Lest we forget: how do we justify Afghanistan?

When Remembrance Day comes around next week many of us will pause for a moment’s reflection on the dreadful human cost of military conflict. The admonition 'Lest we forget' was based on the hope that if we could only keep close in our collective memory the experience of the horror of war then we would never go there again.

Meanwhile the horror continues.

With the recent tragic deaths of yet more Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and the tenth anniversary of our military intervention there, many concerned citizens are asking themselves whether the sacrifice of human lives (on all sides) can still be justified, notwithstanding the predictable Government reassurances, public indifference and the lack of proper media scrutiny.

While our involvement in Afghanistan is easy to explain, it is much more difficult to justify. The terrible truth is that what we have to be able to justify is the sacrifice and killing of other human beings. There have to be very good reasons to justify what would otherwise be regarded as state-sponsored murder. The question is: are our reasons still good enough?

The need to apply fundamental principles

The primary threshold question should always be whether we can still morally justify exposing our troops and an ever increasing number of innocent civilians to death or injury. This must be determined quite independently from any arguments concerning our broader national interests. This is because the latter policy issues may involve considerations that it would be quite improper to take into account when determining the primary ethical issues.

The only way forward is for such decisions to be based on well-established international legal principles, which arise out of "just war' moral principles and derive ultimately from our inherent and commonly shared personal 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 frame; and whether further threats of violence are likely to be reduced or exacerbated by military action.

By contrast, among the policy arguments excluded at this stage are such factors as: the pressure to support a military ally; the desirability of regime change; adjusting the international balance of power; the wish to promote democracy; to protect trade interests; to secure energy resources; to gain economic or political advantages; to advance social welfare; and all other public policy agendas.

It is important to keep in mind the above distinctions not only when thinking about our original justifications for getting involved militarily in Afghanistan but also for our continuing involvement. This requires ongoing moral justification, having regard to ever changing circumstances.

Of the two 'official' reasons put forward to justify our continuing military involvement, the first is disingenuous because it cannot operate as an independent justification. And the second now lacks all credibility.

Our commitment to the US alliance

Our total subservience to the US alliance remains the simplest and most credible explanation for our involvement. We are there solely 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. All the other reasons are merely justifications after the fact.

This is a legally and morally indefensible position for any government to hold.

The US alliance may well be in our long term security and economic interests but it cannot, of itself, justify our continuing involvement. In the absence of an imminent threat of attack, one cannot legally or morally justify sacrificing/killing other human beings. And certainly not just to please one's friends or to otherwise advance our interests.

It is worth asking whether are there any circumstances involving the sacrifice of human lives in which we would not continue to support our allies? If the answer is YES, then it is likely to be because we do eventually accept limits on our freedom to kill or sacrifice others. 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 clear that the government cannot rely on the alliance itself as a legitimate justification, unless the threat to either country's national security is sufficient to invoke the doctrine of proportional self-defence, with no other reasonable option available. This has become increasingly difficult to maintain.

National security

The other official justification argues that we need to protect our national security from the threat of Al Quaeda and global terrorism. This was originally to be achieved by defeating the Taliban. Now the goal is to inflict sufficient damage to force them into an acceptable negotiated settlement, thereby ensuring enough political stability to facilitate a 'dignified' exit.

It is now accepted that the threat from Al Quaeda will not be reduced by continuing the war in Afghanistan because there are very few members left there. Al Quaeda is clearly not dependent on any one safe haven. Moreover, we are told the death of Bin Laden and other leaders have seriously undermined its effectiveness.

As for global terrorism, it is difficult to see how such a non-specific 'threat' could ever justify military intervention. Otherwise we could justify being constantly at war with any countries suspected of having terrorists in their midst. Indeed the assertion that the threat is from 'global' terrorism, and not just Al Quaeda, undermines the argument that eliminating its base in Afghanistan will significantly reduce it.

The defeat of the Taliban is predicated on the belief that they are either international terrorists themselves or that they are committed to the ongoing protection of Al Quaeda. There is very little evidence to support either belief. Despite sharing a common hatred of the US and allied invasion forces, the Taliban's interests are local rather than global.

The US willingness to 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 many 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.

Other 'justifications'

Other 'unofficial' reasons given to justify our continuing military involvement include: the desire 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 noble and worthwhile, such reasons are not usually considered legally or morally sufficient justifications for military intervention. Our moral duty to help vulnerable people in other countries is constrained by international law that recognises national sovereignty and precludes military intervention for such purposes.

Until we have developed our international law to provide for law enforcement and 'global government' which transcends national boundaries, these desirable goals can only be legitimately pursued through non-violent means as part of our foreign aid development goals.

Some argue that we have a moral obligation to stay in order to mitigate the damage of our disastrous intervention. But this is really more to do with designing a proper exit strategy than justifying ongoing military involvement.

The Government also points to UN and NATO Resolutions authorizing 'peacekeeping' operations in Afghanistan as further justifications for our involvement but it is clear that their validity depends ultimately on whether these 'operations' are themselves morally justifiable.

What then can we do to create a more peaceful world?

Most importantly, we must re-commit ourselves to upholding the moral and legal principles adopted in our community and under international law designed to act as restraints on aggression. Both clearly prohibit the killing of people in all but the most exceptional circumstances. These are restricted to proportional self-defence from imminent attack and the keeping of the peace in ways specifically authorized by a recognized legal authority.

We should strengthen these safeguards and promote their universal application. This requires the painstaking building up of international institutions capable of maintaining peace across borders. We now live in one world and must behave accordingly.

At the domestic level, decisions about whether military intervention by Australia is (and continues to be) justifiable should be made by Parliament and not the Executive, except in emergency situations. Such decisions must be made in accordance with recognized legal and moral principles, not political expediency.

Moreover, it is of crucial importance that there are Parliamentary Committees of Enquiry to gather, scrutinize and evaluate the ever-changing facts upon which such momentous decisions can be soundly based.

To justify military intervention is the most serious question ever likely to be asked of our representatives. Each Member of Parliament has a personal responsibility to decide the matter individually, not allow themselves to be directed by their Party or their constituents.

Once military action is undertaken, there must be a system for regularly reporting back to Parliament about its progress, including a requirement for independent reporting on the full extent of both military and civilian casualties on all sides.

Of course, there may be circumstances where the use of military force is both necessary and legitimate. And where courage and self-sacrifice are required. But it should only be for the very best of reasons and as a last resort.

The true meaning of Remembrance Day

If this day is to have any continuing relevance, it can only be because the suffering of others affected by war will once more be brought to the forefront of our consciousness.

People who demand that our government justify its decisions are principally motivated by concern for those relatives and fellow countrymen who are being asked to risk their lives on our behalf.

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.

Few of us would be willing for our most cherished loved ones to be sacrificed on the basis of any of the justifications trotted out by the proponents of our continuing involvement in Afghanistan.

We should not expect others to die on our behalf, or allow our leaders to demand such sacrifice in our name. We can only do so by treating the lives of others as being of less worth than our own.

Remembrance Day invites us to pause and reflect on the horror that our military involvement perpetuates and to ask whether it can really be justified. Or whether there might be a better way.

We must all work for peace – in ourselves, in our family, in our community and in our world.

This is the legacy entrusted to us by our forbears from the trenches.

Lest we forget!