I still, just, support the war in Afghanistan. I still regard
the probable consequences of withdrawal in defeat by the Western
powers as highly undesirable. I even believe that, for troops in
proper strength and with proper equipment, the difficulties of
campaigning there can be overrated.
As Kipling put it in the 19th century, a raw British
regiment, after suffering an ignominious retreat, returned to
discover that “an Afghan being attacked is much less formidable
than an Afghan attacking.”
But I wish our governments would make some more efforts to
explain why we are there, why we are supporting the present regime,
and where we are hoping to go in terms of strategic
objectives.
It has recently been
reported from Afghanistan that a one-legged Afghan Red Cross
worker and physiotherapist, Said Musa, 45, is shortly to be hanged
by the government, or what passes for the government, for having
converted to Christianity.
No defense lawyer will represent him. Some were reported
to have dropped the case after receiving death threats. He has been
held for about eight months in Kabul prison and reportedly
tortured.
He was arrested last May while trying to find sanctuary in
the German Embassy following renewed waves of persecution of
Christians. He is said to have been offered a reprieve if he denied
Christianity but has refused to do this. All this has been known in
the West for some time.
The case raises several points. First, where are the
protests from that oft-referred-to force, the moderate Muslims? In
a fairly long search of the Internet, I have seen no evidence of
activity from them on this matter. Yet even from mere
considerations of Realpolitik and for the sake of their
image before the rest of the world, one would think that they would
make some protest.
Second, where are the protests from secular humanists?
Again, I have searched and found none. Where are the marchers who
turned out for the Viet Cong and more recently for Hamas in
innumerable Western capitals?
Third, where are the protests from the major Christian
church leaders? The likes of the caprine Archbishop of Canterbury,
for example, or the World Council of Churches, generally more than
ready to jump on any trendy political bandwagon? I am not
suggesting protests by them would have any effect on the Afghan
government, but the bigger churches are in a strong position to put
pressure on Western governments if they care to.
The Pope did make a protest in careful and diplomatic
language to the government of Egypt just before the present
upheavals began there about the murder and persecution of Copts,
asking for the protection of religious minorities. The Egyptian
government’s response was to break off diplomatic relations with
the Vatican and a group of Egyptian Muslim theologians broke off
scheduled talks with Vatican theologians. Futile as it was, the
Pope’s action suggested the Vatican had some understanding of the
word “honor.” Compare the indifference that Western governments
have shown in the Said Musa case with the exertions by the British
and/or Scottish governments to have the Lockerbie mass-murderer
freed.
The Said Musa case has drawn some protests from some
evangelical Christian groups. One group has published
an extremely moving and courageous letter from Said Musa on the
Internet. Yet for the most part the matter has been observed, like
innumerable other recent cases of the persecution of Christians,
with reactions ranging from rabbit-in-the-headlights paralysis to
indifference. Western governments could not only protest but offer
Said Musa and other persecuted Afghan Christians and other
non-Muslims sanctuary. Heaven knows, there are too few of them left
alive now to affect the demography of any host country.
Another question which this matter presses home to us is:
What are we doing allying in war with these barbarians? What
evidence have they given us that they are actually a better
government than the Taliban would be? How does propping them up as
a government in Afghanistan, even if we win the war there, benefit
us or humanity? I believe it does, but please remind me why. It is
true that we may be stopping the Taliban from taking over Pakistan
and getting their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, but are
there other ways of achieving that?
Personally, I am not a pacifist. I supported the war in
Vietnam when doing so was a lonely business. I believe that for
Australia the American alliance must be the cornerstone of our
foreign policy and it must be supported with deeds as well as
words. In brief, I have supported the commitment of Western troops
to Afghanistan up till now.
I also know we must at times ally with odious regimes, as
we did in World War II. But that is a matter of occasional and
deplorable necessity. In World War II the democracies allied with
the Soviet Union because their survival, and that of civilization,
were at stake. In Vietnam we were defending what was, despite its
faults, a civilization within our common understanding of the
term.
The Said Musa case is one of those landmark beacons which
throws a glaring light on where we are and what we are
doing.
It is hard to see any need at the present time to spend
our soldiers’ lives in defense of a regime that stinks to high
heaven of vile savagery, a regime which plainly cares nothing for
our values and plainly cares nothing even for what we think of it,
and which in fact shows by its deeds that it regards the
Judeo-Christian West and its ideas and values as abomination and a
mortal enemy.
