Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why do we fight?

By Kellie Tranter - posted Wednesday, 28 April 2010


"They had no idea of how terrible it was. I used to look at their young faces and think of their mothers. Next day most of them would just be blood and bandages. Wherever you looked there would be these poor buggers on the side of the road, all wanting cigarettes, all busted up, some with arms and legs gone.... Now you can't tell me there is anything good about war - you think that's fair enough?" - Peter Casserly WWI digger who declined to participate in ANZAC day marches for some 85 years.
 
As the war in Afghanistan marches on, and will soon escalate with the planned Kandahar offensive, spare a thought for the 11 Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan and for their friends and families who have been left with the agonising emptiness of the loss of their loved one.  Spare a thought also for more than 100 Defence personnel counted by the ADF as having sustained injuries categorized as amputations, fractures, gun shot wounds, hearing loss, lacerations/contusions, concussion/traumatic brain wounds, penetrating fragments, and multiple severe wounds. And for our combat veterans returning from Afghanistan with long-term mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

Is the suffering worth it? 

Presumably everyone has an opinion, but there is no public debate. In fact there hasn’t even been any real parliamentary debate about the war in Afghanistan and our involvement in it since we joined the initial invasion in 2001. 

Advertisement

Australia’s not unique. United States Congressman Dennis Kucinich raised the same questions when he recently introduced a privileged resolution which required the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Although the House rejected Kucinich’s resolution by a vote of 356-65, his victory lay in getting Congress to at least debate the merits of this war. We haven’t been afforded that opportunity here in Australia. 

In the Independent recently Brian Brady labelled this conflict “Afghanistan: A conspiracy of silence”. Sadly, I agree.

Over the nine years since the horror of 9/11 we’ve had time to suck in some air and reflect. Sure, when things like that happen emotions cloud judgement, questions aren’t asked and poor and hasty decisions are made. But that's no excuse for not reflecting and reconsidering when the initial emotional response subsides.

On 12 September,2001 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1368. It doesn’t authorise the use of force, and it doesn’t even mention Afghanistan

Three days after the September 11 attacks the then Prime Minister John Howard announced:

“....the federal cabinet had a special meeting today primarily to consider the consequences of the awful events that have occurred in the United States in recent days.  We came very quickly to the view that the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty should be invoked in relation to the attack upon the United States....”

Advertisement

On 17 September 2001 the Prime Minister moved a motion that the House, amongst other things, “believes that the terrorist actions in New York City and Washington DC constitute an attack upon the United States of America within the meaning of Articles IV and V of the ANZUS Treaty”. The motion failed to make mention of the references to the UN Security Council within the ANZUS Treaty (Articles I, IV and VI).

The Democrats and the Greens voiced their opposition - for what it was worth - to any proposed military action. On 26 September 2001, to her credit, then Senator Stott Despoja said:

“..... The parliament, though, must have the opportunity to examine in detail the commitment of Australian troops to battle.  It is one thing to provide intelligence support or to send medical personnel, but the commitment of troops to war is another thing.  In fact the ANZUS Treaty says very clearly that the United Nations Security Council would have a central role.  I urge particularly those government members who have asserted that the UN does not have a role in present events...to actually read the ANZUS Treaty.

I recognise that, in our sorrow, there is a great desire for us to do something, for us to act, but it must be effective and it must be proportional.  Courage, compassion and commonsense must guide us, and we must respect the rule of law – domestic and international – and, of course, the rules of war, including that civilians are not legitimate targets and that the ultimate aim here is peace, not World War III.....”

Next, on 28 September 2001 another Security Council Resolution 1373 was passed and again it did not authorise the use of force; in fact, it doesn’t mention Afghanistan. 

On 7 October 2001 U.S. President Bush announced the start of U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan in very questionable circumstances. Did you notice that the United States “did not seek” to gain specific legal support from the United Nations Security Council for its action in Afghanistan?  One wonders whether the US knew that the UN Security Council would not have passed any resolution authorising the use of force in Afghanistan had it come before them.

On 17 October 2001 John Howard announced the deployment of Australian troops to the ground war in Afghanistan. On 22 October 2001 – during an election campaign - Howard and Opposition leader Kim Beazley farewelled the troops from Perth. The formal explanation Howard proffered on 25 October 2001 about Australia’s involvement in the Afghan war was that “not to support the US would be both strategically inept and morally indefensible”.

Nine years and countless deaths later the situation in Afghanistan is certainly now “strategically inept and morally indefensible”.

Late last year General McChrystal, the top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, said he saw no signs of a major Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, and US Deputy Secretary of Defence, William Lynn, told ABC’s Lateline that “...We don't think bin Laden is in Afghanistan...”.  A former diplomat in Zabul Province in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, says a resurgent Taliban does not threaten U.S. national security because they are only interested in their own patch. At least until recently, President Obama said President Karzai was capable of leading his country into the 21st Century and stabilising it and had the capacity to be the necessary “strong partner”, yet secret cables from the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry reveal otherwise.
 
Is there any truth in all this? How do you find it? What is the truth about this war?
 
There was government dishonesty in the lead up to and during the Vietnam war, and the same thing occurred in Iraq. Is the war in Afghanistan any different? How can we be certain that mistakes haven’t been made been, and more importantly aren’t being perpetuated, unless we have honest reporting, full disclosure and parliamentary and public debate?  
 
Has Afghanistan been a calculated directive- by puppetmasters who won’t be bloodied - to send young troops to mutual annihilation on an organised grand scale? Who then turn around and encourage and expect us to be patriotic about this carnage? For what? What political or economic ambition could conceivably justify it?
 
Australians may tend to apathy, but in this case our government can’t justify not supplying the truth on the basis of a lack of demand for it. We need to know - and we want to know - what is really happening and why.
 
Until we do the war will continue and the death count will climb.  We already know that in preparation for the NATO offensive that is expected to start this summer in residential districts on the edge of the city, the Taliban have stepped up their own campaign, planting more and more bombs and booby-traps around Kandahar and elsewhere in the south. 
 
Don’t we owe it to our troops and their families, and to the many innocent civilians in Afghanistan, to insist that we are told “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” so that we all have an informed understanding of what Australia’s role in Afghanistan has been and is, and so that we might all reach a true consensus about what, if any, ongoing role it should have?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kellie Tranter is a lawyer and human rights activist. You can follow her on Twitter @KellieTranter

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Kellie Tranter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Kellie Tranter
Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy