There’s no Anzac in Afghanistan
|
Terrorism expert Clive Williams recently provided a helpful insight into the Pashtun devil-children we face in Afghanistan:
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. |
|
|
|
17 Comments
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.
Yes. What a waste of lives. Why is it too much to ask to have the whole truth about this situation aired fearlessly by our government before they commit troops, and now with new leadership to review the situation and be honest with the people - why wasnt this a topic at the 2020 summit? Now that would be a new and innovative government! And where is the leadership on this matter, possibly one of the most immediate and important issues we face?
James O’Neill’s ludicrous attempt to deny al Quaeda’s role in the 9/11 attacks has absolutely no evidence other than that deriving from the weirder outer reaches of conspiracy theory land. Mirek’s contentions about oil, while having some relevance to Iraq, are nonsensical when applied to Afghanistan. The overall tone is that of the far left’s version of the US being the ‘Great Satan’ which has only a little more sense than the Islamist version.
The Taliban were never as bad as the mujihadeen, we have no right to be in AFghanistan and it ain’t like we give a toss about the citizens. We went to the high court twice with little Afghan kids to declare our right to lock them up and deny them all welfare rights.
The Anzac invasion of Turkey, at the behest of an erstwhile hegemon, the CoW invasion & occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, at the behest of the current hegemon & best friend, does not demonstrate “the deep sense of liberty for which our forebears fought.” .
As I understand it during Taliban rule in Afghanistan opium poppy production was forbidden.It is only now that needing a source of cash that the Taliban encourages it’s cultivation (and of course the farmers need a cash crop to survive).
In effect NATO and it’s allies have been responsible for the flood of heroin entering Europe through Kosovo and into SE Asia. Talk about unintended consequences.
Just testing.
David Sanderson may be content to argue from a priori assumptions; I prefer to act on the basis of evidence. This is particularly important when the matter is as serious as committing one’s country to an illegal war. As for conspiracies, the official US government’s version of events is a conspiracy theory. The question is: which theory is best explained by the available evidence. This is not a process Mr Sanderson seems prepared to undertake. Fortunately others are not so similarly blind. All I am asking is that the assumptions upon which Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan are based are subject to rigorous critical scrutiny. I believe that if that is done there should be a reappraisal of our involvement. If Mr Sanderson first acquaints himself with some history he may even be in a position to contribute.
Love those long names. Actually I remember pre 9/11 the ngo email networks imploring intervention there over the enslavement of women and girls by the bigoted Taliban. With systemic oppression of 50% of the population it gets pretty hard to feel much sympathy for the Taliban. They strike me as alot of nutcases. But that doesn’t mean I disagree with other comments here either. I notice Senator Bob Brown is resolutely sticking to the Green Party nonviolence principle that Australia leave Afghanistan too. But I’m just not so sure while Iraq to me is a slam dunk to exit 4 years ago or even earlier.
Way back in 2001, I was told that the Taliban offered to hand Osama Bin Laden over to the International Criminal Court for trial if they were presented with conclusive evidence that he was implicated in the World Trade Centre attack of 9/11 but the US would have none of it. They demanded that Bin Laden be handed over to US authority, evidence was not required, do it now or get bombed into the stone age.
What are we doing in Afghanistan? Are we looking for Osama Bin Laden or are we punishing the Taliban for being impertinant to the US. How will we know if we have won - or lost? What will Australia do with Bin Laden if he is captured by our forces - kill him - hand him over to the US - hand him over to The Hague? What if he is already dead? What would Australia do - keep on killing the Taliban or down tools and go home leaving them to tidy the rubble in readiness for the next wave of occupiers. Have we learned nothing from history?
I worry about the new patriotic fervour of Australians.A friend who’s a Vietnam vet was flabbergasted the day before Anzac Day when someone, discovering he was a veteran, shook his hand fervently and thanked him for fighting for freedom. Believe me this old digger wouldn’t go near an Anzac service if you paid him. He knows what war is really like and it’s nothing you’d want to celebrate. And when I see a gang of hoons in a ute festooned with Aussie flags on Australia Day I get a bad feeling it’s more about who they hate than the country they profess to love.
While I sympathise with Robert Bollard’s cynicism about the illogicality of supporting one bunch of murderous fanatics in preference to another bunch what I would like to suggest is that the whole premise upon which we are in Afghanistan is fundamentally flawed. The 3000 killed in New York were mostly killed because the buildings were demolished. That destruction was not wrought by OBL’s merry men in the caves in Afghanistan. Take some time to acquaint yourself with the basic laws of physics and read the peer reviewed science papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Consider the fact that the decision to bomb Afghanistan was made in July 2001, two months before “9/11”. Read Peter Dale Scott on the geopolitics of the region. The whole Afghan enterprise is based on a massive lie in the same way as the invasion of Iraq was. Knee jerk idiocies about “freedom” only obfuscate and allow the debate’s parameters to be set by those who want to justify the government’s position.
Nor will it be different. How many of your readers have seen this part of the world? The terrain alone has to be seen to be understood. Barren fields-possibly only suitable for growing poppies, or starving goats-give way to mountains which equal the Andean cordillera. The hostile terrain enables the Pashtu fighters to have had a long and bloody history. As warriors they are implacably cruel and implacably resolute. They defeated the British, at the height of empire, not once but three times. Then they fought off the Russians, at the height of their military power. So why on earth would the Americans succeed? Yet another disaster imposed on the youth of Australia by our ex and unlamented PM, JWHoward in order to crawl up the *rse of George Bush.