ANALYSIS OF “THE GREAT DEBATE: IS AFGHANISTAN THE RIGHT

WAR?”

1.       AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE, TITLE, JOURNAL, PUBLICATION

DATE, PAGE NUMBERS

a.       The Article has two (2) Authors. They are Paul R. Pillar and John
Nagl.

b.       The Title of the Article is: The Great Debate: “Is Afghanistan the
Right War”?

c.       JOUNAL: “The National Interest”.

d.       PUBLICATION DATE: March/April, 2010 issue and published by

the Nixon Centre Washington DC.

e.       PAGE NUMBERS: Nine (9) pages, i.e. from pages 33-41

2.       SHORT SUMMARY OF THE AUTHORS:

a.       Paul R. Pillar is director of graduate studies at Georgetown University

Security Studies Program and a former national intelligence officer for the
Near East and South Asia . He is also author of the Article “The Al – Qaeda
Fallacy”, The Bully Wins,” Parthhian Shot,” “The Tao of the Arab Centre,
etc.

b.       John Nagl is the president of the centre for a New American Security
and a Veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.

3.       MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORS:

a.       Paul R. Pillar argues against the Afghanistan War. He said that a just
intervention has devolved into a worthless (quagmire) due to the military
campaign approach being used by a state Actor, the United States of
America against the individual levels of Osama bin Laden and sub-unit level
of

Al Qaeda which are idea driven entities. He proposed an idea driven war.

b.       John Nagl, an Iraqi War Veteran believes that the war in Afghanistan
must “vanquish Al-Qaeda in the borderlands of Afpak”. He argues that no
matter any perceived collateral damage, America ’s pulling out from
Afghanistan without consolidating in the nascent democracy would mean
more disaster as was the case when the U.S. defeated the Soviet Union and
merely pulled out from Afghanistan without consolidating on the games of
the war.

4.       CONCLUSION OF THE AUTHORS  

          Paul Pillar concluded by saying “No” to the War in Afghanistan by

the U.S. led NATO, insisting that the use of military security sector
campaign means losing enormous finances and incurring collateral damage
to the same human security being thrived to protect.
          John Nagl concluded by “Yes” to the War in Afghanistan , insisting
that continuing the war would instill nascent democracy in Afghanistan and
bring the peace to the referent object: The U.S.

5.       MY VIEW ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF

THE AUTHORS AND THE TOPIC. EXPLAIN THE STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESS OF THE AUTHORS ARGUMENTS.

My view about the arguments of both authors – Paul R. Pillar who argues
against the war in Afghanistan and John Nagl who argues in favour of the
war against terrorism in Afghanistan is that the subject matter being a debate
is another way by which students of International Relations could
understand Securitization in International Security. Both authors use the
threat of terrorism (Security alert) by Osama bin Laden, lately Nigeria ’s
Abdulmutallab on the attempted bombing of a Detriot bound Airliner on
December 25, 2009 and the ousted Taliban government in Afghanistan who
were apologies of

Al-Qaeda and bin Laden. This threat, and the military campaign used by the
U.S. and NATO to fight the Securitizing actors: Osama bin Laden and Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab, of course, has the import of the concepts of
Securitization and basically, the military security sector being interconnected
with other sectors of Political, Economic and Societal.

The Arguments evoke academics with both authors effectively applying the
three basic components of Securitization as including, (a) The Securitizing
actor: Osama bin Laden and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (b) The Referent
Object: The United States of America and (c) The Audience: The two
authors Paul Pillar and John Ngal who provide the target of the
Securitization act that needs to be persuaded and the issue accepted as a
Security threat.

I align with the arguments of John Nagl in support of the military Campaign
in Afghanistan because the threat being issued is not a mere threat but one
that is backed up with terrible military action against the referent object
( U.S. ). For example, the bombing of the WTO in 2001 where thousands
lost their lives, bombing of the various U.S. embassies in Kenya (Nairobi)
and Dare Es Salaan (Tanzania), the USS Cole (Warship) in Yemen and even
the attempted bombing of the Detriot-bound Airliner, all masterminded by
Al-Quaeda.

Even if Al-Qaeda is seen to be an ideological entity, they exist and has

physical armies that could be touched, how much more using weapons of
mass destruction against their perceived enemies. To say that military
campaign as a reactionary measure against Al-Qaeda is wrong is to accept
that one should fold her arms complacently when a stranger comes to her
home and pour gas all around your apartment and then set the building on
fire. Then you go around talking philosophy of the idea being employed by
your enemy without recourse to having nipped that act in the bud, through
reasonable force.

By the analysis above and having aligned my views, with that of John Nagl,
in favour of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, i think that John Nagl
after making a very brilliant argument should have concluded in his
concluding response with a more strong statement in support of the war as
he did in his first response-conclusion. But he ended with rhetorical question
of “Should we do so now, we would soon have a great deal more to regret”.
This could be misinterpreted as acquiescence to acknowledging that the war
is defective.

