The just war theories have always taken into consideration that it would be two sovereign
combatants and that the international community would be the watchdog to guarantee that the
criteria of just war were fulfilled. After September 11, 2001, the playing field has changed and the
two sovereign states have changed to single countries hunting inside their own territory as well as
other sovereign nation’s borders to locate the threat. A great example is the United States of
America, which is working as the world’s police force and hunting terrorists where they see it fits
inside the sovereign nations. However, this will be deeper examined in the analysis section.
On the one hand, the just war theory is still viable in the sense that nations seek to justify their
actions within the international community and most nations are trying to fulfill the criteria related
to the modern just war. On the other hand, superpowers like the United States might want to have
the approval of the international community, nonetheless, it has been proved that they will act
according to their own beliefs and ignore the votes and opinions from other sovereign nations.
Just War and the Bush Doctrine
After September 11, 2001, the American government has made some changes in its foreign policy
affecting the international community, and whoever the United States chooses to be its.
“… the
Bush Administration response integrates principles of justice with a power-based national security
strategy. It is a combination of the war on terrorism and a grand strategy of global leadership
(perhaps hegemony) and the preclusion of rivals, regional and/or global”40. This illustrates how the
American foreign policy is trying to show aggression towards the terrorists who are hiding inside
sovereign states, and that they will not hesitate to intervene into these states, if necessary. The
40
www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf Snauwaert, Dale, T – 7/12 – 2011 - OJPCR - The online journal of
peace and conflict resolution – 2004 – p: 121-135 – page:121
so-called Bush doctrine is mainly based on “preemptive war”. It clarifies the intensions of the United
States foreign policy and tries to justify intervention into other sovereign nations. The war on
terrorism itself is failing. A country cannot be in war with terrorism, because it is an act or a method
more than a nation or state. Moreover, since the United States is fighting with terrorism and
terrorists can be found almost anywhere, the United States can justly choose its enemy.
“We cannot wait for the terrorists to strike in order to defend ourselves, is the logic; we must act
first to preempt the threat”.41 Explicitly, this statement goes against at least one of the criteria for
war, last resort. If the United States want to intervene in a sovereign nation that have not illustrated
any aggression, then it is hardly ever a last resort. Thus, on the other hand, there will be few cases
where it could be the last resort to project American citizens; nevertheless it would disregard the
notice of preemptive war. However, the linkage between terrorists and states significantly
complicates the justifiability of the Bush Doctrine. The Doctrine asserts that the principles for both
terrorists and those who harbor them are equivalent.
“The Bush Doctrine of “preemption” is really “preventive.” In such cases there is a potential threat
rather than an imminent one, and this is the distinguishing factor between “preemption” (imminent
threat) and “prevention” (potential threat). The Bush administration argues that the nature of the
terrorist threat is such that it is never clear and present -- that it always lurks as potential, and thus
the criteria of danger must be adjusted in an age of terrorism”.42
In this case, the customary thinking in just war theory is deviated. If Bush’s doctrine is just as much
preventive action, then according to just war theory, it cannot be proven that it is a just cause and
that the goal will justify the means. Furthermore, it does not correspond fully with the criteria of
right intentions. The United States will have a hard time convincing the international community
that it is exclusively for self-protection that they intervene in a sovereign country. “The claim of the
41
www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf Snauwaert, Dale, T – 7/12 – 2011 - OJPCR - The online journal of
peace and conflict resolution – 2004 – p: 121-135 – page:122
42
www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf Snauwaert, Dale, T – 7/12 – 2011 - OJPCR -
peace and conflict resolution – 2004 – p: 121-135 – page:129
The online journal of
legitimacy of unilateralism at the core of the Bush Doctrine violates the principle of Right
Authority”.43 In addition, the problem of right authority could never be legitimized due to the lack
of recognition from the international law and treaties. This clearly illustrates that the preemptive
war doctrine cannot be included in modern just war theory. Therefore it has to be changed in order
to fit the new circumstances. Thus, the project does recognize that no nation will create conflict for
the greater good of all, i.e., national interest and regional advantages is understood as being the
main cause for conflicts and war.
Warfare
As far as warfare is concerned, war is regarded as being the supreme manifestation of human
conflicts. Additionally, its most primordial feature was consisted of small-scale raid that has been
enhanced since the rise of the state around five thousand years ago. Moreover, the traditional
warfare changed its patters with the discovery of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological
advancement. According to Beer, "one source claims 14,500 wars have taken place between 3500
BC and the late 20th century, costing 3.5 billion lives, leaving only 300 years of peace".44
Driven and inspired by the complicated results caused by war along the development of human
civilization, theories about war have constantly been developed and improved by distinct
generations.
Firstly, in this section, the ongoing war in Afghanistan will be analyzed and studied. Moreover, the
theory of counter-terrorism, which has a neo-realism background in an anthology, and Clash of
Civilizations by Huntington will be mainly cited and used as key theories to explain the war in
43
www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf Snauwaert, Dale, T – 7/12 – 2011 - OJPCR - The online journal of
peace and conflict resolution – 2004 – p: 121-135 – page:131
44
Henderson Conway W., "Understanding International Law". 2010 John Wiley and Sons. – page:20
Afghanistan. Meanwhile, others theories regarding the origins and characteristics of traditional war
will be used in order to identify their pros and cons. Additionally, the evolution of warfare and the
reasons for waging counter-terrorism in Afghanistan will further be expounded and proved.
Traditional War
In terms of traditional war, Aron’s theory of peace and war will be used in order to debate the
reasons and definitions of war, which have been accompanied by human civilization in the past era.
Aron argues that war is a violent conflict in a form of social organization.
It has been argued by scientists from diverse specialties that the reasons of war are usually
biological, psychological, or based on social roots.
Biologists, in turn, believe that “whether animal or human, combativity has a strictly biological
root”.45 This defines the cause of war as a human physical motivation.
Psychologists relate that the ambition to join a war reflects the humans’ instinct, when they face
frustration, imaginary enemies, and themselves.
Social roots base on the analysis of the structure of human society and a human’s role in this order,
it stresses that “two individuals or two groups are in conflict when they attempt to possess the
same property or to attain incompatible goals”.46 This illustrates that the precondition that on of
the adversaries has recourse to physical force in order to oblige the order to submit. Thus, war is the
conflict of one form of organized behavior with another, the trial by force between “groups”, each of
which strives to gain victory over the other by multiplying the vigor of each combatant by discipline.
Following the definition of roots for war, Aron also gives depiction and differentiation of social types
of wars. “The war of the first type is defensive, that of the second social, that of the third
45
Raymond Aron. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003.
– page: 341
46
Raymond Aron. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003.
– page: 345
political-economic, that of the fourth aristocratic-imperial”.47 According to Aron, war is the superior
grade of human conflicts, in which states fight each other in order to achieve their national interests
and glory. This theory has a good explanation to wars between countries and social groups, i.e., clan
fighting, on an ordinary condition, but fails or is insufficient to explain the war between superpower
and its “invisible” enemy-terrorism, for the contradictoriness of characteristics of sovereign state
and terrorist organization with strong ideological purpose.
Clash of Civilizations
Samuel P. Huntington formulated this theory in the early 1990th, and his overall thesis is that in the
post Cold War world, the most essential distinctions able to cause extensive and profound conflicts
between people are not ideological, economic, or political. They are cultural and religious, which
had been neglected by governments and people in the time of inter-state ferocious conflicts.
Moreover, Huntington stresses that our world is characterized by the distinction between the things
that have already made us so different from each. The fundamental essence of the Clash of
Civilization is “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilization identities,
are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world”.48
According to Huntington, people will always be inclined to this distinction between themselves and
the others, once this is an essential part of the basic human nature. According to Huntington,
furthermore, such a division makes relative sense and corresponds, in terms, with the reality once
there is a natural dividing line between the various civilizations.
According to Huntington’s argument, the manifestation of violent conflicts in a new world post-Cold
War has been replaced as cultural and religious issues. Undoubtedly, Islamic challenge is a serious
47
Raymond Aron. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003.
– page:90
48
Samuel P. Huntington., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996
Rockefeller Center. – page: 20
Simon & Schuster,
threat to Western’s civilization, not only regarding its social structure and value system, but also
regarding its sentiment and culture. In the case of Afghanistan, violence is constantly happen
between Christians and Muslims. Some Westerners, including the United States’ president Barack
Obama, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam; the Westerners solely
reprimand violent Islamist extremists. Nonetheless, it seems to occur the opposite, as “fourteen
hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise. The relations between Islam and Christianity, both
Orthodox and Western, have often been stormy”.49
Instead of praising Western’s values and culture, most of the Muslims population in West stress the
discrepancies between their civilization and Western’s civilization. Additionally, the superiority of
their culture as well as its maintenance, in terms of integrity against Western’s culture, should
continue.
The Muslims regard influence from West on their societies and beliefs as a threat planed by
Western countries. According to the majority of Muslims’ countries, Westerns’ values are based on
immoral, depraved, and dishonest values. “In Muslim eyes Western secularism, irreligiosity, and
hence immorality are worse evils than the Western Christianity that produced them. In the Cold
War the West labelled its opponent ‘godless communism’; in the post-Cold War conflict of
civilizations Muslims see their opponent as ‘the godless West ‘”.50
Huntington used the item of “fault line wars, ” such wars may occur between states, between
nongovernmental groups, and between states and nongovernmental groups. In Huntington’s mind
the role of religion must not be downplayed. Religion should not be considered a minor difference
between people: It is probably the most profound difference that can be identified between people.
The great majority of fault line wars take place between Muslims and non-Muslims, and thus
49
Samuel P. Huntington., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996 Simon & Schuster,
Rockefeller Center. – page:209
50
Samuel P. Huntington., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996 - Simon & Schuster,
Rockefeller Center. – page:214
