Lest we forget: how do we justify Afghanistan?

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.