And talking of the conclusion of Paul Pillar who says “No” to the war in
Afghanistan , i think the conclusion is rather with a strong statement. But I
reason to differ in that his conclusion sounds too idealistic, impracticable
and paradoxical. The situation U.S. found itself is unfortunate and it has no
other choice than to employ the Military Campaign in the face of military
threat and intimidation. People (Americans) are already dying in their
thousands. I also think that Paul Pillar is being melo-dramatic by over-
exaggerating the odds of the war.

The topic to me should have been, ‘Is Military Campaign the Right War’?
and not “Is Afghanistan the right War?” since the issues of Security and
Securitization dealt with in the debate span beyond Afghanistan which is the
 bane of the point of departure of the two authors.

However, Paul R. Pillar and John Nagl’s arguments are very brilliant and
worth commending and this I did by commending them. The strength of
both authors lie in the effective use of the tools of analysis in International
Security, which is Securitization: the speech act of Security threat. Another
strength of their arguments is the effective use of the components and
concepts of Securitization as postulated by the Copenhagen school of
Security Studies which are positive dispositions to a student of International
Relations.

The weakness of both authors lie in using a wrong topic for a right argument
as hinted above and the use of excessive exaggerations by Paul Pillar against
the War. This made his argument rather utopianic.            

6.       WHICH SECTORS OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ARE

MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE, PROVIDE EXAMPLES.

          The Sectors of International Security mentioned in the Article are:

a.       Military Security Sector: Pillar arguing against the War in Afghanistan
referred to the Military Security Sector by saying “regardless of the available
resources. It is a mistake to think of counter terrorism primarily, as
Americans have become wounds to do, as the application of military force to
 particular pieces of real estate. This pattern of thinking is rooted in a history
in which the vanquishing of threats to U.S. security has consisted chiefly of
armed expeditions to conquer or liberate foreign territory. The pattern has
been exacerbated by the unfortunate ‘war on terror” terminology………”

b.       Political Security Sector: Nagl arguing in favour of the War in

Afghanistan referred to the Political Security Sector by saying,
“withdrawing from Afghanistan would lead to the rapid demise of the
Karzai’s government, at least in the areas already being wrested from its
(Taliban Government) grasp,” emphasis supplied by me. (P. 37).

         

          Another example of Political Security Sector is “ Afghanistan is an

extreme case- a true failed state that needed its governance and security
rebuilt from the ground up ……….,” p.38.

Another example of Political Security is where Nagl also argues that “before
we decide to abandon the nascent democracy in Kabul , turning our back on
our more than forty ISAF working to stabilize the region, we would give the
new commander in Afghanistan a reasonable opportunity to put time-tested
counterinsurgency techniques to work”.

c.       ECONOMICS SECURITY SECTOR: An example of Economic

Security Sector is where Pillar agues against the war in Afghanistan : “And
military force also has downsides: monetary and human costs; collateral
damage; and the potential to be counter productive……..”

d.       SOCIETAL SECURITY SECTOR: Pillar also arguing says

“………… Now more Afghans have taken up arms against coalition forces.
Many of those who have joined the fight have no sympathy for the Taliban’s
ideology and do not even warrant the label,” Here the author refers to the
culture, tradition and religion of the people in relation to society which also
forms the Afghan state.

7.       EXAMPLIFY THE SECURITIZATION WITHIN THE CONTEXT

OF THE ARTICLE BY MENTIONING THE COMPONENTS AND
LEVELS OF SECURITIZATION?

         

There are three (3) basic components of a securitization act and exemplified
within the context of the Article:

a.       SECURITIZING ACTOR: An entity that makes the Securitizing move

/ statement, or threats in the Article, at page 36, we see where John Nagl
argues in favour of the war and quoted Osama bin Laden when the latter….
“announced in the World Islamic Front “Jihad Against Jews and crusaders in
1998: We – with Allah’s help-call on every Muslim who believes in Allah
and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the
Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We
also call on Muslim Ulema, leaders, youths and soldiers to launch the raid
on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to
displace those who are behind them so that may learn a lesson”.

b.       REFERENT OBJECT: The object that is being threatened and needs
to be protected. In the above statement or threat by Osama bin Laden he says
“………….,to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and
whenever they find it,” it is clear here that America is the referent object that
is being threatened, hence the war against terrorism to protect America , its
finances and citizens.

c.       Audience: This refers to the target of the Securitization act that needs
to be persuaded and the issue accepted as Security threat. This last
component being the most exciting brings home the tool for analysis in
Securitization as exemplified by John Nagl arguing in the debate with Paul
Pillar that America is facing Security threat of terrorism. This is the speech
act that provides the audience including the writer of this Article and the
reader as well.