Huntington uses the term “Islam’s bloody borders”.51 The war on terrorism in Afghanistan is a
classical example of the fault line wars between states and nongovernmental groups, i.e., Taliban
and Al-Qaeda.
Theory of Terrorism
As a non-traditional power quickly rising in the international stage in present world, terrorism has
enormous impact on the mode of operation of pre-existed international relations. It has even
changed the conceptualization and definition of war in the academic sector. The reasons that lead
the appearance and expansion of terrorism, its characteristics, its threats, and its long- term
influence have been studied and discussed acutely by scholars, officials, counter-terrorists, and even
terrorists themselves, for instance.
Generally speaking, as the terrorists have some special challenges, the war anti-terrorism has some
intricate characteristics, which have subverted the existing conception and image of traditional war
in people’ s mind at a big extent.
The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism
This book is an anthology of articles about Islamic terrorism in which theories of terrorism and
counter-terrorism are presented. In this compendium, the roots that cause terrorism are main
talked about based on analyzing the doctrines and theories of Islamic belief, experts on terrorism
and even terrorists themselves give their own opinions on Islam and its essence, characteristics, and
purposes. The authors’ arguments reflect a common conclusion that Islamic terrorism is mainly
based on fundamental ideas of Jihad and the relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim.
51
Samuel P. Huntington., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996 - Simon & Schuster,
Rockefeller Center. – page:255
The Ideological Roots of Islamic Terrorism
In this book, the ideological roots are regarded as the main engine of Islamic terrorism widely
concerned from distinct perspectives. The authors on counter-terrorism recognize that the Islamic
belief is not inevitable relevant to terrorism against the rest of the world, but it is still necessary to
address the root of terrorism’s causes. “While terrorism - even in the form of suicide attacks - is not
an Islamic phenomenon by definition, it cannot be ignored that the lion’s share of terrorist acts and
the most devastating of them in recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam.” 52
According to Shmuel, several analysts have emphasized that the religious reason is not as relevant
as the political and socioeconomic reasons for the rise of Islamic terrorism.
“ To treat Islamic terrorism as the consequence of political and socioeconomic factors alone would
not do justice to the significance of the religious culture in which this phenomenon is rooted and
nurtured. In order to comprehend the motivation (…) it is necessary to understand the
religious-ideological factors which are deeply embedded in Islam”.53
Shmuel and Habeck’s argument is supported by the Islamic extremism, which has a very special
opinion toward today’s world, is in some relations with the deep roots of Islamic belief itself at
some extent, “democracy, liberalism, human rights, personal freedom, international law, and
international institutions are illegal, illegitimate, and sinful”.54 In such a worldview,
“there can exist only two camps-Dar al-Islam (“The House of War”, - i.e., the Muslim countries) and
Dar al-Harb (“The House of War”- i.e., countries ruled by any regime but Islam) - that are pitted
against each other until the final victory of Islam. These concepts are carried to their extreme
conclusion by the radicals; however, they have deep roots in mainstream Islam”.55
52
Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page:11
53
Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page:12
54
Habeck Mary R., Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror2006, Yale University Press. – page:66
55
Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page:13
Radical Muslims who have an extremist worldview think that the world is divided into Islam and
non-Islam. Moreover, there are two ways for the Muslim world to look upon the rest of the world;
either the world accepts the Islamic doctrine or it will probably face the holy war.
Jihad means waging violence to enemy. The definitions to enemy of Islam differ from Islamic
academics. Hereby a definition from the authoritative Islamic scholar and spiritual leader, Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, is listed. This influential man from Iran stresses that
“Islam is not a religion of Pacifists” and deems that “ there are two kinds of war in Islam: one is
called Jihad [Holy War], which means the conquest of [other] countries in accordance with certain
conditions. The other [type] is war to preserve the independence of the [Muslim] country and the
repulsion of foreigners. ” In Ayatollah’ s lecture, “ Islam makes Holy War as an life-span obligatory
responsibility on every adult male if he is not disabled and incapacitated, so adult male can prepare
himself for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in
the world”.56
This illustrates that in some sort of academic lectures and articles, violence is regarded as a
meaningful method with the purpose of to forcing the pagans to return to the right and holy
road-Islam.
It is argued that there are some brutal battles successfully won in the name of Jihad. Despite the
victories of Islamic history in the past 1300 years, the war between Soviet Union and Afghanistan
have impelled the spirit of Islamic Jihadism and stimulated more adults to join the battle for Islamic
victory over the world.
“The soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union were perceived as an
eschatological sign, adumbrating the renewal of the jihad against the infidel world at large and the
apocalyptical war between Islam and heresy which will result in the rule of Islam in the world.”57
56 Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page:30
57 Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page:14
The Taliban and Al-Qaida are the representatives of Islamic Jihadism and extremism and, according
Habeck, most of the horrible terrorist attacks are relevant to them. Because of the Soviet invasion
and defeat in Afghanistan, Islamic extremism such as Al-Qaeda has experienced a powerful growth
and converted itself into a world terrorist organization with long term goals, including “expanding
the only legitimate Islamic state - Afghanistan - until it contained any lands that had ever been ruled
by Islamic law, and, finally, taking the war beyond the borders of even this expansive state until the
entire world was rule by their extremist Islam. In pursuit of these ends,” according to Mary, “they
believed that the murder of thousands of innocent civilians-including Muslims - was not only legally
justified but commanded by God himself”.58
Shift of War theory
The war theory is based on real warfare. Additionally, with the change of the war’s patterns, the
theory also changes in order to adapt it into the current situation. Previous to the dawn of 21th
century, war is defined as a top violent conflict among human beings on the levels of states and
regions. Inter-state war, i.e., traditional war, consists of the main pillar of war theory. Advantages on
military force, nation size, popular support, national economy, for instance, have always decided to
which side the scale of victory will lead.
The purpose of the current war in Afghanistan is to eliminating the possibilities of terrorist attack
from Al-Qaeda by overthrowing the Taliban regime, which used to be the main national supporter
of Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. Islamic terrorist organizations are built
on extreme religious doctrines with violent and belligerent armed force as their main component. In
the current war on terrorism, sovereign states are not fighting each other as they did before.
Nevertheless, fighting underground organization, which is based on strict principles and permanent
religious belief.
Moreover, sovereign states are not only competing with conventional opponents regarding the
58
Habeck Mary R., Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror2006, Yale University Press.
Page:67
numbers of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), tanks, warships, and air fighters that all belong to
the traditional force. The states are also struggling to find a way that can both destroy the
network of Islamic terrorists and avoid engraving the Muslims, who are already outraged by the
history between Christianity and Islam.
Not only waging a war abroad, but also trying to form a new stable world order, in which people
from different civilizations can accept the Western value system and do no harm to international
security.
The theory of clash of civilizations has explained the new conflicts arising in the post-Cold War era in
which clashes on ideologies, and the world’ s hegemony have been replaced by traditional hatred
and bias between different civilizations. In this argument, cleft countries and fault line wars will
become the main area and presence of human conflicts, there is no traditional war between powers
anymore, but neo war links existing super power and people who are against it with virulent
emotion. The theory on terrorism is a necessary supplement to the theory of the clash of
civilizations. Constrained by special situation and existing international order, terrorist attack is
perceived by extremists as the most efficient way to bring terror to the West powers and get
attention from all over the world, modern Islamic terrorism originates from the violent historical
relations between Christians and Muslims, it will take advantage of the hatred and use it as a way to
justify the terrorist attack against the West. So the new war on terrorism in Afghanistan is not only
against terrorists, but also a continuity of conflicts between the West and the Islamic world.
In summary, war on terror in a new era hastens a new shift of theory on warfare, which can cause a
new revolutionary change on methods of protecting international security.
Analysis
Diplomacy and Soft Power
The analytical approach of diplomacy will mostly be based on the theories related to public
diplomacy and soft power. The former will be analyzed regarding its importance as a vector of
persuasion, whose primary aim in this project is to analyzed in which legal terms the on-going war
in Afghanistan can be justified; and the latter will be analyzed in order to show why and through
which means both Americans and terrorists organizations are using soft power as a powerful
weapon in order to conquer “hearts and minds”. Moreover, a parallel will be traced among public
diplomacy theory, soft power theory, and three distinct approaches. In other words, public
diplomacy and soft power will be concerned from a cultural, religious, and geopolitical point of view.
Each of which will individually be examined supported by both theoretical material and empirical
evidence in the case of the war in Afghanistan.
Thus, possible conundrums, paradoxes, and dilemmas will be examined from distinct perspectives.
Although the resources of the traditional diplomacy related to the war in Afghanistan are limited,
traditional diplomacy will theoretically be regarded due its importance during wartime.
Firstly, as far as the traditional diplomacy as an “instrument of foreign policy” is concerned, the it
will theoretically be analyzed regarding its strategies employed in wartime in order to verify if this
can be a tangible challenge in the case of Afghanistan war.
Secondly, as far as the Afghanistan’s culture is concerned, its cultural heritage, traditions, and values
will accurately be regarded in how public diplomacy and soft power have been used by the United
States of America in order to justify the righteousness of its cause.
Thirdly, as far as the Afghanistan’s religion and beliefs are concerned, and exceptionally its radical
fanaticism, public diplomacy and soft power theories will meticulously be analyzed with the
purpose of detecting a possible empirical evidence that lead us to ‘reject such theories’.
Finally, as far as geopolitics is concerned, traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy, and soft power
will be analyzed regarding both their theoretical content and pragmatic approach related to
Afghanistan case.
Traditional Diplomatic Approach
The ongoing war on terror, in contrast with traditional conflicts between inter-states, is a modern
sort of ideological war, where the traditional diplomacy did not have enough mobility, once it is
used to dealing with state-actors. The main purpose of the conventional diplomacy in peacetime, as
previously described, is to achieve consensus among state actors through peaceful means.
Before sending the American military troops to Afghanistan, the former president of the United
States, Jorge W. Bush, in his address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001,
