After two more Australian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan last week, the nation's politicians were quick to claim their deaths would not be in vain and that our commitment the war must remain as strong as ever. Sadly, the deaths will almost certainly be in vain unless there is a big change in strategy and tactics in Afghanistan.
The first death last week, that of 21 year-old Matthew Hopkins, had added poignancy because he leaves a widow and a young baby he'd only seen for four days. But there is a tragic dimension to the loss of all ten Australian troops in Afghanistan, plus hundreds of coalition troops and many thousands of civilians.
There are no good options in Afghanistan. Foreign troops invaded the country over seven years ago and quickly deposed the extremist Taliban regime. The place is now mired in a civil war. Victory seems impossible for the deeply corrupt government that Australia is backing against an insurgent Taliban.
The chief of the US armed forces Admiral Michael Mullen acknowledged this sobering prospect when he told Congress last September, "We can't kill our way to victory". But the US president Barack Obama has ensured the killing will continue by deciding to send another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. He wants Australia to send more.
Obama accepts that military victory is not possible, but hopes the extra troops will provide enough breathing space to convince Taliban members — described in Pentagon jargon as "reconcilables" — to switch sides. The extra troops mean that more non-combatants will almost certainly die. President Hamid Karzai, whatever his other faults, is widely regarded as correct in repeatedly warning that the Taliban gains more recruits whenever foreign troops kill civilians.
Obama is also receiving advice (so far rejected) from two specialists on Afghanistan, Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, that he should reach a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. The condition would be that the Taliban has to agree to sever any ties with al Qaeda. In return, foreign troops would depart, leaving the Taliban in charge of those parts of Afghanistan which, in effect, it already controls. This option is hardly without risks, but the Saudi government — which strongly opposes al Qaeda — believes it would work and is trying to broker an agreement.
Australia has 1100 troops in Afghanistan and another 800 support personnel nearby. Those inside the country include 300 special operations troops who try to kill suspected members of the Taliban. The rest are doing reconstruction work, military training, transport and other duties. Corporal Hopkins was killed while training government forces a mere 12 kilometres from where the Australians are based at Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan province.
Allied forces killed 828 civilians during 2008, despite their repeated claims that they take great care not to kill civilians. More deaths are almost unavoidable, if foreign troops keep conducting aggressive operations in residential areas. In Australia’s case, the problem stems from night operations in which special operations troops enter houses, often on the basis of dubious tip-offs, to kill or capture suspected members of the Taliban.
Australian forces killed five children in a housing compound near Tarin Kowt on February 12. The soldiers were reportedly commandoes, including reservists, rather than members of the Special Air Service SAS regiment who are usually very disciplined about the use of their weapons.
The SBS’s Dateline program later interviewed survivors who said the Australians had thrown grenades inside houses where children were sleeping. The Defence department says that the Taliban had fired upon the troops. The owner of one of the houses Zaher Khan denied this, telling SBS that none of people who died were armed or belonged to the Taliban. He said Taliban fighters were sometimes in the surrounding areas, but claimed none were around his house at the time. According to Khan, the Australians later returned to apologise, saying “they must have received a false report,” But Khan said, “We haven’t received help from anyone. We have no food, no clothes, there is no room for us.”
The Defence department won’t comment on the SBS program. Within a few hours of the childrens’ deaths, however, it announced that the Australians had acted in accordance with their “rules of engagement”. The Afghan government accused Australia of not following agreed procedures, but no outside investigation ever takes place into these operations.
The killing of the children followed a botched night time operation in September, during which a district governor was killed. Although the governor was a fierce opponent of the Taliban and was accompanied by several police, the Australian troops mistakenly treated the group as the enemy. Again, Defence insisted that the rules on engagement had been obeyed.
Following the childrens’ deaths, The Australian reported that Defence was reviewing its rules of engagement. This would be a good idea, but the department immediately denied the report. The even more important issue is whether these sorts operations, which can rely on false information, do more harm than good. Given the serious risk of civilian deaths, this is no way to win the “hearts and minds” of the local population.
If Kevin Rudd commits extra Australian troops, he needs to spell out what he expects to achieve. If there is no change to the offensive operations at night, more civilians are highly likely to die — to the perverse delight of Taliban recruiters.