Right: Afghan President Hamid Karzai, seen here with US President Obama, is a controversial figure due to claims of political and bureaucratic corruption. He is now demanding the pull-out of all foreign troops from Afghanistan.
.
Arguments against Australia engaging in a war in Afghanistan
1. The war is an illegal action against a sovereign state
The United Nations Charter defines international law with regard to war. The Charter requires that disputes be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorise the use of force. Without this authorisation, any military activity against another country is illegal. Measured by this standard, the United States-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.
There are two exceptions to the requirement for UN authorisation. Firstly, if your nation is attacked by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. However, Afghanistan did not attack the United States on September 11. Those men charged with the crime were not Afghans. Secondly, the danger of an immanent attack also justifies an immediate response. It has been claimed that this justification also did not exist, even in the view of the United States itself which did not attack Afghanistan until a month after the September 11 attack. Even then, that the Afghanistan government may have harbored terrorists does not make that government itself responsible for terrorist attacks.
Resolution 1373, the one of only two Security Council resolutions about this issue, laid out various responses to September 11. These included matters such as freezing assets, criminalising the support of terrorists, exchanging police information about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.
Australia has ratified the United Nations Charter; therefore it cannot have legally entered a war in Afghanistan even though in support of its ally the United States. Interestingly, the war was illegal under United States law as well. The UN Charter was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the United States Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the 'supreme law of the land'. The war in Afghanistan is therefore in violation of United States law as well as international law.
The United States has repeatedly claimed that it attacked Afghanistan because the then leaders of that country refused to surrender Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks. However, as noted by Scott Burcell, a senior lecturer in international relations at Deakin University, in an opinion piece published in The Age on October 22, 2010, 'Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar said he would consider the request, and asked Washington to pursue formal extradition proceedings with accompanying evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for the attacks - normal practice under international law.
No evidence was produced by Washington because, at the time, none was available. Nothing conclusive had appeared by June the following year, eight months after the bombing of Afghanistan had begun. Following the most intensive criminal investigation in history, the FBI was unable to definitively say who was responsible for 9/11.'
2. The war is not resulting in a reduction of the terrorist threat
It has been claimed that fighting a war in Afghanistan will not reduce the terrorist threat. It has been claimed that the best that can be hoped for is that terrorists will simply relocate. An Age editorial published on November 1, 2010, stated, 'The official reason for Australia's involvement [in Afghanistan] is that defeating the Taliban will supposedly prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for jihadist terrorists. As The Age has noted before, this stance ignores evident facts: terrorists don't need a haven, terrorism in its jihadist form has already gone global.'
Indeed in the United States and Great Britain there is a growing acknowledgement that the greatest terrorist threat may actually be 'home-grown', that is, form citizens within these states' own borders.
In a report released in September 2010, the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group, a Washington research group, stated, 'Today, America faces a dynamic threat that has diversified to a broad array of attacks, from shootings to car bombs to simultaneous suicide attacks to attempted in-flight bombings of passenger aircraft.'
The same report stressed that future terrorist attacks were likely to come from those living within the United States, either as citizens born there or as immigrants. It stated, 'In the past year alone the United States has seen affluent suburban Americans and the progeny of hardworking immigrants gravitate to terrorism. Persons of colour and Caucasians have done so. Women along with men. Good students and well-educated individuals and high-school drop-outs and jailbirds.'
The only common theme, the report identified was, 'a new-found hatred for their native or adopted country, a degree of dangerous malleability and a religious fervor they feel justifies violence.'
There are those who have suggested that waging war on what are believed to be terrorist states may actually serve to increase the spread of terrorism. On June 5, 2010, John Humphreys of 'Liberty Australia' wrote, 'Some commentators believe that the war on terror may do more to increase terror by increasing anti-Western hatred than it will do to decrease terror by killing terrorists, making terrorist attacks more difficult and reducing the institutional support of terrorist groups.'
3. The war has not resulted in a legitimate government for Afghanistan
It has been claimed that the legitimacy of the current Afghan government has been tainted by election fraud.
The main Afghan election observer group, the independent Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA), stated that it had serious concerns about the legitimacy of the August 20, 2010 election because of reported fraud.
At least 21 civilians and nine police officers were killed during the voting, according to the election commission and the Interior Ministry, amid dozens of bombings and rocket attacks. In addition, two poll workers were kidnapped in northern Balkh province and their bodies discovered the following day.
Throughout the ballot, there were complaints that anti-fraud measures were ignored across the country. People said the indelible ink that was supposed to stain voters' fingers for 72 hours could be washed off. In some polling stations, observers said poll workers let people vote with obviously fake voter cards.
FEFA stated, 'Ballot stuffing was seen to varying extents in most provinces, as were proxy voting and underage voting.'
Hamid Karzai was proclaimed president two months after the August election when his last challenger dropped out of a planned runoff, claiming the vote would not be fair.
In addition to doubts about the legitimacy of elections, there have been repeated concerns expressed about the extent of corruption at all levels of government in Afghanistan.
In January 2010 a United Nations report stated that half of all Afghan adults paid at least one bribe to a public official over the course of a year to cut through red tape or get help with poor service. Bribes were requested and taken by politicians, prosecutors and tax officers.
An Age editorial published on November 1, 2010, stated that there is a 'network of corruption surrounding President Hamid Karzai, whose regime has at best dubious democratic legitimacy from disputed - and often, rigged - elections.'
4. The war has caused great suffering for the Afghan people
It has been claimed that the war has inflicted great suffering upon the Afghan people. It is estimated that between 2006 and June 2010 nearly 7,000 Afghan civilians have died as a result of the fighting.
