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

War in Afghanistan: Sacrifices in vain?

By Kellie Tranter - posted Monday, 6 February 2012


Events like these don't auger well for peace and stability if the 2014 deadline is contingent upon Afghan Security Forces maintaining security.

And don't forget the Afghan Opium Survey for 2011 finding that the value of opium in the country had increased by 133 per cent, violence against women being on the rise in Oruzgan, Afghans complaining about Oruzgan projects, continuing night raids still sparking anti-U.S. protests, andtwo out of four Afghans suffering from trauma, depression and anxiety. Read the Human Rights Watch World Report 2012: Afghanistan for an alarming assessment of “conditions on the ground”.

The Bush and Obama administrations have long known about the depth and breadth of corruption in the Karzai government, about the expanding opium trade and about the sanctuaries provided to al-Qaeda and others in nuclear-armed and radicalised Pakistan.

Advertisement

Having asked the question in the Situation Room on 13 September 2009, Vice President Joe Biden also well knows that there is no evidence of the Afghan Taliban advocating attacks outside of Afghanistan or on the United States. Reporter and author Michael Hastings puts it this way: “The question one has to ask oneself is that if everything we're doing and everyone we're fighting is not actually a threat to the United States, certainly not a direct threat by any means, then why are we expending so many resources...with all the lives lost, to do it." Consecutive Australian governments must have asked the same question, but what answer did they come up with? What answer have they given us?

In 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke of the need for balance so that security and liberty may prosper together:

…each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs - balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage - balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration….

Shouldn’t Australia - and debt-laden countries like the U.S. and U.K. and the other countries currently embroiled in the European financial crisis - have made such assessments of their Afghanistan involvement long before now?

It was reported last year that Australia’s bill for fighting terrorism is at least $30 billion. But don't we have to factor in the ongoing personal, economic and societal costs (particularly intergenerational costs) of war for veterans and their families: people who carry permanent scars like amputated limbs, severe burns, genitourinary injury, severe bodily or facial disfigurement, depression, hearing loss, traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, and who cope with alcohol, drugs or suicide?

All the while, Australia has an infrastructure deficit of around $700 to $800 billion, or perhaps more. Has any Australian government sought, let alone found, and sensible balance between defense and security needs and other functions of government?

Advertisement

If, as many suspect, wars are fought for oil (Alan Greenspan candidly said so in 2007 in relation to Iraq), it's somewhat ironic that the money we have spent on fighting terrorism could have made serious inroads into our oil deficit by funding a high speed rail network along the entire east coast. Its estimated cost is between $61 billion and $108 billion, but it would serve the 80 per cent of Australians living within 100 kms of the coast. But no, Australia remains a net oil importer, heavily reliant on trouble free import supply chains.

The leaked Australian Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics study predicts peak oil around 2017, followed by permanent decline: “the 2017 drop-off".  What effects will that have? Where are the reports commissioned by lobby groups, think tanks, or business councils urging a rethink? A cost-benefit analysis? Where's the "Bonus Army"?

The war in Afghanistan will end with attempts - which are unlikely to succeed or even be sustained - to negotiate a political settlement with the Afghan Taliban. The expression actually means, "After all the madness, what is it that each side wants in order to permit honorable withdrawal in a manner that is politically advantageous." Peace with honor is gilded honor shamefully misplaced.

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

Article edited by Jo Coghlan.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 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 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy