above: the author, Justin George
Justin George argues that Australia's involvement in the war in Afghanistan is compromising rather than enhancing its national security... Similar questions face other countries.
by Justin George
With the release of the Australian government's Counter-Terrorism White Paper and its admission that Australia is at risk of 'homegrown' terrorism, the logic behind Australia's involvement in Afghanistan has been severely weakened.
Only months earlier the Rudd government was announcing Australia's continuing commitment to war against the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, reiterating the tired line of 'its better to fight them over there than here' that has been touted as justification for Australia's involvement in a war that it had little need to join.
While Australia joined under John Howard's Liberal government, Kevin Rudd's Labor government has happily continued involvement in the 'good' war in Afghanistan in comparison to the 'bad' war in Iraq. However public support for the Afghanistan campaign has dwindled since it began in 2001 and with this release of the Counter-Terrorism White Paper the war seems to not only have made Australia a target from external groups but it has managed to create threats within Australia through its involvement. However, the White Paper itself while it clearly identifies what the threat is, it does not identify the reasons why such threats have targeted Australia.
By reading between the lines, the White Paper has announced that the Afghanistan war and Australia's wider contribution and decision to join the so called 'War on Terror' has made the country less rather than more safe .
While many of the news reports on the White Paper released have focused on announced heightened security measures to be introduced at airports such as biometric and thumb scanners and threats from a variety of groups in the Middle East and North Africa, none of the reports have examined the more pressing and important question of ‘why?’.
Australia now faces an increased threat from home and abroad: but what connections are there between these threats and Australia's support and involvement for the 'War on Terror', the Afghanistan & Iraq Wars and even its ever growing unilateral support for Israel within the region?
All of these issues have gone largely unreported of late in Australia, yet they remain the key causes that drive and enable fundamentalist groups to recruit and indoctrinate in the areas of conflict and within Australia.
The Counter-Terrorism White Paper's solution to these issues is not one of critically evaluating Australia's role in helping the fuel and create jihadist and resistance activity, but one in which the only response to terrorism seems involve enlarging the powers of Australia's security agencies and border protection schemes.
These concerning measures fail to address the causes of terrorism; merely responding to the symptoms, the violent attacks and attempts that come from a range of issues and conditions of which current Australian foreign policy directly contributes.
With all these factors along with the wider damage to lives and infrastructure in the Middle East, continued involvement by Australia in the 'War on Terror' particularly Afghanistan, seems like the biggest cause of our apparent growing insecurity.
nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/counter_terrorism/docs/counter-terrorism_white_paper.pdf
“extremists who follow a distorted and militant interpretation of Islam that espouses violence as the answer to perceived grievances” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper 2010: Securing Australia,
p.ii); It is interesting to note within the paper itself, the word 'war' appears only once and not in relation to Australian involvement in the Afghanistan and the famous phrase 'War on Terror' does not appear at all.
Posts
Interesting article. I would like to open a discussion with a question- Is war ever justified?
ReplyDelete-Wes Bishop
Hi Wes,
ReplyDeleteI think that the answer greatly depends on the context. I would say, like most cases that involve violence, that there needs to be a very high burden of proof needed to support war, if sufficient evidence can ever exist to support war. I think for the most part, war is inherently destructive on lives, on psyches, on infrastructure, on the environment, that nothing positive can ever come from it. So I doubt it can ever be justified or that the justifications that are given in support of wars can ever meet a moral burden of proof in keeping with human values.
If you're asking specifically if the war in Afghanistan is justified then we can examine the evidence, which obviously I argue its not.
Justin,
ReplyDeleteYou say, "So I doubt it can ever be justified or that the justifications that are given in support of wars can ever meet a moral burden of proof in keeping with human values." This is basically a statement that says war is not justified. Yet if war is not justified then the entire thesis of this article is an interesting one- You argue that the particular war in Afghanistan right now is counter productive to Australia's national security which would imply that some wars are productive in securing the nation of Australia. If this is the case, if war can be used to boost national security, then war is sometimes justified.
I absolutely agree with your statement- "...war is inherently destructive on lives, on psyches, on infrastructure, on the environment..." This is the very essence, in my opinion, of war. However I do disagree with your next statement- "...nothing positive can ever come from it (War)." I believe this is too broad of a statement.
In the Western world I fear we run the risk of carrying imperialist arrogance. This is the fault of no one, merely a byproduct of history. This arrogance leads us to presume that only the Western world can start, call for, and be responsible for war. This reduces Afghan radicals, dictators, and other non-Western governments to the role of mere spectators.
The next question I would pose- Does a nation or a people have the moral right to use violence when threatened by an invading force?
-Wes Bishop
Wes, you write-
ReplyDelete"You argue that the particular war in Afghanistan right now is counter productive to Australia's national security which would imply that some wars are productive in securing the nation of Australia. If this is the case, if war can be used to boost national security, then war is sometimes justified."
I think you are drawing a long bow with this comment. First my article is focusing on the apparent justifications for the war in Afghanistan vs the apparent reality. If Australia is involved for security and if the war is inherently making Australia insecure, then participation not longer meets even the governments limited reasons/justification, let alone higher standards such as human rights and international law, popular values and desires and so on. So why are we actually there?
Nor does it imply that if one war is counter productive to security then others may be productive to security. The the opposite of a war that creates insecurity (which inherently means all wars) is the absence of war, peace ensures security. So I think your assumption is false.
You write-
"I absolutely agree with your statement- "...war is inherently destructive on lives, on psyches, on infrastructure, on the environment..." This is the very essence, in my opinion, of war. However I do disagree with your next statement- "...nothing positive can ever come from it (War)." I believe this is too broad of a statement."
I would like you present an example of a positive emerging from war. Especially if you agree that it inherently destroys lives, psyches, infrastructure and the environment.
You continue-
"In the Western world I fear we run the risk of carrying imperialist arrogance. This is the fault of no one, merely a byproduct of history. This arrogance leads us to presume that only the Western world can start, call for, and be responsible for war. This reduces Afghan radicals, dictators, and other non-Western governments to the role of mere spectators. "
How you derive such a position from either my comments or elsewhere is unbeknownist to me. I don't focus on the responsibilities of non-Western governments, radicals etc as I'm not a citizen of their country. I can disagree and abhor their methods, just as I do the Australian government in Afghanistan, I can support and campaign for those within such countries resisting oppression, but as someone belonging to one of the aggressors my role is to seek to impact in persuading and determining the course of action of people and hence governments here. Along with this, the disproportionality of Western aggression to those you outline is also strikingly clear.
There are also international legal methods and courts that can be used to respond to such aggressions, however this makes all accountable and thus we see very little done to strengthen and develop such mechanisms by the United States and its allies as it would expose them to same standards.
Just because a regime might be violent and inhumane, it doesn't justify the use of violent and inhumane actions to remove it or hold it accountable to international law. Nor should we think we have some inherent right to overthrow such regimes instead of following and supporting the will of the populations within such countries.
A call to end the Afghanistan war is not a call for support or an absolution of the Taliban. I think a detailed study of history reveals that the tangled web of imperial history in Afghanistan has created the vacuum for monsters like the Taliban, and the more we involved ourselves the dirtier our hands get...
(cont.)...
ReplyDelete"The next question I would pose- Does a nation or a people have the moral right to use violence when threatened by an invading force?"
I think this is very different to our discussion of war. I think popular resistance to an aggressor is justified, it would in most contexts meet standards required to use violence- but again as a last resort.
This right is enshrined in international law also. I think this should clarify your own position, that war involves an aggressor, which is illegal under international law. Resistance to invading force is part of the UN Charter. Wars of aggression under the guise of self-defence are not morally justified, even if legally rubber stamped post fact, as they remain wars of aggression.
Your questions seem to suggest that you subscribe to a 'just war' position, or that perhaps you think Afghanistan meets such a description?
Justin,
ReplyDeleteI should probably clarify were I am coming from in my own point of view. My questions by no means should be taken as an endorsement for war. Nor should my arguments. I am afraid that is the teacher in me. I like to play the devil's advocate in many cases, especially in the comment section of a well written article.
Personally I am conflicted when it comes to the issue of war. I have never lived under the brutal dictatorship of a tyrant, nor have I seen my streets invaded by a foreign army, therefore I cannot say that war is always uncalled for. Likewise I cannot say that I am for war because if all goes according to plan in my life I will never have to serve in a war. Therefore to say absolutely, one way or the other, I fear makes me sound arrogant. For how can I tell the people of a brutalized population that war is evil, and how can I tell the seasoned veteran that war is justified? I have never experienced it, to me I would be condescending in either opinion.
I understand completely you argument about the Afghanistan War and your country. It is a well written article and I always enjoy your pieces.
I apologize if I cam across as cynical as that was not my intention.
-Wes
where not were.
ReplyDeleteWes
Hi Wes,
ReplyDeleteNo worries at all, was just wondering if the questions were for discussions sake or if there was an underlying point or agenda you were seeking to bring forward, that's all. But it's good to prod and question, and explore issues, so no issues there.
I think the concerns you hold are understandable, but I think there needs to be clarification perhaps of how you define the terms, the meanings.
As I attempted to do in our discussion, I think 'war' means certain specific things, though obviously we use it in a more generalized way, a shorthand, for all forms of conflict.
For example, we could call the Palestine/Israel conflict a war, though in important ways that's misleading- Palestinian resistance is across the population, does not come in the form of an organized, professional military, etc.
Usually it conjures notions of two organized armies fighting, usually if not always for the interests of ruling elites and policies whether of democratic or not, this I think is unjustified.
Hence for me, war is associated with aggressors and specific elite interests and can't be justified.
Resistance or survival in the face of aggression is justified if it has popular support and sources but perhaps warrants some other label to describe it. I think the term 'war' eliminates the disproportionality of most modern conflicts, hiding power relations behind the conflict.
Its difficult semantic territory that I have trouble navigating but I think it might clarify our thoughts and positions so they are harder to twist or distort for use against our values or efforts.
Perhaps it might have been better for me to have been more specific in my statements, if we leave 'war' as a general term to describe formal procedures, relationship between state endorsed forces, using violence, creating certain conditions, etc.
Perhaps instead of saying war is unjustified, perhaps a more specific framing of along the lines of- 'all acts of aggression or invasion are unjustified' or 'The use of violent power in the interests of specific policies or limited interests is unjustified.'
This might avoid confusion
Wether or not the war is legal, or justified i believe is irrelevent, we are there now and the job is unfinished, we should stay until the job is finished, otherwise if we pull out now, our glorious dead, would have died for nothing. And that in my eye is completely unnaceptable.
ReplyDeleteJack