Though a higher proportion of these deaths are said to be the result of the actions of the anti-government Taliban forces, the number of civilian deaths appears to be increasing.
A report published in The Guardian on August 10, 2010, stated, 'Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are getting worse, according to the latest statistics from the United Nations: the Taliban's increasing use of homemade bombs and political assassinations has been responsible for a 31% increase in the number of civilians who killed or injured in fighting in Afghanistan this year so far.'
In January, 2010, Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the director of operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) stated, 'The suffering of the Afghan population has reached levels that are frankly unbearable in many circumstances... our major concern has been that over the past two years the intensity of the conflict has increased.
The geographic spread of the conflict has grown also. So it's no longer simply confined to some regions of the south of Afghanistan, it has spread into the west, but also parts of the north of the country.'
Erica Gaston is a human rights lawyer representing the human rights group CIVIC. She spent much of 2008 in Afghanistan interviewing families affected by the war. In a report published in The Huffington Post on February 26, 2009, Gaston wrote, 'Families repeatedly told me their grief at losing a loved one, at suffering a disability, at losing their homes, or being uprooted from their communities by conflict - and their anger that they saw no recognition or concern from those international troops whom they blamed for these losses.
I spoke with one man who watched 47 of his neighbors and extended family killed in a US airstrike in July 2008. He was angered at the lack of basic respect demonstrated by the US military, who denied the loss of life.'
It has been claimed that children who live in Afghanistan are particularly affected every day by a multitude of wartime stressors which contribute to their developing post traumatic stress disorder: child labor, and family and military violence.
On a daily basis they are first-hand witnesses to the bombings, abuse, and the general upheaval of their home life and society as a result of war, including the effects of long-term poverty and familial turmoil.
Dr. Claudia Catani of the University of Bielefeld has stated that, 'The interplay of these stressors contributes to a higher vulnerability in the children.' Approximately half of the boys and a third of the girls are expected to work to supplement the family's income, sometimes working heavy labor jobs as carpet weavers for an average of seven hours a day. Girls in this situation were more likely to experience family violence.
5. The war appears unwinnable
It has been repeatedly claimed that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. This point was made recently by the leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown, who in an interview on the ABC's 7.30 Report on October 18, 2010, stated, 'we have Australian experts who point out that the war cannot be successful, not on any current trajectory, in terms of a victory and the quelling ... of opposition from the Taliban in Afghanistan.' Senator Brown went on to claim, 'I have letters from relatives of troops who are in Afghanistan or going to Afghanistan who do not want their loved ones sent to what they see as a hopeless war, as a war where there isn't an exit strategy.'
A similar point has been made by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who in an opinion piece published in The Age on October 5, 2010, compared Afghanistan to Vietnam and argued both wars were unwinnable. Mr Fraser stated, 'Every new general who has been sent to Afghanistan has said: ''Give me more troops, with a change of strategy we will win.'' Every new general in Vietnam made exactly the same comment. Every general was wrong.'
It has been claimed that neither Australia nor the United States any longer believes the war is winnable in an absolute sense and that what each government is seeking is an acceptable way to exit the country.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on September 2, 2010, the newspaper's diplomatic editor, Daniel Flitton, stated, 'Winning in Afghanistan implies ... establishing stable democracy, ensuring respect for women's rights and the rule of law, and getting rid of the drug trade, things the West used to talk about.
Those goals are gone. That's the reason Gillard ducks any questions on whether it's a ''winnable'' war. She prefers a different formula - that Australia has a clear and defined mission and ''progress'' is being made. In this sense, a win in Afghanistan is better understood as finding the right way for the West to get out. Our mission now is to leave.'
It has been noted that the Taliban has been regaining strength since 2004. It has been claimed that in dividing its focus between Iraq and Afghanistan the United States has not devoted sufficient attention to the battle in Afghanistan to ensure victory.
In an opinion piece written David Rohde and Dabid E Sanger and published in The New York Times on August 12, 2007, it was stated, 'The Taliban had found refuge in Pakistan and regrouped as the American focus wavered. Taliban fighters seeped back over the border, driving up the suicide attacks and roadside bombings by as much as 25 percent this spring, and forcing NATO and American troops into battles to retake previously liberated villages in southern Afghanistan.'
6. The war has resulted in injury and death for Australian soldiers and is losing popular support
The number of injuries and fatalities suffered by Australian forces in Afghanistan is (as of November 17, 2010) 21 deaths and 160 wounded. These figures are concerning in themselves and perhaps even more concerning in terms of the trend they represent. Of the 21 deaths, ten occurred this year. Of the 160 injuries, 60 were suffered this year. This reflects a change in the nature of the deployment of Australian troops and suggests that Australian personnel may now be at greater risk.
The increasing number of fatalities and injuries suffered by Australian troops in Afghanistan has led many to question whether this is a war Australia should ever have entered or should continue to be a part of. The lack of a clear objective and the growing loss of Australian lives have seen support for Australia's involvement in this war dwindle.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on September 2, 2010, the newspaper's diplomatic editor, Daniel Flitton, stated, 'In the absence of a compelling rationale to explain the 21 Australians killed and nearly 150 wounded, no wonder the public mood has turned sour.'
Daniel Flitton went on to note, 'In the face of rising Australian casualties, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott preach the same message - it's a difficult and dangerous mission, they say, but necessary to fight terrorism and support the US alliance.
That is not the community view. More than half the Australian population believes the troops should be brought home.'
A similar point was made by Dr Marko Beljac on his online opinion site Nuclear Resonance. Dr Beljac stated, 'The recent multiple deaths of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan have 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.'