23 / The Flip-Side of the Anti-Afghan-War Coin
Well, there is a flip-side to the Anti-Afghan-War coin. On the one hand I strongly object to the war (the pacifist's position is: War is never right), on the other hand … as Thomas Friedman said in his New York Times article ('We cannot abandon the children of Afghanistan' - reprinted in the SMH on 22 July 2009): "I confess, I find it hard to come to Afghanistan and not ask: Why are we here? Who cares about the Taliban? Al-Qaeda is gone. And if its leaders come back, well, that's why God created cruise missiles." Exactly my sentiment.
Friedman then talks about his latest visit to Afghanistan, where he accompanied Admiral Mike Mullen, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who came to attend the opening of a new girls school in a remote village in the Hindu Kush mountains.
The school was facilitated by Greg Mortenson, director of the non-profit Central Asia Institute, founder of the educational charity Pennies For Peace and co-author of Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace … One School At A Time.
Says Friedman, "I must say, after witnessing the delight in the faces of those little Afghan girls crowded three to a desk waiting to learn, I found it very hard to write, Let's just get out of here."
"It's no accident," Mortenson noted, "that since 2007 the Taliban and its allies have bombed, burnt or shut down more than 640 schools in Afghanistan and 350 in Pakistan, of which about 80 per cent were for girls." So where were the girls going to school before Mortenson's Central Asia Institute and the US State Department joined with the village elders to get this secular public school built? "The mosque," the girls said.
I think it would take a callous mind (and heart) not to be impressed by Mortenson, his work and the results he achieves. But is this story an effective argument for the War on Terror? I don't think so. Today in the newspaper I found of interest two letters, in response to the article 'The Afghan War is Unwinnable' I discussed a couple of days ago:
Our soldiers in Afghanistan have not died in vain
If this war is "unwinnable", what does Hugh White suggest as an alternative ("Soldier killed in 'unwinnable' war", July 20)? To leave the sacrifice to the young soldiers of other countries - Canada has assumed a far greater burden in Afghanistan - or have everyone pull out and leave the country to be the training ground for more terrorist attacks?
Maybe we should leave Afghanistan to the thugs and despots who ride the wave of fundamentalism to gain wealth and power. Should we allow the delicate balance of democracy to be toppled in nuclear-armed countries such as Pakistan?
I am sure Professor White does not consider our defence forces are for ceremonial purposes only, or that we should start defending our country only when an invasion arrives.
My son was killed fighting in Afghanistan. Should the family and friends of the killed and maimed be expected to believe these dedicated young men eager to do their duty were worthlessly sacrificed? The thousands of Australian defence personnel and their allies, who have trained so hard to be the last resort in defending our way of life, know only too well the risks they take on our behalf, a task they assume with pride. They deserve support, not suggestions their efforts are futile.
Bill Nash Glenhaven
I was disappointed to read Hugh White's comment. Wars are never won - the price people pay is often far more than the fruits the so-called victory delivers. And no country should go to war with just the desire to defeat the foe. It should do so only to defend its integrity, and part of that integrity is its culture. So let's not hear any more about our soldiers dying in vain in Afghanistan. They are fighting for the benefits of democracy we enjoy. And that is the only system worth the fight.
Maurice Corlett Wagga Wagga
I wrote a letter in response:
When I came to the point in Bill Nash's letter where he states that his son was killed fighting in Afghanistan, I choked (my son is serving in East Timor.) That information helps to understand his position - which is wrong nevertheless. His alternative to fighting the war against terrorism is to, "leave Afghanistan to the thugs and despots who ride the wave of fundamentalism to gain wealth and power." That is not the issue. The point with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that while they are aimed against terrorism, they achieve nothing of the sort, in fact they achieve the opposite: They recruit members to the fundamentalist cause.
It has been reported previously in the Herald that more than half of potential terrorists are dissuaded from their cause by peaceful means, such as aid and improved infrastructure. About a third lose interest because they change their ideology; less than ten percent are defeated by military means. It is clear that these wars are a waste of lives, a waste of money, a waste of effort. Re-adjusting priorities and re-channelling of the resources would have a far bigger and longer lasting positive impact than fighting the war on terror.
And fighting a war to defend integrity and culture, Maurice Corlett? Isn't that what the Islamists are doing? Pot? Kettle? Black?
So this is my position: Fighting a war to achieve our objective: No. Striving to achieve our objectives through education, aid, improved infrastructure - i.e. roads, hospitals, etc - emphatically; Yes.
I have to say I find this argument disturbing: "The thousands of Australian defence personnel … deserve support, not suggestions their efforts are futile."
It apparently implies that justifications for the army's actions shall not be questioned, to honour the lives of the sacrificed soldiers … regardless of whether the mission achieved its stated objectives. This bottom line could be construed: To honour our fallen soldiers, we shall sacrifice more soldiers … even if the mission is futile.
Perhaps a more realistic assessment would be: So many people have died, let's work toward preventing any more deaths … above all let us ascertain if the sacrifices achieve their intended goals.