The Strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

Timing Concerns:

One of the targets was Afghanistan and the other Sudan. (The two previous links to each country provide a detailed description of the recent history of the two states and how they were influenced, affected and aided by Soviet and US regimes during the cold war.) Both were suspected of involvement in the bombings or future bombings against US interests. USA can perhaps claim the right to self-defense and justify these attacks, by quoting Article 51 of the UN Charter. The question of the legalities were expectedly not the main focuses of the debate, but rather the timing -- due to the Monica Lewinsky controversy -- and the parallels to Wag the Dog (a story where a war is created to divert the pressure and attention on an American presidential scandal elsewhere).

Back to top

Small Question of Legality:

There are, however, questions and incidents in history which, as these links suggest, the legality of the attack and the use of Article 51 as a means for justification may just be an excuse and possibly an invalid one.

Back to top

Guilty 'til Proven Innocent:

The "overwhelming burden of proof" still hasn't been made available which is a concern especially since at the time many claimed that the factory couldn't possible make chemical weapons and only now the US have admitted that the bombing was a mistake.

The FBI have said that the collaborative efforts of Kenyan, Tanzanian and US authorities to search for evidence was not used to determine the necessity of the tit-for-tat strikes. It is also interesting to note, as this news article from the BBC points out, that when Iraq's Saddam Hussein was the center of focus, USA was restrained by the United Nations. This time, a terrorist has been bombed unilaterally without the need for the United Nations. And as this article from the Guardian suggests, the tit for tat may not be the answer and also notes that if every nation reacted like this then we would be in a state of disorder.

Back to top

Effects of the quickly thought out decision to strike back:

Whatever, legal or not, it unfortunately lead to heightened security around the world for US citizens and there were calls in the Islamic world threatening more attacks and voicing the outrage and hypocrisy at this, as the USA had threatened more similar attacks. What is even more ironic is that the main person that was targeted by the USA, Osama bin Laden, was once supported by the US, just like Saddam Hussein. The result of all this is that the strategic game of chess in this area has been prolonged and in the meanwhile, the health crisis in Sudan will deepen even more as the factory that was destroyed produced most of their medicine.

Back to top

Media Coverage Helps?

While there have been many protests around the world, the majority in the opinion polls in USA seem to show that most Americans were in favor of the strikes and that many European heads of state also supported them. However, is that surprising considering the lack of editorial diversity on this issue? There was no major media corporation looking into the issue of the legality of the attack, for example.

Back to top