Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Afghanistan: can we justify being there?

By Scott MacInnes - posted Tuesday, 19 October 2010


It would be a great pity if the parliamentary debate on the war gets bogged down in operational details of how it is progressing and the prospects of “success”, rather than addressing the fundamental issue of whether we can still morally justify exposing our troops, other combatants and an ever increasing number of innocent civilians to death, injury and extreme suffering.

Because a decision to go to war involves a decision to justify killing people, the primary threshold question should always be whether it can be regarded as legally and morally justifiable. This should be determined quite independently from any arguments concerning our broader national interests. This is because the latter may involve political and economic considerations that it would be quite improper to take into account when determining the primary moral issue.

Values v. interests

Ultimately, such decisions must be based on well established international legal principles, which arise out of our shared moral values. These emphasize such factors as: the right to self-defence from the threat of an imminent attack; whether military action is a last resort (or whether diplomacy or aid might produce a more peaceful outcome); the proportionality of our response to the threat; the minimization of injury to innocent third parties; the likelihood of a successful restoration of peace within a foreseeable time; and whether further threats of violence are likely to be avoided or exacerbated by military action. These are all legitimate considerations in deciding whether a war is legally and morally justifiable.

Advertisement

By contrast, among the public policy arguments excluded at this threshold stage are such factors as: the existence of a military alliance; the desirability of regime change; restoring stability; trade interests; economic or political advantages etc. While such matters may be relevant at a later stage in determining whether a war can be justified in the national interest, they are not relevant and should be ignored when determining whether a war is legally and morally justifiable.

The terrible truth is that what we have to be able to justify is the killing of other human beings. This is not generally permitted under the values we profess to live by. There have to be very good reasons to justify what would otherwise be regarded as murder. The question is: are our reasons good enough?

First let me address the two official reasons put forward by our government.

Our commitment to the US alliance

Does anyone really believe we would be in Afghanistan if the US were not?

We are there for the same reason we went to Vietnam and Iraq: because of pressure from our US allies and our belief in the need to support them in the hope that this will serve our future security and/or trade interests.

The alliance with the US may well be in our long term security and economic interests. But the question is: does the fact that it serves our national interest in these ways, of itself, legally and morally justify our involvement? And the answer is clearly NO. One cannot justify killing other human beings simply to please one’s friends.

Advertisement


Nevertheless, our total subservience to the US alliance remains, in my opinion, the reason sine qua non for our involvement. All the other reasons are simply justifications after the fact. The alliance argument should be exposed for what it is: a legally and morally indefensible position for any government to hold.

One way to test its worth is to ask: are there any circumstances involving the sacrifice of human lives in which we would not support our allies? If the answer is NO then it means we do not accept there are ever any ethical constraints - or that these can be overridden when convenient, which amounts to the same thing. If the answer is YES, then it is likely to be because we believe there comes a point where we do accept limits on our freedom to kill people. The implication is that we simply have not reached that threshold yet.

Many commentators believe this point will only be reached when the number of Australian casualties becomes too much for public sentiment to stomach. This is why we are never told the full physical, emotional and psychological impacts of the war on our own soldiers and their families. The equally devastating impacts on the many more Afghan combatants and others similarly affected in Afghanistan hardly rate even a mention.

Until the real impacts of our involvement in terms of human suffering become our dominant moral concern, the Realpolitik of our dominant ideology of “all the way with the USA” will continue to be the political imperative. However, it is important to make it absolutely clear that the government cannot rely on the alliance itself as a legitimate justification.

National security

This brings us to our government’s other stated reason for being in Afghanistan: our need to protect our national security from the threat of Al Qaeda and global terrorism. This is to be achieved by defeating the Taliban, thereby ensuring political stability.

Whatever the original rationale, it is now accepted that the threat from Al Qaeda will not be reduced by continuing the war in Afghanistan. It is estimated that there are only some 50 members left there, the remainder being displaced to other countries. Al Qaeda is clearly highly mobile and widely dispersed. It is not dependent on any one safe haven.

As for global terrorism , it is difficult to see how such a generalized ever present “threat” could justify war. Otherwise we could justify being constantly at war and with an ever widening number of countries suspected of having terrorists in their midst. Indeed the assertion that the threat is from “global” terrorism and not just Al Qaeda undermines the argument that eliminating its base in Afghanistan will significantly reduce such a threat.

The defeat of the Taliban is predicated on the belief that they are either terrorists themselves or the protectors of Al Qaeda. There is no evidence to support either belief.  The change in policy to now engage in negotiations with the Taliban makes it clear that their defeat is no longer regarded as a prerequisite for political stability or a reduction in the threat of terrorism. The Taliban are simply one of at least three nationalist groups struggling violently for political power in Afghanistan. The reason they have been the enemy is because the US prefers to support a corrupt Karzai regime that it can control to a brutal Taliban one which it cannot. This has nothing to do with our national security.

No-one believes our involvement in Afghanistan has reduced the threat of terrorism to Australians. It is now officially accepted that the greatest threats of terrorism in future will come from home grown terrorist groups. We should be concentrating on dealing with that domestic threat through our law enforcement agencies rather than dealing with overseas terrorism through military intervention.

Clearly, the government will need to produce much more persuasive evidence of a continuing threat to our national security in order to support its argument.

Helping the Afghan people

A number of other unofficial reasons have been advanced to justify our continuing military involvement:  that we are there to “support the Afghan people”, to build democratic institutions, to train Afghan personnel, to educate the children and improve the situation for women etc.

However worthwhile, such altruistic goals have never been considered legally or morally sufficient justifications for military intervention. They can and should be pursued wherever possible through non-violent means.

 
To clean up the mess and avoid a blood bath

This “justification” accepts that we are partly responsible for creating the mess we are now in and therefore have a moral obligation to mitigate the damage before we leave.
  
It is interesting that the very people who support staying because of compassion for human suffering oppose any withdrawal on the same grounds. The evidence of comparative impacts on the lives of all concerned is clearly crucial and may legitimately lead reasonable people to different conclusions.

But it is really more to do with designing a proper exit strategy than justifying ongoing military involvement


Legitimate concerns

People who demand that our government justify its decisions to expose our troops to death and injury in Afghanistan should not be attacked for being disloyal. Of course our troops should be properly resourced and given every support for as long as they are there. But they should not be required to continue to risk their lives for reasons that no longer stack up.

Likewise, the concern expressed for the many Afghan people affected by our decisions is also legitimate. Australian lives and Afghan lives should be accorded equal dignity and attract the same moral concern. The legal and moral principles we profess to live by have universal application. The fact that these basic principles are ignored by some when it suits their interests is no reason for us to do likewise.

With so many precious lives at stake, the responsibility of our elected representatives to address these fundamental issues in the forthcoming debate could not be more onerous.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

30 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Scott MacInnes has a background in teaching, law and conflict resolution. He is now retired and lives in Tasmania.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Scott MacInnes
Related Links
Afghanistan: why are we still there?
An ethical debate on the war in Afghanistan

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Scott MacInnes
Article Tools
Comment 30 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy