How Much Is Too Much To Pay?
With the report of the twenty seventh death of an Australian Digger in Afghanistan, coming as it does a day after two other Diggers were returned to Australia, the question on every Australian's lips just now is
"Should we be there...?"
Is the deaths of Australians justified in this theatre of operations and, if it is, what level of deaths is acceptable?
Well let me start by saying that my thoughts are with the families of all our Heroes who have lost their lives or have been wounded in Afghanistan. As an Australian I am enormously proud of all our military men and women.
Regrettable as the loss of life is, in any circumstances, that loss can be justified if it achieves a greater good. I do not think anyone would argue with that hypothesis and I am sure the mourned men would feel the same.
Put simply, one death to save 100 must be seen by a majority of people as
justifiable, 100 deaths to save 1 must be
questionable no matter what brand of philosophy you adhere to.
Combat Deaths incurred to fight
International Terrorism with it's concomitant effects on average people throughout the world is justifiable. I do not believe any but a very few would argue otherwise. The effects of terrorism are brutal, inhumane, wide reaching and destabilising on many planes.
Combat deaths to
"lessen" International Terrorism and it's effects falls into the a questionable zone. A zone where we need to make judgements.
What success are we having? How do we assess and quantify that success? And, very importantly what number of deaths are acceptable? These are questions decision makers, be they military or a national government, must wrestle with on a day to day basis.
An Army general will assess a situation by weighing up the worth of an objective against possible casualties likely to be incurred to achieve that objective. Casualties are expected but at what level?
Military doctrine has pointers to what are acceptable casualty ratios to achieve an objective. To take a position with 10% casualties could well be acceptable with 99% surely not.
The American casualty ratios in it's island hop in the Pacific in WW2 were grossly high by any standards but drew no public outcry, the objective was clear and simple; defeat the Japanese at whatever cost. Casualty ratios in Vietnam on the other hand were acceptable militarily but drew incredible criticism and public outcry because the objective was not clear and simple.
What I am trying to emphasise here is the "worth" of an objective and whether it can be acceptably attained. It is from this position that we can attempt perhaps to answer the question:
"Should we be in Afghanistan and losing Australian sons?"
Now I would posit most Australian's would say that Australia's objective in Afghanistan was to root out
International Terrorism or at the very least damage it considerably from it's cradle with a bi-product of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.
But was that and is that the only objective for our being in Afghanistan? Because,if it is not the only objective, then the process necessary to arrive at an answer changes significantly.
Let me try to expand this and in doing so make my point understandable.
Lets talk casualty levels in the following arbitrary terms.
If we were in Afghanistan to root out
International Terrorism then I would say we would be accepting of high casualty rates. If we believed we were in Afghanistan to "Lessen"
International Terrorism then our acceptance of casualty rates would decrease, the worth of the objective has diminished. If we believed that we were in Afghanistan with no real chance of either we would not be accepting of any casualties at all.
However our involvement in Afghanistan has another dimension that needs factoring in and that is our willingness to support an ally.
When this factor is brought into consideration the answer to our question, as it concerns acceptable casualty rates, must change because our objective in being there has changed.
Therefore, we must view the question from two aspects. Firstly do we believe we are achieving our main objective, that is, to root out or lessen International Terrorism and secondly what price do we put on our alliances, in this case with The United States.
I believe our involvement in Afghanistan will not root out International Terrorism but I do believe it is achieving a lessening of it's effects. Therefore,on that basis we must be accepting of a some casualties though obviously not "many". With the importance of our alliance with the United States we must be accepting of more casualties, the "worth" of our involvement has increased with this added dimension.
Should we be in Afghanistan? I would answer yes. We are achieving by our involvement a lessening of International Terrorism but, as an objective on it's own, our acceptance of casualties should be low. With the fact that we are supporting our greatest ally our acceptance of number casualties should increase.
At what level should this acceptance be re-evaluated? I would say at a much higher casualty rate then we have experienced to date. Some of the higher
casualty rates are, as of yesterday, US: 1610, UK: 371, Canada: 156 France: 59 Germany: 53 Denmark: 40.
We are in Afghanistan for the right reasons; to reduce the infrastructure of Terrorism, thereby lessening it's ability to harm, and to support our closest and most needed ally.
We should stay in Afghanistan for as long as the United States stays unless casualty rates become considerably higher then they are now or other factors come to play.
I do not like seeing Australia's or any countries' youth die but I think the results achieved are commensurate with the cost.
Picture courtesy of
The Daily Telegraph
