Nuclear Security and Strategic Analyses Dr Marko Beljac

Australia’s Mounting Casualties in Afghanistan Reignites Debate on the War

The recent multiple deaths of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan has reignited the debate on Australia's role in the conflict. Polls, according to media reports, suggest that public opposition to Australia's participation in the Afghan war is increasing as the human toll mounts.

It would come as no secret to anybody that has read my posts and articles on the Afghan war that I am firmly against Australia's involvement. However, I am troubled by the way the latest debate is being structured.

The argument now seems to be that the mounting death toll is too high a price for Australia to pay. Because the intensity of the conflict is increasing, and will continue to increase, more Australian casualties are to be expected. Given this, now is the time to withdraw. The strategic gains for Australia are not worth the human cost that our soldiers are paying, and can be expected to continue to pay in future.

These are bad arguments, and dangerous to boot. Consider. Australia's level of commitment is not strategically significant. But if Australia were to withdraw then the Taliban would thereby make a politico-strategic gain, namely the US led coalition losing another member state. This would be widely reported both in the region and globally.

The Taliban would be following the debate in Australia. If opposition to the war in Australia is allowed to be based on the mounting casualties then the Taliban will increase the level and intensity of its attacks against Australian forces in hopes of achieving a politico-strategic objective, namely the further withdrawal of a US coalition partner.

The debate in Australia needs to be framed in a way that does not expose Australian troops to extra risks. I myself oppose the war and continue to do so. I opposed the war when Australia was experiencing no casualties in Afghanistan. Let me explain my reasons, briefly, why I oppose the war.

Firstly, I do not accept that Australia should be assisting the US to set up a political regime and social structure that clearly does not have the support of the Afghan population, especially in the South where the troops are deployed. Outside forces do not have the right to do this. For example a recent report in The New York Times suggested that the US is seeking to maintain stability in Ourzgan province, where our troops are deployed, by working with a brutal and rapacious local warlord. In return the warlord is allowed to, effectively, rule over the province.

Australia's participation is usually framed in the context of nation building, and reconstruction, and the like. I am sure that our forces are doing their fair share of providing security for reconstruction and so on, but this is being done within the context of the US supporting the regional rule of a rapacious warlord. That is similar to what Afghanistan was like before the Taliban came to power.

Any good Australia does in Ourzgan province is being conducted within the context of this overarching regional strategy being pursued by the US. If the report in the Times is true then Australia is being effectively undercut by our ally.

As the NYT article pointed out

...In some cases, these strongmen have restored order, though at the price of undermining the very institutions Americans are seeking to build: government structures like police forces and provincial administrations that one day are supposed to be strong enough to allow the Americans and other troops to leave...

That's not good enough.

Furthermore, it is commonly argued that it is necessary to stay in Afghanistan in order to prevent that country from being a terrorist safe haven, as it was prior to 9/11. This argument is very sloppy. Even if true that does not imply that only an outside western military presence can prevent this.

According to the head of US military intelligence in Afghanistan al Qaida has only about 100 fighters in Afghanistan. The Taliban don't have any need for tactical, let alone strategic, assistance from bin Laden.

The argument is also based on a misreading of the 9/11 plot. The 9/11 attack did not rely for its success on the Afghan safe haven as much as it is commonly assumed. Of course, the Afghan haven played a role. But this role has tended to become exaggerated in the public mind. Many terrorism analysts argue that al Qaida is now a loosely connected jihadi franchise. Fighting in Afghanistan, therefore, really amounts to us fighting yesterday's war.

If there is a terrorist threat to the Australian homeland then, I submit, that threat exists here in Australia not so much in Afghanistan. Indeed, al Qaida always was a jihadi franchise, rather than a jihadi central committee, to a significant extent, as pointed out by Jason Burke in his top class study of al Qaida.

Also western forces in Afghanistan have the freedom to conduct military operations as they see fit. This contributes to the rising civilian death toll in Afghanistan. Every day we read reports of scores of civilians being killed as a result of either western military operations or brazen Taliban attacks. It is not right that we are propping up illegitimate thugs in military operations that are killing too many innocent Afghans.

I agree that the Taliban are assholes, but that doesn't absolve us of our own moral responsibilities.

At the end of the day it is hard to disagree with Michelle Grattan's summation in The Age today

...In reality, we will be there as long as the United States wants us to be. Whatever its other reasons and justifications, this commitment is part of what we do for our American allies. For us to withdraw support would be a declaration that it is hard to see any Australian government making, whatever the public might say through polls. That is, unless the number of casualties really increases...

It is true that what Grattan states here is amazingly cynical. Namely, that our involvement in Afghanistan is just part of the insurance premium we pay to the United States. The deep thinkers in Canberra believe that so long as the premium in Australian blood can be kept down then Australia's role can be maintained politically.

That's brutal. But you can't blame Grattan for relaying to the public the facts of the matter. This is how the foreign policy making elite in Canberra thinks. Grattan does us all a service by openly showing this.

I myself do not consider this sufficient reason for supporting Australia's role. I don't accept the cynicism of Canberra's sophisticates and so I reject the policy that flows from it.

Remember one thing about insurance premiums. To loyally pay your insurance premium over a long time is by no means a guarantee that your insurer will pay you out when disaster strikes. We all know this. The bean counters in company headquarters will do the math and decide whether it's in their interests to pay you out.

The United States will act no differently no matter how high our premium may be and for how long we dutifully pay it.

That's tough. But that's what international relations is all about.