Prev
Next

If we flee Afghanistan now, we leave it to the terrorists

Laurie Oakes

by Laurie Oakes

01 Sep 06:00am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Adf, Afghanistan, Afghanistan War, Military, Taliban, Terrorism, War

71 comments

When Australia joined the United States and other allies in sending forces to Afghanistan in 2001, the aim was crystal clear. It was to remove the Taliban regime which provided a haven for Al Qaeda - the terrorist group responsible for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. That was quickly accomplished.

It was a grim week… Picture: Ray Strange

But after John Howard returned our forces to Afghanistan five years later the objective was far less obvious. In fact, within months of being elected in 2007, the Rudd Labor Government held a meeting with top military brass and strategic planners to ask the blunt question: “What is our mission in Afghanistan?”

The response was vague, apart from the obvious explanation that it was an exercise in “alliance maintenance” - keeping on side with the Americans.

A more detailed strategic plan was then drawn up that set out Australia’s role in training Afghan security forces and establishing infrastructure to make Oruzgan Province more governable when control is eventually handed back to the locals.

This had the advantage of laying out an exit strategy, at least in theory. When the stated objectives were ticked off Australian forces could pack their gear and go.

The tragic deaths of five Australian troops in one day - two killed in a helicopter crash, three shot dead by a rogue Afghan soldier who was supposed to be guarding their base - has increased pressure for our Afghanistan commitment to end.

The objectives set out in that Rudd Government plan have been largely accomplished, it is claimed. Australian forces have little more to contribute. So bring them home now.

In many ways, the case is compelling. Opinion polls show it is an unpopular war and Australian voters want us out. Our forces are clearly over-stretched. As The Australian’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan pointed out yesterday, some SAS troops “have done more fighting for a longer period than anyone did in World War II”.

Whether we pull out of Afghanistan now or in 2014, President Barack Obama’s exit date, the central government in Kabul will not be able to control provinces like Oruzgan.

Large areas of Afghanistan will revert to being wild and dangerous places, locally ruled. The Australian Government is well aware of this.

And then there is the impact on Australian public opinion of so-called green-on-blue attacks - the killing of coalition troops by Afghan soldiers and police who are supposed to be fighting alongside them.

The shooting of the three Australians on Wednesday brought to 15 the number of coalition soldiers killed in this way in August. The total for the year so far is 45.

Some of the Afghans involved in these “insider attacks” were Taliban recruits or sympathisers, but others were motivated by personal grudges and anger at the behaviour of foreign soldiers.

According to The Guardian newspaper in Britain, an investigation by US military psychologists has found members of the Afghan National Army see American troops as “a bunch of violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane, infidel bullies”.

Australian troops, like other coalition force members, presumably, get caught up in this perception.

There will be people in this country who think, like many Americans: “If they dislike us so much, why are we there?”

But, as Prime Minister Julia Gillard made clear in the wake of Australia’s worst day of combat losses since the Vietnam War, there will not be an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“We cannot have a circumstance where loss dictates how we will engage in this war and see our mission through,” she said. “In my view, that wouldn’t be appropriately honouring the men we have lost.”

A senior official told me yesterday: “Withdrawal would be a knee-jerk reaction. It would set the precedent for others to pull out, too.”

According to Defence Minister Stephen Smith, if the government pulled our forces out now: “We would increase the prospect of Afghanistan again returning to a breeding ground for international terrorism.”

But that will still be a danger after a 2014 coalition withdrawal, which is why it is unlikely that all of our troops will come home even then.

The plan is that special forces from the US, Britain, Australia and some other countries would remain in Afghanistan - based in Kabul or Kandahar - to play a counter-terrorism role.

Which means the SAS, which has already done so much, can expect little respite.

General John Allen, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, says around a quarter of insider killings could be the work of Taliban infiltrators.

But the Taliban claim responsibility for all of them, maximising the mistrust created between coalition forces and those they are supposed to be mentoring and training.

An Afghan Army Colonel recently told Newsweek magazine: “The Taliban are hunting two birds with one arrow. They are killing coalition soldiers while at the same time hurting relations between our allied forces.”

The next two years in Afghanistan could be tough indeed for our Diggers.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

71 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • marley says:

      06:58am | 01/09/12

      I’m not sure that the text of the article justifies the title.  Mr. Oakes seems to be as doubtful about the long term prospects of a Taliban-free Afghanistan as the rest of us, and as dubious about the longevity of what we’ve achieved there.

