Terrorism expert Clive Williams recently provided a helpful insight into the Pashtun devil-children we face in Afghanistan:
They, of course, have a very long experience of fighting, particularly against foreigners. […] That is their way of life. To be a man in their society, to be regarded as manly, you’ve got to have war experience. Their culture is built around fighting others.
A Pashtun academic studying the recent Anzac Day celebrations might, with equal legitimacy, come to the same conclusion about Australians.
The death of everyone who actually suffered during the Great War has severed the always tenuous connection between Anzac and reality, transforming the occasion into a free floating signifier of military virtue. Thus Kevin Rudd was able to sum up the disastrous Gallipoli invasion in terms of “the deep sense of liberty for which our forebears fought.”
It was, presumably, that love for liberty that enabled us to beat off Johnny Turk when he stormed Sydney Harbour … oh, wait.
The prevalence of such national fantasies about military history would matter less if we weren’t currently involved in a real war, in which, as we’ve just discovered, real people really die.
The occupation of Afghanistan has now been underway for significantly longer than the First World War. Yet are Australians any clearer about what our contingent is supposedly doing in that country than they were about the aims of the Gallipoli campaign?
Certainly, the politicians don’t seem to be.
Following the death of Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Rudd predicted that many more lives would be lost. So why remain?
“We are there,” he said, “because a failed state was giving open succour and support to a global terrorist organisation, al-Qaeda, which then attacked our ally the US on September the 11th, 2001, and in the process, murdered 3000 people.”
Brendan Nelson added casually that the war might last for a generation. He threw the Bali bombings into the mix, on the basis that three of the perpetrators supposedly trained in Afghanistan.
The fatuousness of suggestions that an occupation of Afghanistan makes terrorism in our region less likely means that, on the rare occasions that the war actually features in our newspapers, it’s usually presented in the kinds of mythic terms that Rudd used on Anzac Day.
“We are a good people,” he said, “who want for the good of others.”
Yet despite the undeniable odiousness of the Taliban, the complex situation in Afghanistan scarcely translates into a simple morality play. For a start, the government brought into power by the US invasion consists largely of warlords, with a grim record of human rights abuses. The campaign against opium production which plays so well in the Western press leaves local farmers impoverished and embittered. That’s why there’s been a rise in popular support for the Taliban, with US generals expecting record levels of attacks in 2008.
More fundamentally, the history of Afghanistan over the last century involves a string of occupations, all of which generated popular resistance. No-one’s been able to explain why this one should be any different.
Michelle Grattan’s scarcely some anti-war hippy. But note her conclusion: “We are in a conflict with no time frame, a significant likelihood that it will turn out badly in the end, and no exit strategy.”
Jeff Sparrow is editor of Overland.
How long will we be in East Timor? It is of no relevance to us so why are we there? Surely not because of our cultural values that support freedom and support those pursuing a free, peaceful democratic society, the same valuse that saw Australia contribute to all major war efforts in 20th century? The alternative was what – hope bad guys leave us alone? I just can’t understand how people of the left, who enjoy freeedom to express their nonsense and even rubbish their own nation and people, can oppose others hcaving same freedoms? Or is it because they don’t really support freedom except for themselves – making them sqame old ugly socialist dictators.
I am reluctant to agree that George Bush has got anything right but the overthrow of the Taliban was a necessity for the simple reason that the then government harboured a major terrorist network which was destined to mightily expand within Afghanistan following the 9/11 ‘success’. Once overthrown, the international community had to cobble together a national government out of less than ideal materials. Of course it is very imperfect and in an ideal world could be greatly improved. Wiping out al-Quaida and similar groups is a responsibility that falls on all nations and not the US alone so it is proper that Australia contributes. As many commentators have pointed out there is much more that some European countries in particular could do to ensure that the Taliban are crushed.
Thanks, Jeff: an interesting and appropriate connection between the occupation of Afghanistan and the Gallipoli campaign, absolutely pointless, but serving other country`s interests. In the first place, the British Empire, in the second, American. Forget about searching for Bin Laden, a revenge for his supposed attack of 9/11, the ill-treatment of women, or even `fighting terrorists`, the real reason, and that for previous invasions, is geopolitical: the US seeks to control energy resources around Central Asia, as Brzezinski advocated in his seminal book `The Grand Chessboard`. The same logic applies to the invasion of Iraq, and Washington`s willing helper: the Australian Government. This is why, as Michelle Grattan points out, that there no exit strategy, there cannot be, as `we` are there to stay , `shoulder to shoulde` with our US ally, until the `job is done`. So, expect more young people to `sacrifice their lives to serve the country`. The question remains, which country?
Tony Papafilist, what does anything that’s happening in Afghanistan have to do with “others having [the] same freedoms”? What freedoms are being defended in Afghanistan? Is it the freedom to be governed by “our” bunch of murdering, torturing, fundamentalist thugs rather than the ones who sheltered the nutters who killed people in New York 6 years ago? How many years do we have to continue trashing a country in revenge for the destruction of a building? How many tens, or hundreds, of thousands need to be killed to avenge the death of 3,000? But of course it’s all about “freedom”. That’s what they built GITMO for – to make people free.
Rudd’s stated rationale for joining the attack on Afghanistan that it was “a failed state giving succour and support to…….al Qaeda which attacked our ally the US on 11 September 2001” is seriously flawed. There is no evidence that al Qaeda attacked the US on 11/09/01. the FBI doesn’t think so. The promised White Paper with “proof” never materialised. The so-called confession video has been widely and rightly discredited. The attack itself was very likely in breach of international law even if the stated rationale were true. There has never been a logical explanation as to how Australia’s vital interests are protected by joining this illegal venture. Worse, the debate assumes that history began on 11 September 2001, which completely ignores the history of US involvement with al Qaeda before and since as is well documented.