The tragedy of Afghanistan

An Australian warrior was killed recently at the opening of the new fighting season in Afghanistan.
That is distressing, for multiple reasons.

 Sgt Brett Wood, who
 was recenlty killed in
 Afghanistan.

The death of anyone, anywhere and for any reason should be sufficient to make us pause and reflect and, should the relationship be close, weep or at least feel a deep loss and sadness.
However, when the death results from a conflict in which our country should not be involved at all, it is more than distressing, it is a tragedy.
But there is more; to declare a dead soldier, who is simply a beautifully trained and equipped killer, as a warrior elevates him to a metaphorical status of which he is not worthy.
The term warrior elicits, in the imagination, images of one who is honourable, tenacious, courageous, faithful, intelligent and resourceful, and one with whom we would like to stand with when confronted by circumstances that were less than comforting.
Not for a second would I argue that Sgt Brett Wood didn’t have those qualities, but I object to the romantic interpretations of “warrior” being attached to him.
Further, I argue that the intelligence we suggest a warrior has is not something I would attribute to the broad sweep of our number who agreed that people with those skills should be sent to places like Afghanistan.
It is a mistake to describe our trained killers as warriors as in different circumstances they would be before our courts as murderers.
The romantic images that the term warrior summons are most certainly not applicable in a battlefield’s hellish-like realities.
The phrase “the fighting season” also alarms me as it brings a sad normality to the deathly struggles faced in Afghanistan that, in reality, should be extraordinarily rare, rather than as common as “the growing season”.
True, we should acknowledge Sgt Wood’s death and not, from our Prime Minister down, celebrate his dedication and sacrifice as that simply reinforces a culture that finds a perverse satisfaction in violence and war in what it considers the extension of a perceived greater good.
Humankind, one of the rare life forms that will kill its fellows with an irrational pleasure and for reasons that defy its inherent intelligence, is devoid of historical examples in which violence has resolved tensions.
Violence might resolve the immediate, but always brings with it unintended consequences.
Despatching young men and women to obscure places to risk death, to prosecute violence in the name of values not really understood is outrageously wrong.
Even though our values might have once been worthy, they have since been prostituted and corrupted by corporatism and militarism, with our alleged democracy being the realm of the few, rather than the many.
Three more have since died and so the tragedy continues.
(June 7, 2011)

$20 billion to maintain our overseas aggression - Why?

Armed with all the destructive technology available, or more correctly what we can afford to buy from the state supported military-industrial complex; our politicians roam the world looking for a fight.

Look hard enough and, of course, you will find one and we claim that the subsequent violence is honourable, moral and in the greater good, whatever the cost, be it in the obscene amount of money it costs or the death and momentous disruption caused to the lives of others.
Our overseas troop commitments, primarily in Afghanistan are, according to recent figures, costing us, that is you and I, people who are raising kids, attending church, working, enjoying a beer and sunny days in the park, nearly $2 billion a year to maintain our rage.
Australians have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade and simple arithmetic puts the cost, at present value, at $20 billion, an amount that makes any major public and civilian project here seem like small change.
Applying different values our alternative energy systems could be stunning, our train network brilliant, our education life-changing, health services spectacular and poverty eradicated.
The thought of the disarray we have wrought upon another culture through force in the name of the greater good sees me reach for the anti-depression medication.
A decade of confrontation in those distant countries sees the maintenance of a mentality solidified after a life soaked in violence that is embedded in our psyche during teenage years spent watching aggressive movies, television shows, computer games and then, later, surviving in today’s competitive commercial milieu.
Ask those you next meet about Australian values and you will probably hear about such things as “fair dinkum”, “mateship”, “honesty”, ‘’friendship” and “giving people a fair go”.
All honourable and worthwhile attributes, but after a decade of plunder, and death in another country’s culture they are somewhat transparent leaving us entrenched in a disagreement that has mutated into something we no longer understand.
Supporters of the conflict, trapped by politics, pride and militant personalities, want us to stay the distance – I ask how far? At what cost? And, critically, why?