      Reply

    • Carol says:

      11:19am | 01/09/12

      Marley,
      Strange as it might seem, I agree with you! I doubt we have really accomplished any thing of note in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or any place else where we have interfered.
      What we have done is to creat a millstone for our own knecks and one that will take many years to remove. People the world over are much the same, they do not take kindly to outsiders trying to take control and that is what we have done.
      A far better tactic would have been to do all we could to stop arms getting in and drugs getting out, but politicians don’t think like me.

    • KimL says:

      07:25am | 01/09/12

      Well let the terrorists have it!! When we move out they will move back anyway That country is not worth one Australian life. Our soldiers are killed and we replace them fast with Afghanistan men who run here..not acceptable. We did not let the Germans or The Japanese come here and settle during WW2, so why are letting these Afghans here now?

      Reply

    • Madmeg says:

      10:26am | 01/09/12

      The “Afghans” are mostly Hazara who like Australian soldiers are killed by other Afghans and the taliban. Rest assured, if we let the terrorists have it they will not stay there but will be compelled to continue to attack western countries, which is the reason we are there now.

    • Terry says:

      10:57am | 01/09/12

      In response to whose who think we should pull out….. do you actually know any Afghanistans who have fled their own country…. and I mean really know them? The one underlying comment I believe you are right is yes they have a problem… and they need international help to solve it. I am ashamed to hear of Australians comment like this, it reinforces how uneducated and biggoted a society we have become. We have always stood to help the innocents in the world… are we forgetting the meaning of being an Australian.

    • KenT says:

      12:19pm | 01/09/12

      So we didn’t take any German jews during WWII KimL?

      Go off and study some history.
      Why is the right so ignorant?

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      02:58pm | 01/09/12

      We let lots of Germans comes here after WWII, Including many NAZIS.

    • marley says:

      03:37pm | 01/09/12

      @Terry - I daresay I’ve met as many Afghans as you have, and possibly more. The thing is, we simply cannot march into Afghanistan and change deeply held religious and tribal beliefs.  We do not realistically have the capacity to keep Sunnis from hating Shias, or Pashtuns wanting to lord it over the smaller tribes.  Yes, the Hazara have much to fear - but we cannot change the thinking of the 90% of Afghans who are not Hazara.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:33pm | 01/09/12

      Most of the Afghans that come here are Hazaras who are a 12-15% minority. The Taliban detest them on both doctrinal and racial grounds, they being Shi’ites and descendants of Genghis Khans Mongol armies. No opportunity is spared to humiliate and persecute them. They have suffered massacres, beheadings and rape.
      What would you do? Would you sit nervously in your village and hope the next parramilitaries that came over the hill weren’t out for a bit of mayhem? Or would you move heaven and earth to get you and your family the hell out of there?

    • OB1 says:

      06:58pm | 01/09/12

      Perhaps you should study history too, KenT. Australia took very few Jewish people before or during the second world war, which is why so many died in the Death Camps.  We are not going to change the general culture in Afghanistan, and without that, the situation is not going to change. We’ve been there ten years, we have maybe helped a bit while there, but we cannot change the long term future of the country. Only the Afghanis could do that.

    • Steve says:

      07:28am | 01/09/12

      We’ll be leaving the country to the terrorists any time we leave, so there’s no point in staying any longer.

      What we should be doing is arming and training every male Afghan asylum seeker over 15 and sending them back to win back their country. Too bad if they join the bad guys - at least our guys won’t be there.

      Any future terrorist attacks emanating from Afghanistan can be met by punitive air strikes against whatever passes for a government.

      Reply

    • John says:

      10:20am | 01/09/12

      No Steve, we are the terrorists once we the west leave it means the terrorists leave. If you logic was concur, the US military would bomb most likely the white house, since it’s the white house that sponsors western terrorism in order fool our western mass’s to support and chase after non-existent enemy’s. You think the US was no behind the 9/11 attacks? 7/7 attacks? You think government is there to protect? You think they wouldn’t sacrifice a few ,perpetuate lie in order to gather support for invasion, occupation? think a little harder buddy.

    • the cynic says:

      01:28pm | 01/09/12

      Correct Steve .The useless politicians and Canberra based Generals are deluding themselves if they think for one more minute that by continuing to try and train these Neanderthal throwbacks that when we leave on the prescribed date that everything will be rosey and the place will be pacified and terrorist free. Why would any terrorist need to bother to shed one more ounce of their blood to provoke a fight when they can walk back through the front door unopposed wether we leave now or in ten years time? It’s a no brainer. We can all see it clearly pity our leaders refuse to.

