Michael Haas argues that Robert Greenwald's new film "Rethinking Afghanistan" shows how crazy American policy is, but it doesn't emphasize the illegality of the war.

Rethinking Robert Greenwald’s Rethinking Afghanistan
Michael Haas
 
An important new documentary from Robert Greenwald has been released privately under the title Rethinking Afghanistan. With film footage that includes interviews of various Afghans, American policy makers, and other observers, along with the scenery around them, the purpose of the film is to question the logic of sending troops to fight in Afghanistan from at least four points of view: (a) The toll of human suffering is considerable. (b) The Taliban increases in proportion to the number of American troops. (c) The defeat of Al Qaeda is a completely separate policy objective from the defeat of the Taliban. (d) Pakistan’s Taliban problem increases in proportion to the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Greenwald hopes that the documentary will be more persuasive than editorial opinions which have said the same.
 
One perspective missing from the film is the legal approach. There is no mention in the film of the legal basis or lack thereof under American or international law for the presence of American troops in Afghanistan. If the entire operation is illegal, then Greenwald’s criticism that the policy is immoral and self-defeating is superfluous. An illegal war or a war conducted illegally should stop for that reason alone. It would be ludicrous to debate the pros and cons of stopping a serial killer from further murders, but that is what Greenwald and pundits are doing by ignoring the legal issues. A serial killer should be captured, put on trial, and sentenced after being found guilty. War criminals deserve the same.
 
The fact that the war in Afghanistan is illegal is obvious. There are two aspects to the argument. One is that the war is illegal under American law. Second, the war is illegal because illegally fought.
 
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution that Congress adopted on September 18, 2001, was used by President Bush as legal justification for the American military to enter Afghanistan, where the Taliban government harbored Al Qaeda. However, as Greenwald’s film points out, neither the current Afghan government nor the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan today harbors Al Qaeda. Accordingly, the AUMF resolution does not apply. In 2008, when Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed that a new AUMF should be adopted, the premise for her proposal was that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan had questionable legality.
 
The only legal justification for the presence of American troops in Afghanistan today is the UN Security Council resolution, first adopted in 2001, which authorizes military force to stabilize the government of Afghanistan in Kabul. The resolution has been renewed yearly but stipulates one condition--that human rights must be respected. Thus, if the war is fought illegally, the UN authorization for military force is void. And under international law, a war is illegal if war crimes are committed in the conduct of war.
 
Greenwald’s documentary, though ostensibly arguing policy, actually provides evidence of the illegal conduct of the American pursuit of war in Afghanistan. It is a pity that he does not make the case. But since that evidence is presented, the following summarizes what he has found as a responsible documentary journalist:
 
Afghan witnesses primarily attest to seven war crimes in the conduct of war:

• destruction of undefended targets (2nd Hague Convention of 1899, Article 25)
• bombing of mosques (2nd Hague Convention of 1899, Article 27)
• failure to compensate for damages from military action (4th Hague Convention of 1907, Article 3)
• indiscriminate attacks against civilians (Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1971, Article 51)
• failure to attend to the wounded (1st Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 3)
• excessive targeting of civilians (Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1971, Article 51)
• excessive use of military force (Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1971, Article 57).

 
Evidence of even more war crimes emerges from witnesses commenting on the nature of the occupation of Afghanistan by American forces. The following violations of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 are reported:

• mass unemployment (Article 51)
• failure to provide re-employment (Article 39)
• unnecessary destruction of private property (Article 53)
• dishonoring women (Article 27)
• dishonoring families (Article 46)
• failure to re-open schools (Article 50)
• insufficient food to feed the population (Article 55)
• insufficient medical supplies for the needs of the population (Article 55)
• reduced medical care (Article 56)
• reduced level of public health (Article 56)
• flouting UN recommendations (Article 12) re respecting human rights of civilians.

 
In short, the documentary is filled with evidence of war crimes. But Greenwald does not guide filmviewers to discern that war crimes are being committed with impunity. One role for a documentary can be to evoke righteous indignation, and Rethinking Afghanistan does that quite well. Another role for a documentary could be to educate the public about specific crimes that should be stopped immediately.
 
While debates on high policy continue, people are suffering. More food, jobs, medical care, and schools are needed in Afghanistan now, and they could be given immediate Congressional priority rather than making the argument that Afghans should wait for an unlikely debate to rescind a policy that has already been made with some finality by the president of the United States. Unfortunately, the titles and statements in Rethinking Afghanistan do not present the argument that the needs of the people are urgent and should have top priority.
 
Nevertheless, the nonverbal film footage depicts a need for immediate attention to ongoing human suffering. Therein lies the most important contribution of the documentary.
 
Political Scientist Michael Haas is the author of 33 books on government and politics. He has taught at Northwestern, Purdue, the University of Hawai`i, the University of London, and various colleges and universities in California, most recently California Polytechnic University, Pomona. He has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.