demanded that the Taliban regime delivered the leaders of Al Qaeda who hid in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, President Bush wanted completely access to terrorists training camps and requested
all them to be immediately closed. These orders, among others, were not open to diplomatic
negotiations, as he explicitly emphasized. Consequently, the traditional diplomacy failed in its
efforts to negotiate through peaceful means, once neither communication nor negotiations were
possible in the peculiar case of the war in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, once the traditional diplomacy
could not succeed in communicating and negotiating with the Taliban regime, the public diplomacy
persuasion started. Public diplomacy, in turn, has been utilized since then with different purposes by
the United States. However, these purposes will be addressed further on.
Even though the traditional diplomacy has failed in its primary goal, it does not necessarily mean
that it will fail in its strategies during the wartime. According to the theory, diplomacy, in wartime,
can be used in order to conduct existing relations with both allies and neutrals, to deal with the
enemy, and to offer peace. The most important strategy in wartime is to strengthen diplomatic
intercourse existing with allies. In the case of the war on terror, counterterrorism cooperation
promoted through diplomatic exchanges can serve the nations’ mutual interests.
A solid relation with allies, in terms, is extremely crucial once the United States itself cannot defeat
the terrorists alone. The countries supporting the United States’ cause will consequently fight inside
their national territories in order to frustrate and eliminate the terrorists’ network. Regarding
Afghanistan’s case, to have Afghanistan’s neighbors as allies will be essential to destroy a powerful
strategy used by the terrorists – that is, crossing the borders and seeking for financial support and
refuge. Barack Obama, the current president of the United States, addressed on his withdrawal of
American troops from Afghanistan that he will not tolerate a safe-haven for the terrorists under
none circumstances. Therefore, it is beneficial to both the United States and Afghanistan’s neighbors
to have mutual solid diplomatic relations, once diplomacy is used in order to guarantee peace and
to secure the national interests. By doing this, multilateral cooperation will be improved and the
access to resources by terrorist organizations will be increasingly reduced.
The neutrals, for instance, is seem as a potential ally that can help the United States in the
dissemination of the essence of its cause.
In spite of the traditional diplomacy being largely regarded as a failed “instrument of foreign policy”
in the on-going war in Afghanistan, there is, indeed, a possibility to rely on diplomatic relations with
allies with the purpose of shorter this complex sort of war and promote the peace in this turbulent
region. Additionally, according to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an armed attack against one
member shall be regarded as an attack against all of its members. This illustrates how essential is to
have some allies, mainly when the enemy has such peculiar feature that make the victory rougher.
The solely failure of the theoretical wartime strategies, suggested by the traditional diplomacy in
the case of Afghanistan, is referred to the dealing with the enemy. In this particular case, once the
terrorist organization is a non-state actor, the traditional diplomacy has to work parallel with public
diplomacy and soft power.
In the following approaches, public diplomacy and soft power will, generally speaking, be the major
actors, once the traditional diplomatic “weapons” are already scarce to combat the war on terror.
As quoted before in the theoretical section, “smart diplomacy”, which is regarded as being both
traditional diplomacy and public diplomacy, can broaden the horizons in the fight against terrorism
in Afghanistan.
Cultural Approach
As far as culture is concerned, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan bears features of its primordial
civilizations, which conquered the country through centuries of instability. Although there are a
huge diversity of tribes, minorities, and languages in Afghanistan, for instance, its culture is
completely traditional, intricate, and characterized by the interference of sacred religion beliefs.
Before the so-called war o terror, Afghanistan, as an underdeveloped country, seemed not to be
very pleased with the influence of Western’s culture as a pave towards progress and modernization.
In other words, the country remained looked into its own traditions and mores. Additionally, the
most conservative and radical classes of the Afghan society abhorred American’s foreign police,
values, culture, and lifestyle.
At the present time, exactly ten years after the terror episode in the United States of America,
America is using public diplomacy, earlier described as a tool of statecraft used in order to generate
legitimacy and disseminate soft power, with the objective of justifying the on-going war on terror to
the world - especially to the Muslim world.
In order to successfully persuade the Muslim nation regarding the justness of its cause and
intentions, the United States’ tactic is to address its messages through the media, once the means
of communication are, undoubting, crucial for the success of public diplomacy.
In addition, as the messenger is usually much more important than the message itself, Muslim and
Arab interlocutors ought to be warily chosen in order to address the United States’ messages, thus,
persuading the desired audience of the righteousness of the American cause. Moreover, once the
interlocutors and the local population share the same culture and beliefs, these interlocutors have
more credibility before the regional populace and, the message can be much more attractive,
understandable, and reliable.
In order to better visualize the cultural heritage of this populace, for instance, the Afghan’s culture is
so archaic that the traditional violence practices against women, such as forced marriage and family
abuse, persist in the twenty-first century.
As far as culture is concerned, the American public diplomacy is promulgating soft power, previously
described as the ability of seducing, in order to get the Muslims’ “minds and hearts”, by showing the
essence of American culture itself. American beliefs and the so-called American’s values differ
extremely from those found in Afghanistan and are not shared by the Islamic nation. According to
the declaration of independence of the United States from Great Britain on July 4, 1776, “all men
are created equal, (…) they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.59 This simply illustrates that already in
the eighteenth century the prized value of liberty, for instance, was distinguishably respected by the
American society. Liberty, in this context, can also be interpreted as freedom. Freedom is, in its
essence, a strong American value together with democracy. Authoritarian governments belonging
to the Muslim world are constantly rejecting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of
vote, freedom of choice, and mainly freedom of expression. Therefore, soft power is of a great
relevance in order to use American values to attract and seduce the Muslim nation. Through this
strategy, America can easier show to the Islamic world that the American “capitalism” culture is
based on several strong values and traditions. By doing this, the United States of America can
guarantee its sovereignty and specially fulfill its national interests.
Additionally, once the culture of every single country is profoundly associated with its public image,
and the image of the Western civilization - especially the image of the United States post Iraq war is
not well regarded among the Islamic nation - it might empirically be extremely delicate to persuade
a conventional and “intangible” culture contrasting with what it is theoretically regarded.
Once the United States of America continues to be impregnated with an arrogant image among the
Muslim world, it will be easier to the terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, to use soft power
with the purpose of “conquering” those who share the same culture, speak the same language,
have the same mores, believe in the same God, and share the same agonies and uncertainties as
they do. This can be used in order to justify why the soft power used by non-state actors, in this
specific case Al Qaeda, has been repeatedly succeeding in defeating the United States regarding this
ideological war in order to get more “hearts and minds”. This point can, additionally, be seen as a
conundrum. Nonetheless, the cultural heritage of this society can, indeed, justify why soft power is
being used with success by terrorists. Anti-Americanism jeopardizes American’s public diplomacy as
well as its national security.
In contrast, the United States is promoting its culture among the referred Islamic nations by using
the means of communication in order to disseminate its values and to portray its policies - when
possible. Moreover, exchange programs and even economic and humanitarian aid have been
59
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ 14/12/11
utilized by the United States seeking for a major field for its influence and trying to justify that the
ongoing war has none association with the Muslims’ culture, theirs beliefs, or way of life, but to
defeat the one of the biggest threat to the mankind, i.e., terrorism.
Religious Approach
As far as religion is concerned, the Islamism will be regarded in terms of how soft power and public
diplomacy are being used through religion in order to justify the rightness of America’s cause to the
Muslim world, and to get support for its interests, policies, and war against terrorism.
Religion, the belief in a supreme being, is extremely sacred among the Muslims. Notwithstanding,
their religion is not just a sacred activity; Islamism it is a life sacrifice. On September 11, 2001, some
fanatic extremists murdered thousands of lives. President Bush, in his address to a joint session of
Congress, had to justify that the United States was not fighting a battle with the Muslim religion.
The war itself was not a typical religious war, but a war against terror and its ideologies.
Firstly, in terms of war justification, the primary aim of the United States was to allege to the world
that this war was not a war against Muslims and their religious beliefs. In the contrary, military
efforts safeguarded Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, for instance. This war was to combat the radical
network of terrorist and those who supported them, once they have cruelty murdered thousands of
people outside the battlefield. Additionally, it is alleged that under the command of Osama Bin
Laden terrorists bombed the United States’ embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
The target of the terrorists was to destroy a country based in solid values as freedom and
democracy and the people who were there, regardless of nationality and religion. Many lives were
lost in that tragic episode, including the lives of the followers of Allah. Therefore, the aim of public
diplomacy in this specific case was to show that this war was simply not a war; it was a ‘just war’
that could not be impeded.
In this case, the major challenge of American public diplomacy is, through soft power, to show to
the Muslim world the evidence that Al-Qaeda network was the responsible entity for the 9/11
attacks and, thus, to demonstrate to them that the United States had a just cause for its actions.
The United States and its allies are, moreover, using soft power to show to the Islamic nations that
terrorists do not make distinction between human beings. Whether they are Christians or Muslims,
children or women it is not of a great relevance. Moreover, as stated by president Obama in his
address on his withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, “Al-Qaida has failed in its effort to
portray America as a nation at war with Islam – thereby draining more widespread support”.60 It is,
once more, not a simply task to the United States of America to deal with a religion such Islamism,
whose features are impregnated in every single ramification of Afghanistan’s society.
President Bush, furthermore, in the same speech stated: “whether we bring our enemies to justice
or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”61
This explicitly illustrates, in this case, that a
health religious society will obviously seek for peace and justice, once it condones the killing of
innocents. In addition, in order to achieve the desired goals, the messages concerning religion need
to be addressed by Islamic scholars and clerics, otherwise it will be counterproductive. Moreover,