    • Mouse says:

      04:58pm | 01/09/12

      WOW John…....just WOW!!  :o/

    • dweezy2176 says:

      07:47am | 01/09/12

      Getting realistic might help. The Russians were there for nine years and nothing improved. Given that the Russians had no left-wing bleeding hearts or wholesale media coverage to whinge about them what hope have the Coalition forces when every, perceived, fault is blown out of proportion and the blame game is in full swing?
      Pulling ALL the troops out now will have little effect as this is a country living in the middle ages and isn’t about to change to suit bleeding heart lefties!

      Reply

    • SD says:

      11:16am | 01/09/12

      That looney rant is full of paradoxes. So “bleeding heart lefties” want war!? And the righties that started the whole thing don’t I pressume?

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:42pm | 01/09/12

      The problem was Cheney’s segue into Iraq. CIA operatives in Afghanistan at the time were aghast at this unwanted diversion as it was felt that coalition forces were only weeks or perhaps days from bin Laden’s capture Needless to say this would have tied things up much neater.

    • petery says:

      06:32pm | 01/09/12

      ?.?.?
      bleeding heart lefties I am confused I thought the Russians were lefties and communist when they invaded Afghistan.And their hearts certainly bled when they got wounded or killed.
      Ok, I am being silly, the reference to bleeding heart lefties was simply an attempt at metaphor. About time we got rid of this meaningless stale cliche.
      in that case I assume there is no such thing as a bleeding heart rightie,
      because the right are so tough and insensitive about how right they always
      are, they don’t give a damn about how their stupid actions harm or affect other people.This might not be true, but that is what it is implied by the use of the term bleeding heart leftie.
      This is the kind of crap people write when they only read the headlines and opening paragraphs of tabloid news articles.

    • gobsmack says:

      07:47am | 01/09/12

      Whatever decision is made regarding Afghanistan there are two reasons which should not have any currency in the debate.

      The first, which the PM has trotted out, is the “honouring those already lost” argument.  It reduces to the proposition that the deaths of those already lost would be rendered pointless unless we continue the battle and allow more to die pointlessly.  This logic can be used, ad infinitum, to continue any ill-conceived engagement.  In World War I, in the face of mounting losses the Anzacs were eventually withdrawn from Gallipoli and in Western Europe the strategy of trench warfare was eventually re-thought.  Revised strategy in the face of hard facts does not dishonour the dead, it honours the living.

      The second irrelevant argument used is the “our troops want to be there” argument.  It’s good that the troops see their role as important but we don’t engage in wars so that our troops can feel good about themselves.  Also, the military have never been, and never should be, run as a democracy.  While the troops on the ground provide the best intelligence on which strategic decisions can be made, ultimately those decisions are for the political masters of the troops to make.

      Reply

    • Bec says:

      10:16am | 01/09/12

      Having spoken to own of our soldiers who has spent 2 tours in Afghanistan the “our troops want to be there”  argument is not so simple. They have seen first hand what is going on. I am by no means pro-war, but they have seen first hand the ‘good’ they are doing, perceived or otherwise, and they feel it’s necessary to be there.

    • acotrel says:

      08:03am | 01/09/12

      I believe that Afghanistan is different to the situation during the Vietnam war.  Vietnamese communism was mainly a nationalist movement, I don’t believe the Taliban and Al Qaeda have such limited horizons.  This video is interesting, and I believe we should see more like it.  As voters we also have responsibility for the consequences of what we condone :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvEvzr_T8RQ&feature=related

      Reply

    • Esteban says:

      03:17pm | 01/09/12

      Come on Acotrel. Are you telling me you never heard the term ‘communist domino’ in respect to the Vietnam war?

      It was only well after the war that we finally realised that it was a civil war. At the time the perception was that it was about preventing the global threat of communism.

      Therefore in terms of perception it was firmly believed that communism also did not have horizons limited to Vietnam.

      Only time will tell what horizons the taliban are after.

      Your video link gives us no insight into what the horizons of the Taliban are.

      I would refer you to a doco made by SBS about Robert MacNamara in which he learns in the 80’s that he and others were completely wrong about the pretext of going to war in Vietnam.

    • marley says:

      03:47pm | 01/09/12

      @acotrel - sorry, I don’t agree.  Al Qaeda may have international objectives, but the Taliban is essentially a Pashtun movement with no interest beyond establishing a Pashtun controlled state in Afghanistan, and probably in those parts of Pakistan with a Pashtun population. 

      I could be wrong, but I don’t that video is of Afghanistan.  It’s a bit hard to tell, but the men don’t seem to be dressed the way Afghans dress. I suspect it’s Iraq.

    • Sympneology says:

      05:56pm | 01/09/12

      That video is falsely labelled. The attack on two Reuters journalists and unarmed civilians, including children, took place in Baghdad, Iraq, not Afghanistan.

