'Failed State': a destructive label

The tragic paradox is that wealthy countries spend large amounts on peace-keeping when those funds could more constructively be used to bolster a poor country’s economy. Ending the violence is essential but it only stops the symptoms. One of the tragedies of the modern world is to see people starving for lack of food but owning weapons and ammunition.

Politicians like to speak of armies as peacekeepers but they are mainly trained to destroy. In the final hours of the recent Hezbollah-Israel war cluster bombs were used to scatter unexploded bomblets, which lie dormant until touched, often by children who can lose a leg or a life.

The statements by Howard and Nelson on the need for more troops in the armed services did not mention the fact they might be called on to kill others, may get killed or maimed themselves, and risk permanent or long-term psychological damage, including the dreaded post traumatic stress disorder which can last a lifetime. Is it fair to omit these realities?

Armies may be needed to end conflict. But this seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Armies are very expensive. Is there not some way the extra $10 billion for new Australian battalions can be used to forestall violence by eradicating the poverty that causes it?