The attacks early yesterday morning Australian time by the United States and Britain on Afghanistan mark the first salvo in their war against terrorism.
The leaders of the two nations, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, justified the attacks by the killing of about 6000 people in New York and Washington by suicidal hijackers who forced passenger jetliners into the World trade Centre and the Pentagon. The attack in the US was horrific and it killed thousands of innocent people. The US and its allies are right to seek to bring to justice those who perpetrated the deed. No-one has admitted responsibility for it. The US says it has evidence that it was done by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network. It says that that network is supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan.
In ordinary circumstances where a crime has been committed a nation can seek extradition of those allegedly responsible. That was not possible here. The US asked the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. They have refused. They have admitted that he is in their territory and it would obviously be in their power to do so.
So the question now is whether in these circumstances the US and Britain were justified in launching their air strike on Afghanistan? It is apparent that many Americans wanted to see some action nearly a month after the September 11 attack, but that of itself is not sufficient justification, even if as a practical matter it somewhat forces the Presidents hand. Even this far out from an election, presidents always have an eye to it.
The difficulty with the US attack is twofold.
First, the US says it is upholding principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and civilised conduct. This does not sit well with a bombing raid that no matter how well-targeted, will inevitably result in what is called collateral damage – the death and injury of innocent civilians.
Secondly, it is unlikely that the US and its allies will achieve their objective – the bringing to justice of the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Given the terrain and harsh conditions in Afghanistan, the terrorist leaders can evade capture fairly easily. At best the US could expect to kill bin Laden in an air attack. Once again, is this “”bringing to justice” or a revenge killing. “”bringing to justice” requires some sort of judicial process.
The attacks yesterday have already illustrated these difficulties. Bin Laden and his protector, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, are still alive, despite attacks on the presidential palace by the awesome technology of 50 “”supposedly deadly accurate” cruise missiles and 40 highly sophisticated fighter jets. The Taliban says the attack caused “”no significant damage”.
In short we are left with a war, similar to other wars in history. They are part of a cycle of violence. They start with high optimism of quick achievement of aims with few losses. They almost invariably escalate. Sadly, we must now expect another attack in America or its allies.
The latest cycle arises from World War I which spawned the vengeful Treaty of Versailles, Nazism, the Holocaust, the creation of Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians. Horrible and inexcusable as it is, the September 11 attack did not come without cause. The perpetrators should be sought out and brought to justice. But there is no justice if that requires the killing, maiming and starving of tens of thousands of the innocent people.
Australia should have been more careful in throwing its all unconditionally behind the US. We should have been unqualified in offering help to bring the perpetrators to justice, but not in unleashing a war which, no matter how well-intentionally targetted, will inevitably result in indiscriminate killing — the very thing the US seeks justice against.