the United States’ tactic is to use Arab, Muslim, and American Muslim as, literally speaking,
“marionettes” to shorter the pave toward the Muslims’ “hearts and minds”.
Geopolitical Approach
As far as geopolitics is concerned, Afghanistan is located in a strategic region connecting Middle East
and Asia. This important location has been the stage of intense conflicts among distinct civilizations
with different interests.
It has been argued by many politicians, including America’s former and current president that the
ongoing war in Afghanistan is a just war due the attacks occurred on September 11, 2001. This
means that they have used the murder of thousand innocent people outside the battlefield and the
threats to the world’s security as a justification for their attitude towards Afghanistan. Nevertheless,
it has also been argued that the reason why the United States is in Afghanistan is merely the
opposite, i.e., that the United States is using its public diplomacy and soft power in order to
obfuscate its real objectives.
60
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/23/barack-obama-afghanistan-withdrawal-text 17/12/2011
61
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-national-anthem-citizens?_s=PM:US 15/12/11
Afghanistan is, controversially, an underdeveloped country with huge reserves of natural resources
including some of the rarest minerals in the world or even some endemic sort of them. Furthermore,
Afghanistan natural gas reserves arouse a great interest in the United States. It is alleged that
“Afghanistan's mineral wealth and energy resources (including natural gas) were known to both
America's business elites and the US government prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1988).”62
This illustrates that the United States knew about this crucial economic factor in advance, i.e., this is
not merely a surprising discovery. The United States would not send thousands of soldiers to
Afghanistan just in order to defeat Al Qaeda, once Al Qaeda has cells in some not just in Afghanistan,
but in 60 countries. Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has the potential to be self-sufficient if the country develops its resources sustainably.
This will contribute to the wealth of Afghanistan that at the present moment is based on foreign aid,
agriculture, opium production, and narcotics trafficking. This would be of a great relevance, once it
is assumed that around 80 per cent of the people that became a member of Taliban was “for
non-ideological reason, such as a lack of economic opportunities, intimidation by the Taliban and
local Government authorities and mistreatment.”63
Geopolitically speaking, public diplomacy and soft power cannot persuade as the way they can in
terms of culture and history. Public diplomacy can though use soft power to persuade the public to
follow its policies, but the traditional diplomacy is probably more effective in terms of dealing with
geopolitical issues among governments.
Finally, smart diplomacy would together with smart power be the most suitable strategy in order to,
respectively, justifying the on-going war in Afghanistan and to defeating the terrorist’s network.
Just war
This part of the analysis will be dealing with the just war theory in the perspective of the case study
of Afghanistan. Furthermore, it will also deal with the Bush doctrine and Bush speech to the
62
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19769 18/12/11
63 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/539/49/PDF/N1053949.pdf?OpenElement 18/12/11
American congress, where he declared a war on terror. Moreover, the just war theory will look upon
the Bush doctrine of “preemptive war” and analyze it according to the war in Afghanistan. This will
be completed with an emphasis on answering the project’s central question of change in concepts
and methods of acting in conflicts. The analysis will be based on the case study’s order.
Firstly, the geographical conditions will be analyzed according to the theory. Secondly, the historic of
war in Afghanistan and their development will be analyzed. Furthermore, how the historical wars
were justified in Afghanistan, what is the change in this justification, and Afghanistan’s history of
wars will be viewed through the eyes of the just war theory. This segment will be on the political
and religious part of the Afghan nation. How was the political sphere functioning with these
numerous wars in Afghanistan and how have they been justified according to the just war theories
criteria? Was there a change in the way the justification has occurred, and has the just war concept
changed because of the situation in Afghanistan?
Geography and Culture
Geography is an important factor when looking at the just war theory’s criteria for a just war. One of
the main criteria in the just war theory states that the war should be on the basis of an objective to
make the conditions better for the people than it was before the war was initiated. The right
intention has to be presented in order to certify that the war can be justified. Afghanistan is located
in the Middle-East region bordering to China. Moreover, this location has through history turned
Afghanistan into a country of strategic importance to many nations, especially regarding the
confrontation between Eastern and Western’s civilizations.
The mountains in Afghanistan provide the nation with a strong defensive capability as well as
strategic position in most of the nation’s borders. These factors have turned it into an important
advantage point. There is an argument, which states that the reason why so many nations and
superpowers have attacked Afghanistan over the years is that Afghanistan is a weak nation filled
with resources that other nations cannot live without. Moreover, it is argued that Afghanistan is a
good access point for the Western’s nations into main China. Additionally, for China and Russia it is a
solid buffer to the Western’s nations, which might be interested in having strategic advantages over
the Eastern nations.
This is where the problem arises regarding the just war theory. If American troops are entering
Afghanistan with the purpose of gaining a strategic advantage over China and Russia, how can it be
a just war? According to the criteria of the traditional just war theory, it cannot be a just war if the
right intention is not present. An objective to gain an advantage over another nation cannot be a
just cause according to the theory. Furthermore, if the United States of America intervened in
Afghanistan with this reason they would have to convince the world by using other reason to make
the war just. Since we now know through history and the current events in Afghanistan that the
United States managed to convince most of the civilized governments not to interfere, then the just
war theory has failed in this criteria and we have to re-think what the intention could be for it to
turn into a just cause. Officially, the war in Afghanistan was to deal with terrorist and the Taliban
government did not wish to help the United States of America in this cause.
As stated in the case study, the Afghan’s culture is deeply rooted in the Islamic beliefs, which is the
core religion in the country. Culturally speaking, once Afghanistan has been influenced by Islamic
beliefs and countless of people, who passed through the country throughout history, it is difficult to
pinpoint some peculiar characteristics of this populace. Moreover, Afghanistan is a nation where the
gathering point has been religion, which is also the basis of the Taliban government. Culture is
among the aspects that make the soft power concept. Western’s culture and values are some of the
conditions that the terrorists have been fighting against. Furthermore, the fundamental
explanations of what is right and wrong can differ according to the people’s cultural background and
values.
Thus, in the case of Afghanistan it becomes unclear whether or not the United States of America
attacked because of the culture in Afghanistan. If culture, in this case, means fundamentalism and
extreme measures to attack any other nation that does not share the same beliefs, then to some
extend it could have been one of the reasons for the attack from the United States. According to the
United States, it was not just culture and values. Here we can look at the first criteria of the just war
theory. “A war must be with a just cause”. Furthermore, the second criteria is also appropriated. “It
has to be the right intention, otherwise it is not considered a just war”. Is it a just cause to intervene
into a nation with the cause of attacking a nation’s culture? On the one hand, if the culture is the
basis for the terrorism in the country, then it could be justified to go in and defeat the threat.
On the other hand, a nation’s culture differs from other cultures and fundamentalism will never be
based solely on the cultural heritage. Thus, it is not possible to attack exclusively using this reason.
Furthermore, this means that the just war theory will have to be adjusted in order to identify if
Afghanistan’s culture is what is creating terrorism and if that can be a just cause. In addition, the just
war theory’s criteria for a just war will be changed with the aim of fitting it into the modern war on
terror. What is terrorism and fundamentalism, if not a part of culture and a part of the Afghan’s
cultural background? The main issue for the just war theory in this case is to identify what is cultural
feature and what will be expressed through acts of terrorism. Furthermore, it will be required to
discovery if it represents the whole nation or if it is a minority trying to convey fundamentalist
thinking. In order to justify an act of aggressing through the just war theory, the United States will
have to illustrate that terrorism comes not only through fundamentalism, but also through the basic
culture of both Afghan people and government.
War in Afghanistan
The next part of this section will be based on the analysis of the history of war, the change of war in
Afghanistan, and how this change might have affected the possibility to take advantage of the just
war theory in order to justify the intervention that occurred. Afghanistan has throughout history
been invaded and attacked numerous times. Furthermore, the reasons for invading the country
have been many. Nevertheless, just few of them were just. Due to Afghanistan’s tremendous
importance, most of the superpowers have tried to control it in order to dominate that area. First, it
was Great Britain, which tried to embrace the nation. Second, it was the Soviet Union. When the
Soviet Union tried to invade Afghanistan, it was the CIA and the American government, which
provided training and weaponry to the tribes and warlords in Afghanistan. It is argued that most of
the modern terrorist training camps, which have been located around Afghanistan was started by
the CIA a long time ago. Although the training methods are more extreme now, they are based on
the same principle.
The justifications have been countless and throughout history there have not been a true
requirement to justify the challenge for control. Thus, what has changed in the modern times that a
nation, and even a superpower, needs to justify the intervention into a war-plagued nation which is
known to have terrorists inside its borders? If we look at the wars that have occurred in Afghanistan,
it has mainly been about control and protecting their mainland. At the present day, the American’s
reason was for the war on terror. This means that there has been a shift in the justification of war
from a sovereign nation to sovereign nation, to superpower against a small fundamentalist group
inside a sovereign nation. Furthermore, the just war theory criteria will have to, if not change to fit
the new scenario, adapt to comprehend the new type of war that is revealed in this conflict. For
instance, criteria number four, which states that war should be a last possible resort after all other
means, have been taken into consideration. After 9/11-2001, the diplomatic solutions were not
taken into consideration and swift action was taken in order to counter the terrorist act on United
States’ soil.
The war on terror presents the just war theory with a conundrum, which cannot easily be solved.
The theory is designed and meant for two sovereign states to have a conflict with each other. How
can the just war theory change in order that a war on terror can be justified? Furthermore, does it
need to change to fit the current situation or is it a different understanding of the concept
necessary? The just war theory presents us with a series of criteria to justify war. These criteria are:
right authority, just cause, right intention, right aim, proportionality, and last resort64. If America
could have established a right authority, the rest of the objectives could possibly be defended.
According to the American government, the declaration of the war on terror gave them the right to
