These are all noble human qualities, and it is widely acknowledged that the extreme circumstances of war do in fact bring out the best in people. Luckily, I don't know this first hand and hopefully my children never will either. However, on the flip side, anyone with a friend or relative who has served in active combat knows that their experiences cast a pall over their life and will often cause them great difficulty in fitting back into normal society once their service is over. What can make things especially galling is where the cause that they were fighting for subsequently proves unjustified or politically unpopular.
In this regard, you have to feel for the veterans of conflicts like Vietnam, Afghanistan and the two Iraq wars. Unlike the two World Wars where the battle lines were clearly drawn and there was an obvious purpose to the conflict, post-WW2 and especially since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the question of who the good and bad guys are has become a lot more complex. Also, after everybody realised what the atomic bomb was capable of, no-one was prepared to go to those lengths again to decisively end a conflict. This effectively meant the end for conventional warfare as a successful means of conflict resolution, with the result that in subsequent battles, the stronger power (most often, the USA) found itself after some initial successes mired in never-ending guerilla combat with an ever-more elusive enemy. Think about it and you will realise that sovereign countries seem to no longer represent the enemy; instead, the wars tend to be waged against extreme religious groups such as the Taliban, shadowy insurgent organisations such as Al Qaeda or most bizarrely, on words such as "terror" and "terrorists".
Given the dynamics of the modern world, dropping a few bunker-buster bombs is no longer an effective means for sovereign nations to resolve their differences with another. In circumstances where the electorate are generally well-educated and won't swallow propaganda, government budgets in the western world are stretched to the limit and the enemy, if you can actually identify them, won't engage on your terms, leaders need to get a lot smarter about dealing both with world troublespots such as the Middle East and organisations like Al Qaeda. For example, instead of reacting to a terrorist attack by blowing up the country that is supposedly harbouring them, governments would do well to examine closely the geopolitical reasons behind why the attack took place and take heed of these in the context of their future foreign policy decisions. In the long run, addressing the causes of why a terrorist attack has taken place by removing the reasons for resenting rich countries is a far more effective solution than instead treating the symptoms of terrorism by incarcerating people for years in detention or spending billions on ineffective airport security measures.
To illustrate my point, assume that a disenfranchised, uneducated young man observes US forces walking the streets of Kabul and rightly or wrongly, despises what he sees as an invasion of his country. He may also remember the repellent nature of the Taliban regime, but sees this as the lesser of two evils and therefore, becomes ripe for recruitment by the rebels. If on the other hand, instead of troops he witnessed American contractors building hospitals, schools or other social infrastructure pursuant to UN sanctioned aid packages, then he is clearly going to be far less motivated to attack Americans or American interests.
Despite the obvious logic to this approach, unfortunately when confronted with a threat, countries still tend to shoot first and think later, mostly with disastrous humanitarian and monetary consequences. For instance, following the September 11 attacks, the USA has spent $1.03 trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at a time when it can ill afford the money.
Let's think about that sum for a minute - $1.03 trillion - and put in in perspective. Based on 2009 profit figures, Australia's biggest company, BHP Billiton, would need to operate at that level for 67 years to earn that amount of cash. Based on an average price of $550,000 that's enough loot to comfortably buy every house in Melbourne, probably leaving enough loose change to throw Geelong into the bargain. And to earn that sort of coin, a schoolteacher earning $50,000 per year would need to work for 20.6 million years.
It's only when you think about the vast amount of cash in these terms that you begin to realise how much good that money could have done both domestically and on foreign aid schemes abroad if it hadn't been flushed down the toilet on these two ridiculous wars. This from a country that signed up to the Millenium Development Goals to annually contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas development (roughly $100 billion, or 1/6th of the Pentagon's annual budget), but is now refusing to honour its commitments, citing a lack of belief if in the utility of foreign aid and other more pressing priorities.
I hate to keep rabbiting on about the US government and in particular, the Bush Administration, as it gets tedious after a while. However, even in its weakened economic state, the USA is still the dominant military and economic power in the world and is therefore in the best position to make positive change in this area. This is why it is so frustrating when its leaders, often completely at odds with public opinion and the lessons of history, persist with foreign policy that exacerbates rather than helps solve major problems in the world.
In terms of history, one need look no further than the different approaches adopted by the victors after the two world wars. After WWI, the allies adopted a punitive approach to Germany, forcing it to make severe war reparations. Unsurprisingly, significant resentment grew from within Germany which contributed to the rise of the Nazis and a resumption of hostilities within 20 years. Learning the lessons from this, after WW2 a more collaborative approach was taken through the implementation of the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-ravaged Europe. The result this time was completely different, with the western world enjoying many years of economic prosperity and no more conflicts of the scale of WW2.
In fact, the words of General George Marshall when he announced the plan, while uttered over 60 years ago, are never more relevant than today. This is what he said:
"It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist."
One hopes that the US administration might again soon heed these words. Who knows, with Obama fresh from at least a partial victory on health care reform, maybe he will be emboldened to make some changes in other areas like increasing foreign aid and cutting back on defence spending. In doing so, history shows that would be a big step towards eradicating extreme poverty in the world and creating lasting peace.
What a prospect, prosperity and peace. That would REALLY give us something to celebrate on ANZAC Day.
