Scott Macinees
With the tragic death of three more Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, concerned citizens will be asking themselves whether the sacrifice of human lives (on all sides) can still be justified, despite predictable government reassurances, public indifference and the lack of proper media scrutiny.
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.
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 killing or sacrificing other human beings. And certainly not just to please one's friends or to otherwise advance our interests.
It is worth asking whether there are 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 there comes a point where we do accept limits on our freedom to 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
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 other official justification argues that we need to protect our national security from the threat of Al Qaeda 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 justify a "dignified" exit.
Whatever the original rationale, it is now accepted that the threat from Al Qaeda will not be reduced by continuing the war in Afghanistan because there are very few members left there. Al Qaeda is clearly highly mobile and widely dispersed. It is not dependent on any one safe haven. Moreover, we are told the death of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders have seriously undermined its effectiveness. At most, our goal now is to minimise the possibility of Afghanistan again becoming a safe haven for terrorism in the future.
As for global terrorism, it is difficult to see how such a generalised ever-present "threat" could ever justify military intervention. Otherwise we could justify being constantly at war 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 international terrorists themselves or that they are committed to the ongoing protection of Al Qaeda. 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 avoid a bloodbath if we leave prematurely. 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 of our disastrous intervention.
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 important here and may legitimately lead reasonable people to different conclusions.
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 authorising "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.
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. They are invariably motivated by concern for their relatives and fellow countrymen who are being asked to risk their lives on our behalf. 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 terrible truth is that what we have to be able to justify is the sacrifice and killing of other human beings. This is not generally permitted under our laws or values. 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?
With regard to the current situation, we need once again to focus our attention on whether there is credible evidence (as distinct from generalised political assertions) of any threat of imminent attack on us or our allies sufficient to morally and legally justify the human sacrifice. And whether ongoing military intervention remains our only option.
And given a world increasingly vulnerable to threats of terrorism, we need also to ask ourselves whether we can really justify making others (whether our soldiers or Afghan civilians) pay the price in terms of their human sacrifice and suffering for what is an ultimately futile military attempt to alleviate our feelings of anxiety and insecurity.
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. We should not expect others to die on our behalf, or allow our leaders to demand such sacrifice in our name.
It is time to bring our troops home.
Scott MacInnes has a background in teaching, law and conflict resolution. He is now retired and lives in Tasmania.