attack any terrorist group or organizations wherever they should be located. If the government of
the country that the American troops will have to attack did not approve, then it would be the
equivalent as supporting the terrorists.
In Bush’s speech to congress on 20/9-2001, he stated that the war on terror has begun. ”From this
day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the
United States as a hostile regime”65. This illustrates how they are trying to gain the right authority to
64
Jason Gatliff, ,: Terrorism and just war tradition - 2007 - VDM Verlag – page:35
65Bush speech
to congress Sep 20, 2001
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech.htm 10/12-2011 (middle east issue)
by Pierre Tristam, – Sep 20, 2001
intervene in any sovereign nation they want, as long as they can present some evidence of terrorism
activity. Furthermore, this means that the just war theory has to take into consideration that a
country like America can create its own authority disregarding, thus, the normal standards for
justifying war on another states. This will mean that when an intervention into a sovereign nation is
a part of the war on terror, the authority is implied.
We will analyze the other criteria in the just war theory and rethink if they are valid or obsolete.
Furthermore, it will virtually be a just cause to destroy terrorism, wherever it may be, in justifying to
the sovereign nations that they have to combat the terrorists. This forces us to examine the degree
of participation required tin order o be considered as a support in the war on terror. How long will it
take to the United States in order to identifying the new threat to their own and the international
community’s safety? The American government has through a declaration of war against any terror
organization, or nation supporting a terror organization, established a sphere in which they can base
their justification of war on. Thus, when the United Nations demands a reason for invading a
sovereign nation, they will have an implied and justified motive for war. The United Nations’
Security Council is still demanding justification of the war in Afghanistan and this is also why the
United States does not recognize the authority of the United Nations. Moreover, this presents the
project with an interesting question. Why does the United States work so hard to justify their attack
in Afghanistan, when they already established that the way on terror is just and that anyone who is
helping terrorists should be considered hostile as well?
Religion and Politics
The next part of this analysis will deal with the religion and politics in Afghanistan in order to see if
the invasion could be justified through the just war theory. As it is stated in the case study, the
Taliban rose to power with their strict teachings and tough rules and quickly took over most of
Afghanistan by force.
The American government was saying in the speech 20/9-2001 that the fight against terrorism and
Al Qaeda was not a fight against Islam and Muslims. The interesting part about this aspect is that
the Taliban government, which American does not recognize as a legitimate government, is based
on the Muslim faith. Furthermore, it is interesting to understand how the Taliban’s fighters training
came from CIA in the very camps that later came to be used with the purpose of training terrorist
fighters. Thus, if the Americans do not want to fight a holy war based on Western beliefs against
Eastern beliefs, they have to make it very clear to the international community that this is not the
situation. “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by
Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the
peaceful teachings of Islam”66. This part of this speech is also illustrating the point that we were
making earlier in this project. That Bush and the Americans are very careful not to convert the
conflict into a war on religion, where the United States of America with its immense number of
Muslims inside its borders would never be able to succeed in convincing its people that the
intervention was the right step.
The challenge for the American government will be to justify the war on a religious rogue
government or organization. Can they remove the Taliban when it is not even the Taliban that the
war is really about? According to the traditional just war theory, there are several criteria that can
be argued are not represented properly with this focus on their religious government. One can
argue that it is not a just cause to intervene in Afghanistan and that the attack on a sovereign nation
solely was explained with the inadequate answer that the American’s did not see the Taliban as a
legitimate government. This was also the same reason why the American’s gave to the international
community in order to justify their aggression. Moreover, it could be argued that it was not done
with the right intention and that America intervened into Afghanistan due to several reasons far
from the war on terror they have promoted.
There are abundant amount of possible reasons. Nonetheless, America chose the war on terror and
that the Taliban rogue government was hiding Osama bin laden amongst other well-known and
66
Bush speech to congress Sep 20, 2001
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech.htm 10/12-2011 (middle east issue)
by Pierre Tristam, – Sep 20, 2001
documented terrorists. On the other hand, it could be that the American intelligence agencies have
got it all right and the war on terror was the just cause they have been claiming from the beginning.
This might also mean that, to some extend, the war was just according to the just war theory’s
criteria. Nevertheless, to fully justify the war the United States will have to convince the
international community that the war on terror is something that is a threat to mankind and
something that needs to be dealt immediately. Furthermore, as this is an intricate war against a
terminology, the concept of just war needs to evolve to fit the war on terror.
The criticism of the just war theory, at the present time, is regarding to the difficulties of identifying
the guilty part in terrorism, and how one can have a war of terror if it is difficult to locate the
terrorists. Waltzer states, moreover, that: “In fighting against terrorist we must not aim at innocent
people (that’s what the terrorists do); ideally we should get close enough to the enemy, or to his
supporters, so that we are quite sure not only that we are aiming at them but also that we are
hitting them”67. This also illustrates the importance of knowing where and what you are shooting at
and having people on the ground to identify any targets.
The Bush doctrine of “preemptive war” illustrates very well the need there is to justify America’s
attacks on sovereign nations. The war on terror makes it possible for the United States with enough
evidence and pressure to enter almost any nation to find and destroy a threat to the public safety.
Furthermore, the Bush doctrine presents the just war theory with problems, because it raises the
question of what is a just cause and how can you defend these in a proper way. On the one hand,
the doctrine provides the United States with all the justification they need as long as they can
defend that there is terrorist hiding or terrorism is being spread on purpose. On the other hand, it
provides America with a vast grey area where they can roam freely without anyone watching over
their actions. Furthermore, the just war theory fails to deal with a doctrine where the criteria
already is pre-filled and America has, according to the previously mentioned criteria, a “get away
with everything” card. Here the just war theory will have to change to account for the war on terror
and the Bush doctrine in order to have any relevant justification of military interaction in sovereign
nations.
In the cold war times, the American foreign policy did not have to struggle immensely with justifying
67
Michael Waltzer,: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA – page:136
the war against communism and the Soviet Union. It was a natural thing, which most of the
Western world supported on the level they found appropriate. Additionally, there was at that time
an enemy, which had been identified and recognized by the majority of the American people. This
consequently also meant that the objectives were clear in the case on who was the enemy and how
to justify the ongoing cold war. After that the Clinton’s administration took over, it took some time
to identify a new threat to American interests. It was not until the Bush administration it really took
shape. Some believe that the invasion plans for Afghanistan were ready before 9/11-2001, and this
would mean there might be a larger goal in this. Nevertheless, this idea is not something that we
will deal with in our project so strongly. After Bush changed the NSS of America and after the
terrorist attack, it was a change into the war on terror and then the justification of terror had to
start. This was also an immense focus of the change of the concept on global governance.
The just war theory has had to undergo some major ideological changes after the war on terror has
been declared. The identification of combatants is no longer as clear as it was earlier, and the
difficulties present themselves when justifying the ongoing war. As far as the war in Afghanistan is
regarded, just war was officially based on the war on terror, thus, according to that and to Waltzer,
the intervention was just, or as just as a war can possible be. Furthermore, this war might have
several reasons both officially and unofficially. Moreover, this factor presents a conundrum, where
the “real” reason for the war might be hidden in. The obstacles that is being faced right now by the
just war concept, is that there are not two combatants fighting. In addition, the justification is not as
clear as it should be. Convincing nations that terrorists are hiding and living in their country might
cause an international crisis and push the boundaries regarding what is a just war even further.
To summarize, the just war theory could be applied on most of the factors for the war in
Afghanistan, but the problem arises when dealing with the war on terror. A new set of criteria’s
could be needed, where it would be understood that before looking at the hidden terrorism inside a
nation, there should be someone looking at the greater picture and taking in all factors before
justifying a war. “Just war is not an apology for any particular war, and it is not a renunciation of war
itself. It is designed to sustain a constant scrutiny and an immanent critique”68. War on terror brings
the just war theory in a conundrum, where it has to change to adapt to the new circumstances of
68
Michael Waltzer,: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA – page:22
war. Furthermore, the concept of just war is changing to fit whatever reason a war is justified. As we
have examined in this part of the analysis, there could have been several reasons for intervention in
a sovereign nation, and most of them would require change in the just war concept to justify the
war.
Warfare
In this chapter, an analysis of the reasons and conditions that have made the war development from
traditional into modern will be analyzed. Additionally, the theories regarding the clash of
civilizations, warfare, terrorism as well as its ideology will not solely be used in order to explain the
case, but they will moreover be argued and challenged in this chapter. Thus, a more clear and
objective conclusion will be achieved.
The ineffectiveness of traditional war in a new era
Theoretically, the traditional war has been studied and defined by several scholars in the past time.
From “The Art of War”, by the ancient Chinese strategist Sunzi in the East, and “ De Bello Gallico ”
by Rome dictator Gaius Julius Caesar in the West, to the modern military works by academics from
different countries, classes, and stands, the war between countries have been taken as the top
manifestation of human conflicts. The first and second Iraq Wars are all traditional wars in the new
era. Thus, the question is, what is new era? What are the factors in this era that have made the
traditional war less effective to achieve a goal than before? In the opinion of historical materialism,
every event has a historical background, which raises naturally according to human production,
progress, and the evolution of production relations. “War is a universal phenomenon whose form
and scope is defined by the society that wages it”.69
War is always a consequence of a unique period of history. In traditional war, one nation (or
nation-state) is fighting another for national interests, natural resources, geographical hegemony,
69
Based upon: John Keegan:
A History Of Warfare, 1994, A Division of Random House, Inc.
and even national glory. Nations have governments to negotiate with and can decide to go to war
