Afghanistan: can we justify being there?

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.