         

          LEVELS OF SECURITIZATION AS EXEMPLIFIES IN THE

ARTICLE

          There are basically four levels of Securitization as exemplified in the

Article:

a.       INDIVIDUAL LEVEL: This is exemplified in the Article as Osama

bin Laden and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
b.       SUB-UNIT LEVEL: Al-Qaeda and Taliban

c.       SUB-SYSTEM: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

d.       SYSTEM LEVEL: This refers to a unit or a state(s) as exemplified as

the United States of America and Afghanistan .

8.       DISCUSS THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF THE DIFFERENT

SECTORS OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY BY REFERING TO THE
ARTICLE:

The Interconnectedness of the different sectors of the International Security

in this article  are as follows: There is connection between military sector
with political, Economic and Societal sectors of security, with the
securitization of Afghanistan in relation to threat of terrorism, which makes
an extraordinary means to solving this problem of Security threat possible.
And this include military approach by declaring a state of emergency as the
karizai government has done in Afghanistan, mobilizing the  military or
attacking an entity or another country perceived to be the securitizing actor
even as the U.S. led NATO is undertaking military expedition in
Afghanistan to counter terrorism.

It is believed, from the article that from the mid 1990s, the Taliban provided
sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national who had fought with the
Mujahideen against the Soviets, and provided a base for his and other
terrorist organizations. “He provided both financial and political support to
the Taliban. Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda group were charged with the
bombing of the U.S.A Cole in Yemen in 2000 and US embassies in Nairobi
and Dar

Es Salaam in 1998, WTO bombing in 2001 and other terrorist attacks”, ever
since bin Laden has been on the most wanted list of the USA, especially
when he expressly “announced in the World Islamic Front “Jihad Against
Jews and crusaders in 1998: We – with Allah’s help-call on every Muslim
who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s
order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever
they find it. We also call on Muslim Ulema, leaders, youths and soldiers to
launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with
them, and to displace those who are behind them so that may learn a lesson”.

“Following the Taliban’s refusal to expel bin Laden and his group and to end
its support for international terrorism, the U.S and its partners (NATO)
began a military campaign on October 7, 2001, targeting terrorist facilities
and various Taliban military and political assets within Afghanistan, with
international community support, including more than 40 countries
participating in “Operation Enduring Freedom” and NATO led International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF)”, the government’s capacity to secure its
borders, maintain international security increasing and the incessant and
fatal threat against the U.S. is either reduced or foiled since after the
attempted bombing in December, 2009 of a Detriot bound airliner.
 

However, the evaluation of the interconnectedness of the military sector and

political, economic and societal sectors is made possible in that a
securitization could easily involve more than one of these sectors, as a
response to a threat to a state or group in society on a specific issue based on
a sector (military).

Firstly, the interconnectedness with the political sector arises from the quest
of the “ USA and NATO to instill and sustain the nascent democracy in
Kabul ”, Afghanistan which emerged October, 2004 under President Hamid
Karzai. This was necessitated by the fact that before now, it was the Taliban
government that harbored Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda that was the
“government” of the day and was ousted by military campaign by the U.S.
Political Security therefore is “Organizational Stability of states, their
systems of government and the ideologies which give them legitimacy”
From this perspective, states with similar governmental structures would
wish to willingly form a union to ensure their political survival, for example,
the subsisting political union between the Afghan government under Hamid
karzai and that of the U.S. and that of the over 40 governments and that of
NATO nations.

Secondly, the issue of Economic Security is being identified by the two

speech actors of securitization in the case study of Afghanistan . Both actors
argued that the war in Afghanistan is of “enormous collateral damage of
 financial resources” put in to prosecute the war by the U.S. needed for the
welfare of the people but is being wasted on military security. Economic
Security therefore is the “access to the resources, finance and markets
necessary to sustain acceptable levels of welfare and state power. Thus,
sustaining a national economy is becoming harder in age of globalization,
where the system of productions and consumption have become greatly
synchronized all over the world. But to be able to securitize militarily is to
form a community based on shared principles that has become a tendency in
the contemporary military, political and economic reality of sectors.

Thirdly, the issue of Societal Security is being identified through the Afghan
people. According to Pillar, Afghan people with a “culture built in Islamic
religion have already taken up arms in solidarity with Al Qaeda as an
association and religious “Jihad to fight the U.S. and its allies”. Thus,
Societal Security “concerns the ability of societies to reproduce their
traditional patterns of language, culture, association and religious national
identity. It is often said that states are not the only entities that can form
communities. But societies under threat can also initiate a power relationship
based on their mutual drive for protecting their traditions. This is a form of
transnational cooperation on the societal level, indicated through the
“movement of people linked with Al Qaeda from Afghanistan through the
Durand Line into Pakistan ”, thereby making the war against terror
precarious. This is how the military sector is interconnected with other
political, economic and societal sectors of securitization with reference to
the article.