or stay in peace by evaluating the efficiency of diplomatic effort. In addition, they have navy, land,
and air force to put in the war against others. The First World War and the Second World War are
regarded as the top two wars in human history, because of the shocking numbers of casualties and
belligerent countries. The nations in the World Wars not only fought each other, but also used
diplomatic offices in pursuit of victory. Following these two brutal wars, Korean, Vietnam,
Soviet-Afghan War, and Gulf War also broke out in the anarchic international order.
There are always some necessary conditions needed for an inter-state war, i.e., a country must
have an obstinate conflict with another country or military allies, both the two sides have proper
political and military system, such as government, defence (or offence) force. The actual benefits
are more pursued than bringing fear or hatred to the enemy during the war. Additionally, the main
actors in the war are sovereign countries. In the post-Cold War era, the international circumstance
and relations between East and West, and South and North have improved. Furthermore, the
possibility for war between nations is less than before. It is less probable to see wars as fierce as
WWI and WWII in our time. Undoubtedly, states still do engage in power politics more than
constructive cooperation, but this new phenomenon cannot get rid of the fact that “ Peaceful
Game ” is attracting more and more powerful leaders to do as it advocates. “ Great Powers no
longer tend to conquer small ones, and free trade is expanding rather than contracting”.70 In this
new era of cooperation between powers, our world has become more peaceful than the disastrous
world we experienced around 100 years ago. Nations are no longer the only factors in the
international society. Organizations in a region, or organizations of countries with similar interests
are flourishing. International structure consisting of sovereign countries has more influence on
internal and external policies in these countries. Interdependence is becoming more important than
before. From the view of mass media, more people are aware of the importance of peace to their
life and home, perceiving pacifism as the new trend after the post-Cold War era. Affected by the
mass ideology and constrained by the existing world order, leaders in each country become more
70
Brown Michael E., Owen R. Cote, Jr. Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, Edited, “Theories of War and Peace”. 1998 The Mit
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England. – page:421
cautious than their predecessors. Additionally, at the present time, country versus country in a
battlefield is rarely seen, because of the evolution of conventional interests.
Terrorism in a new era
Islam and the West in a Historic Conflictual Background
As one of the greatest religions in the world, Islam is incomparably studied by many people in the
whole world. In the dawn of the 21th century, many terrorist attacks are relevant to the Islamic
extremism, which make people easy to equalize Islam with terrorism. From a historical point of view,
the conflicts between the Islam and the West have lasted for hundreds of years and led to countless
victims. Although some Westerner’s leaders, including the United States and some European
countries, have always argued that the West does not have problems with Islam, fourteen hundred
years of history tells the opposite.
“The twentieth-century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting
and superficial historical phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflictual relation
between Islam and Christianity”.71
Thus, it is fair to say that the conflict between Islam and the West is not a contemporary
phenomenon as it is argued by some idealists. On the contrary, it is a historic hatred that continues
to have great effect on both people in the West and Islam. The increasing intensity of this historical
antagonism has been widely recognized by members of both communities.
“This development is partly to do with secular versus religious values, partly to do with the
historical rivalry between Christendom and Islam, partly to do with jealousy of Western power,
partly to do with resentments over Western domination of the postcolonial political structuring of
the Middle East, and partly to do with the bitterness and humiliation of the invidious comparison
between the accomplishments of Islamic and Western civilizations in the last two centuries”.72
71
Samuel P. Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996
Simon & Schuster, Rockefeller Center. –
page:209
72
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/21842315/132824106/name/%EE%80%80BUZAN%EE%80%81-1991.pdf
- 20/12 pages: 448-449
Terrorism is no more than a new type of violence against the Western’s infidels in the thousands of
years along the clash with the West, which is a concept perceived by some radical Muslims in the
world. Terrorist attack and counter-terrorism war can be regarded as the senior manifestation of all
Islam-West conflicts, it is an evil consequence born in the religious exclusionism of Christianity and
Islam, which has left these two sides in long term of chaos and accumulated a big amount of
antagonistic emotions towards each other.
The characteristics of the extremity of Islamic terrorism
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international
community, however, terrorism has not universally agreed, legally binding criminal law definition.
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts, which are intended to create fear
(terror), perpetrate religious, political, or ideological goals as well as deliberately target or disregard
the safety of civilians. Despite the controversial definitions on terrorism, which is politically and
emotionally charged, we hereby sort Islamic terrorism into a kind of religious terrorism as the
precondition for the debate in this section.
Extremity from religious source in extremists’ mind
Religious terrorism is a kind of terrorism either performed by groups or individuals, and its
motivation is typically rooted in faith-based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have
been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system of belief,
viewpoint, or opinion. Religious terrorism does not itself necessarily define a specific religious
standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of
teaching in that belief system. Nonetheless, it is still not enough to explain the roots of Islamic
terrorism, which has several ideological resources shaped by the behaviors of radical Muslims. 1,
Islam is a mixture of political idea and religious belief. Traditionally speaking, Islamic
fundamentalism and extremism - and certainly in the worldview of the Islamic fundamentalist there is no distinct separation between political and religious spheres. This political-religious
opinion is popular among Muslims. Although there are some countries such as Turkey and Pakistan,
which advocate secularism in their state constitution, it is clear the isolated situation that these
countries suffer in the Islamic world. In the legitimacy of Islam, a country based on Shariah is a real
Islamic country for Muslim, or it is apostasy against pure Islam. 2, Worldview in Islam is divided into
black and white. “ Perfection lies in the ways of the Prophet and the events of his time; therefore,
religious innovations, philosophical relativism, and intellectual or political pluralism are
anathema”.73 In this kind of worldview of radical Islamist, any political or religious reform will be
regarded as blaspheming the perfection of Islam and betraying to the absolute will of Allah. 3, The
legality of Jihad. Among Islamic academics, there are consistent arguments about Jihad and the
qualification of those who exert it as well as how the Jihad should be fought and funded. It is clear
that Al-Qaeda and Taliban are the organizations that not only advocate Jihad, but also practice it
radically in the world. In the leading ideology of Al-Qaeda, the destruction of the United States and
the Islamization of the North American continent as well as other parts of the world is its main
purpose.
“After faith, there is no greater duty than fighting an enemy who is corrupting religion and the world
(…) on this basis, and in accordance with God’ s will, we pronounce to all Muslims the following
judgment: To kill the American and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty
incumbent upon every Muslim in all countries…” And “ How small the enjoyment of this world is,
compared with the life to come! If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely and put
others in your place, but you cannot harm Him in any way: God has power over all things”.74
For the radical Muslims, the world of non-Islam stands for decadence, paganism, fallen hedonism,
and blaspheming to Allah, which should be destroyed and rebuilt under the law of Shari’ a. This
struggle will be continuous for an undetermined period of time, or until the world of infidels are
conquered. The “9.11” is only a declaration by the Islamic extremists who regard it as a prelude of
deceive religious war. Logically, the war between terrorism and counter-terrorism is inevitable if
non-radical Islamists want to choose their own style of life and cherish their own beliefs.
Characteristics of Terrorism Organization
1. Strong will of aggressivity
73
Marvin Perry, and Howard E. Negrin. (Edited) :The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page13
74
Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A Divison of St. Martin’ s Press
LLC. – page:46
Violence and bellicosity are the main features of terrorism. For the purpose of causing massive
panic in the civil society and bringing horrible shock to governmental regime, terrorist organizations
prefer to use any efficient means including bombing, assassin, poisoning, biochemical attack, and
even menace and exertion of nuclear weapons. Although conventional wisdom had suggested that
terrorists would not inflict large casualties, and some experts even believed it unlikely that terrorists
would turn to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction, “the ferocity of the
“9.11”, 2001 attacks and past use of chemical and biological weapons by terrorists illustrate the
possibility that terrorists will turn to these weapons more frequently in the future”.75 After the
attack on “9.11”, our world has stepped into an era of increasing threats from terrorism.
2. Terrorist organizations rise as quick as cells reproduce
After the end of the Cold War, the conflicts between civilizations and religions have increased at a
fast speed. Following this fast increase, world’s terrorist organizations are trying to expand their
branches, power, and promulgate its influence as much as possible. Because of the progress made
under the strengthening cooperation among countries against international terrorism, the terrorist
organizations survive in the wave of military attack that have demonstrated increasing abilities to
adapt to counter-terrorism measures and political failure. Terrorists are developing new capabilities
of attack and improving the efficiency of traditional terror methods. Additionally, terrorist groups
have shown significant progress in escaping from a subordinate role in nation-state conflicts, and
becoming prominent as international influences in their own right. They are becoming more
integrated with other sub-state entities, such as criminal organizations and legitimately chartered
corporations, and are gradually assuming a measure of control and identity with national
governments.
Terrorists are becoming more sophisticated with the stricter counter terrorism policies, and are
increasing the abilities of terrorist attacks in virtually all aspects of their operations and support. The
aggressive use of modern technology for information management, communication, and
75
Akorlie A. Nyatepe-Coo, Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted (Edited): Understanding Terrorism-Threats in an Uncertain World, 2004 Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey – page:243
intelligence has increased the efficiency of these activities. Weapons technology has become
increasingly available, and the purchasing power of terrorist organizations is on the rise. The
availability of both technology and trained personnel to operate for any client with sufficient cash,
allows the well-funded terrorist to exceed the sophistication of governmental counter-measures.
Furthermore, due to the increase in information outlets, terrorism now requires a greatly increased
amount of violence or originality to attract the attention it requires. The tendency of major media
to compete for ratings and the subsequent revenue gained from the increase in their audience size,
put pressure on the terrorists to increase the impact and violence of their actions, to take advantage
