In August the big political talking point was the question of whether or not British troops in Afghanistan have enough helicopters.
The debate was triggered by the growing death toll of military personnel. Gordon Brown insisted that there were enough helicopters in Afghanistan to enable the army to do its job, and denied he had failed to prepare the country for the recent spate of British military casualties. How should we respond to all of this?
In the first place, we have to decide whether or not war is ever justified and, if so, whether it is justified in the case of Afghanistan. I'm no pacifist. I'd strongly argue that war can be morally justified. In fact, choosing not to go to war can be thoroughly immoral. In the case of Afghanistan, I'm more equivocal, but on the information available about national security and concerns about protecting human rights in Afghanistan itself, I support the military action. In a globalised age, however, we do need to decide the basis on which we go to war. Is it national security, broader notions of the national interest, the protection of human rights or a combination of all three? Do we have to have an international system of law governing military interventions?
Secondly, war is necessarily a bloody business. The media age in which we live is a double-edged sword. It helpfully prevents us sanitising war, forgetting the human cost of conflict, but it can also be problematic, exposing us as it does to the latest overnight casualty or fatality. 24-hour media coverage can whip up ill-informed public opinion too quickly and simplistically behind taking or avoiding a particular course of action.
Finally, if war can be a necessary evil, it is crucial that those we send into conflict are adequately resourced for the tasks we assign them. Since there's a limited supply of money available, difficult choices will be required about where to cut public spending. And that will require some sacrifices from us all.
This article first appeared in Christianity Magazine in September 2009.