of this sensationalism.
At the present time, most experts believe that Afghanistan is one of the certain parts of the world
including Middle East, Pakistan, and Central Asia, turning out to be one of the main power center
for terrorism. Decades of lawlessness and corruption have seen Islamic terrorist groups fill the
power vacuum in this region and continue to turn out an alarming number of religiously motivated
terrorists. The rise of the Taliban is relevant to the security situation in Afghanistan, and that is also
the reason why Al-Qaeda, the most powerful and secret terrorist organization, chose it as a hotbed
to hideout.
3. Conditions for the Reproduction of Terrorism
Poverty
In the modern history of our world, conflicts relevant to poverty are not new and strange to see.
Moreover, it is clear that poverty has been one of the main engines that drive people to go against
existing order, despite the justification. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, politicians
and policy experts drew a quick and intuitive line between terrorism and poverty. Much of the
existing academic literature on conflict suggested that poverty increased the likelihood of political
coups and civil war, so conflating terrorism with poor economic conditions seemed logical. “The
basic problem that spurs terrorism is misdistribution of wealth within the U.S. and around the world,
political activism, including violent activity, is less appealing to individuals when their economic
opportunities expand. So, even if it were the case that poverty does not directly cause terrorism, it
could still be true that economic growth reduces terrorism.”76
Lack of secular and scientific education
Islamic terrorism or Islamic extremism is not only a violent entity against civil and social security, but
also a system of ideology, which needs to manipulate people’s mind. While many counter-terrorism
experts put forward a connection that links poverty, education and terrorism, there is still a kind of
popular, but contradictory opinion, arguing that the most terrorists are well-educated men with
good prospects for their futures. The project believes that no people are ignorant enough to deny
the truth that the top leaders and some professional “warriors” in terrorist organizations are
consisted of elites with high educations in science & technology. However, it is necessary to
understand the main force of the “terrorist army” consists of young people without good education.
Most of the soldiers in Taliban come from impoverished regions with high rate of illiteracy in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East. Definitely, young people with senior education level and
sympathy to the Jihad movement are easier to join extreme action against secular government and
present world order. Education with acceptable secular ideas is one of the most efficient key to
destroy the roots that cause terrorism.
A new situation in front of the United States and its allies
Although the United States clearly possesses the most powerful military forces on the face of the
earth, military power will not alone be enough to defeat international terrorism. The United States’
armed forces have been in Afghanistan for more than ten years. Nevertheless, it is important to
point out that rather than destroying Al-Qaeda’s ability to wage terror, they have only destroyed its
ability to wage power from Afghanistan. Despite the death of numerous soldiers of Al-Qaeda in the
bombing of the United States’ air force, several soldiers have escaped into Afghanistan’s neighbor
Pakistan. These survivors have undoubtedly regrouped and are planning new attacks to take
revenge from America. Thus, it is certain that the United States and its allies will suffer high danger
from terrorism for a long time in the future. However, it is not correct to say that the conventional
military forces in Afghanistan, which are there to destroy the terrorist groups, do nothing but create
76
http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/TerrorPoverty.htm
more risks of being attacked. Furthermore, the fiercer the counter-terrorism power fights the
terrorists, the less time the terrorist organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, have to spend on planning and
implementing additional attacks. What international society needs to do in the future is to
strengthen their cooperation on counter-terrorism and try to eradicate the ideological and social
roots from which terrorists get energy, and reconciliate countries from different civilizations and
religions regarding equality and justice. A new world with equal international orders can help
decrease the threats from terrorism.
A Great Shift of Warfare into War on Terrorism in Afghanistan
Compared with the former wars in the human history, the war on terrorism in Afghanistan can be
regarded as a new shift in warfare. Some incomparable characteristics of the Afghanistan war can
explain some of the reasons for the shift and how the shift changes.
Opponent in the war has changed.
Differing from the conventional enemies who have nations, governments, formal military forces, the
Taliban and Al-Qaeda are newly rising powers, which wage their force against peace,
non-combatants, and the existing international order in a completely different way. Unlike sovereign
nations in the world, the Taliban is an extremist organization with ambitious religious purposes over
the world, and a special entity mixed with religious political ideology. Al-Qaeda is a network
consisted of Islamic jihadists and terrorists, which is penetrating in every corner and cleft in human
society.
“Whereas World War II provided Americans with clearly defined opponents and objectives, it will be
much more difficult to define the basic points of reference in the war against terrorism…It seems
that in the future, simply identifying the enemy will be a task in itself”.77
Warfare form has changed.
Counter-terrorism war in Afghanistan is an asymmetrical war in which rivalries are on different
77
Akorlie A. Nyatepe-Coo, Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted (Edited): Understanding Terrorism-Threats in an Uncertain World, 2004 Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey – page242
levels of technology, military, and organization, for instance. Regular armies fighting against each
other, which are the basic image of WWI and WWII, are rarely seen in the new era of warfare.
Although the superpowers in the bi-polar period during the Cold War also had arms race to
compete with each other, the star-wars never happened. In Afghanistan, the United States spent a
lot of money on using satellites and missiles to kill the “freedom fighters” that were armed with
AK-47 and tents and dressed like civilians. In the new shift of war form, the United States’
government and the Pentagon are fighting the “invisible” enemies who are more vigilant than
before.
“Every day that al-Qaeda members spend hiding from U.S. military patrols or trying to replenish
their own numbers and supplies is a day that they do not spend planning and implementing
additional attacks. In addition, it is conceivable that military strikes, such as the ones in Afghanistan,
could deter other nations from harboring or otherwise supporting terrorist organizations”.78
Warfare in the shift of Globalization
Globalization influences conventional conflicts and create new situations in the modern times. The
roots that shape the paradigm of modern relationship between West and Islam have turned into
results at some extent. In some Muslims’ mind, war on terror is not only against the Taliban and
Osama bin Laden, but also an opportunity for the West to clean out the conservative Islamic groups,
which are not satisfied with west-oriented globalization. The United States and its allies have to
both defend and justify themselves in front of world’s indignant Muslims. Since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the United States has been the only super power in the world for 20 years, which is
also the cause that makes the United States the focus of hatred from rest of the world. “ On the
Western side, the United States has classified seven countries as ‘terrorist states,’ five of which are
Muslim”79 Furthermore, this has intensified the relations between the U.S. and Islam. Thus, the
ongoing war in Afghanistan is not only a matter of military action, but also a challenge for the
United States to mediate its bad relations with Islamic countries.
78Akorlie
A. Nyatepe-Coo, Dorothy Zeisler-Vralsted (Edited): Understanding Terrorism-Threats in an Uncertain World, 2004 Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey – page248
79
Huntington Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996
page216
Simon & Schuster, Rockefeller Center. –
Conclusion
Based on the theoretical and analytical sections, we have reached a relevant conclusion related to
our research question. According to the key points of the theories and methods used for analyzing
the case, the 10-year-long counter-terrorism war in Afghanistan reflects the coming of a new era.
With the rise of this new era, where the traditional warfare had to adapt its strategies in order to
defeat the enemy, the traditional diplomatic intercourse had to strengthen its diplomatic relations
with allies as well as to seek for new ones. Meanwhile, the so-called public diplomacy had to use
soft power in order to develop efficient tactics to exert its influence among the global public opinion
as well as to disseminate its values to restore trust and friendship among nations.
As far as the ongoing war in Afghanistan is concerned, both the traditional diplomacy and public
diplomacy have been widely utilized. Although the traditional diplomacy could not be used as
conflict prevention, it has been used during warfare with diverse purposes. Moreover, public
diplomacy has been frequently used as a tool to persuade the Muslim nation as well as the global
nation in order to justify the rightness of the United States’ cause.
In summary, as the traditional diplomacy does not negotiate and communicate with non-state
actors such as Al Qaeda, it could not deal directly with the opponent. This illustrates that despite
both traditional and public diplomacy have been used in Afghanistan; they cannot successfully
defeat the enemy without hard power.
Despite the long term influence of the Cold War sequel to the international system, nation states in
traditional conflicts have to face a great quantity of new problems in which Islamic terrorism plays
as a new power. The war on terror in Afghanistan is a consequence caused by the historical conflicts
between the West and the Islam. It is not only a war that the United States has to fight for taking
revenge and containing the threats from the international terrorists’ network, but also that the
United States´ government fears to lose its global hegemony on ideological system, international
security, and a world focused on Western civilization.
The criteria’s of the just war concept have been affected by the changes in the justification of war. It
is no longer a war between two sovereign nations, but a war between a superpower and an
organization. Furthermore, the combatants have changed making more difficult to identify the
enemies. As mentioned before, the American foreign policy has shifted from reacting to conflicts
and problematic situations into a preemptive war on terrorism. On the one hand, the concept of
just war has had to change because of new circumstances after the Afghan war. Moreover, these
changes have affected the criteria’s of just war.
At the present time, it is hard to identify these criteria due to the change of war into war on terror.
One the other hand, the basic elements of the concept still exists and the actors need to justify if
the war is still valid.
Reflection
Despite all the work we have done in our project, there is still a large space left for further research
related to diplomacy and war. It is obvious that no theory from ancient time until now is perfect and
unassailable.
We chose to write our project based on the war in Afghanistan, once it is a current issue that could
make our project unique and interesting. Additionally, the theories we have used and analysed
cannot escape from the limitation of ordinary human’s cognitive ability. A theory is always
reasonable in its own logic system, but it might be inefficient if replaced by another theory, which
holds both different and rational opinions.
Constrained by sources, time, and financial support, our research on the current war in Afghanistan
still have some deficiencies such as insufficient arguments, lack of interviews with significant
witnesses, shortcomings of analysis, among others.
We do understand that we could have factored in ideas like the energy conflict in this region and the
need to control China’s progress, but we did not believe this was the main focus of our case.
Literature list
Books:

Andreasen, Uffe. Diplomati og Globalisering: En introduktion til Public Diplomacy. København:
Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2007.

Aron, Raymond. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers, 2003.

Berridge, G.R. Diplomacy Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Brown Michael E., Owen R. Cote, Jr. Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, Edited, “Theories of
War and Peace”. 1998 The Mit Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.

Deos, Anthony and Geoffrey Allen Pigman. “Sustainable Diplomacy: Communicating about Identity,
Interests and Terrorism” in Sustainable Diplomacies, ed. by Costas M. Constantinou and James Der
Derian. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Gatliff, Jason,: Terrorism and just war tradition - 2007 - VDM Verlag

Habeck Mary R., Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror2006, Yale University
Press.

Henderson Conway W., "Understanding International Law". 2010 John Wiley and Sons.

Heywood, Andrew. Global Politics. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Huntington Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remark of World order. 1996
Simon &
Schuster, Rockefeller Center.

Johnson, James Turner, 2011:
Ethics and the use of force – just war in historical perspective –
Ashgate publishing limited- Farnham, England

Jönsson, Christer and Martin Hall. “Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy”. In
Diplomacy: Theory of Diplomacy, ed. by Christer Jönsson and Richard Langhorne. Volume 1. London:
Sage Library of International Relations, 2004.

Keegan, John, A History Of Warfare, 1994, A Division of Random House, Inc.

Lauren, Paul Gordon, Gordon A. Craig, and Alexander L. George. Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic
Challenges of Our Time. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Maley, William: Afghanistan Wars – 2002 - Palgrave Macmillan - Gordonsville, VA, USA

Melissen, Jan. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” in The New Public
Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. by Jan Melissen. England: Palgrave Macmillan,
2007.

Morrison, Maley Kathleen: state violence and the right to peace – 2009 -

Nyatepe-Coo Akorlie A., Zeisler-Vralsted Dorothy, (Edited) Understanding Terrorism-Threats in an
Uncertain World, 2004 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

Nye, Joseph. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004.

Nye, Joseph. “Soft Power and European-American Affairs” in Hard Power, Soft Power and the Future
of Transatlantic Relatiosn, ed. By Thomas L. Ilgen. England: Ashgate, 2006.

Pauly, Robert J.: Ashgate research companion to US foreign policy – 2010 - Ashgate publishing group
– Farnham surrey – GBR

Perry, Marvin and Negrin Howard E. (Edited), The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism, 2008 A
Divison of St. Martin’ s Press LLC.

Raymond Aron, Peace and War-A Theory of International Relations. 1981 Robert E. Krieger
publishing company Malabar, Florida.

Waltzer, Michael: arguing about war – Yale university press – 2004 – New haven USA
Websites:

www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/6_1snau.pdf Snauwaert, Dale, T – 7/12 - 2011
OJPCR -

The online journal of peace and conflict resolution – 2004 – p: 121-135
www.cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit3/political-philosophy/JustWarTh
eory.pdf – 7/12 – 2011, Routledge – Just war theory – Michael Lacewing

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech.htm
10/12-2011 (middle east issue) by Tristam, Pierre – Sep 20, 2001

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ 14/12/11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/23/barack-obama-afghanistan-withdraw
al-text 17/12/2011

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-national-anthem-ci
tizens?_s=PM:US 15/12/11

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19769 18/12/11

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm 18/12/11

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/afghanistan 20/12/11

http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/TerrorPoverty.htm - 20/12/11

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/21842315/132824106/name/%EE%80%80BUZAN%EE%80%81-1991.
pdf 20/12-2011

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/539/49/PDF/N1053949.pdf?OpenElement
17/12/11 (Report of the Security Council Mission to Afghanistan, 21 to 24 June 2010.S/2010/564)

http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/public-diplomacy-war-terrorism/p4762 29/11/11

http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/TerrorPoverty.htm ,Is Terrorism's Cause Poverty?
From Amy Zalman, Ph.D., former About.com Guide surfing time: 7.12.2011