    • Bertrand says:

      08:08am | 01/09/12

      This article is based on a few false premises.

      Firstly, withdrawal won’t ‘return’ Afghanistan to being a breeding ground for terrorists. It already is. If Western forces withdraw we can still usr drones to target traning grounds, etc.

      Secondly, this isn’t a battle between good and bad Afghanis. It’s not like the folks we are helping fight the Taliban are any better. They’re just as backwards and culturally deficient as the Taliban. The Karzi government is corrupt to the core and the tribal warlords on our side aren’t fighting for democracy or human rights, they’re fighting for their own power interests.

      It’s a country based on 12th century tribal warlords and strongmen. The entire premise of the mission - that we will help build their democracy and withdraw once it is secure is entirely unachievable, unless we kill pretty much every Afghan.

      It sucks that women in Afghanistan get treated like chattel and that its tribal law system sees things like stonings and beheadings as normal. We’re not going to change that.

      Reply

    • John says:

      10:12am | 01/09/12

      Afghanistan is no differ to Washington at this moment, the corrupt in Washington pro up the corrupt in Kabul. Who are we to lecture the morality of the Taliban, I’m sure the US army in last 5 years has killed more people then Islamic Extremists in the last 800 years. What does the world expect? For the US to bomb, invade people and expect people just take it? So when the Taliban retaliate, they are seen as terrorists? So if i was to invade Greece, bomb them, do house to house searches and they fought back, I could call them terrorists? I gotta love twisted logic 101 that our west tends to perpetuate. Pack up and leave.

    • Lee Harvey Oswald says:

      12:17pm | 01/09/12

      The Yanks should have just nuked em…

    • Joan says:

      08:20am | 01/09/12

      If coalition is on track to a wonderful peace, a nirvana in Afghanistan in two years time why should `The next two years in Afghanistan could be tough indeed for our Diggers.`??? I would expect violence to decrease not increase if coaltion and a willing Afghani population are on track. But as everyone knows and as Russia found out Afghanistan a lost cause,  a people not interested in living any other way but their way. There is no guarantee that worldwill be terrorist free if Australia leaves in two years time. - one thing for sure any soldier that loses life in next two years will be a wasted life for a hopeless cause,

      Reply

    • Cynicised says:

      12:15pm | 01/09/12

      Since Nirvana actually means “snuffing out” or “no more rebirth” your analogy isn"t quite correct. There will be a rebirth of tribal law and a return to their medieval ways, including their appalling treatment of women unfortunately, I agree with you the other posters, and have been saying so for some time. It’s been obvious from the beginning that lasting change is not going to be brought about in Afghanisitan by military action and to stay there any longer is to not learn the lessons of history.

      I agree with Bertrand above. We and our ally, The US, have ways of monitoring what goes on there and we can target suspected terrororist installations from afar, or on a covert mission by mission basis. A permanent garrison is not on, the public would never agree, so it’s pointless to lose another Australian life.

      Bring Them Home NOW!

    • Adam says:

      08:36am | 01/09/12

      As a historian focusing on the United States and Terrorism, I have one really gigantic beef with some of these binary, polarizing “options”. So far, all the media and government has to say on the Australian troops in Afghanistan is that we cannot withdraw because that would essentially just be admitting that “the terrorists are right” and will show them that “they can just push us around”. They paint the picture that the only options are continued, bloody, death-filled conflict OR letting the terrorists win. I read articles and speeches like this and I cannot believe that the government, with all it’s apparent “intelligence” resources, thinks that these are the only two options.

      Would it really be such a culture-shattering event if conflict was dialed-back, and effort was put into peaceful dialogue to try to find a non-violent solution? Granted, the historical precedent is to end conflict purely through a violent method. I just cannot believe that there cannot be just these two options in this conflict. With all the information available to us today, surely nobody who can still be honest with themselves can think that Al Qaeda (which DOES NOT encompass all the ‘terrorists’ in the world, by the way) simply “hates our way of life”. Osama bin Laden himself said that he only used the veil of religion to bring in more recruits to Al Qaeda to fight his battles against the United States’ UNWANTED interference in the region. We may not agree with everything that occurs in the Middle-East, but that does not give us free licence to resort to violence to end a conflict which now seems to have no end in sight, and which could possibly be lessened, if not outright resolved, by opening a dialogue to try and address the grievances which caused this conflict in the first place.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:36am | 01/09/12

      Afghanistan isn’t in the Middle East and what is going on there has very little to do with the situation in Israel, Palestine, Iraq or Saudi Arabia.  Bin Laden went after the west as a means of pursing his larger agenda.  The Taliban has a much narrower objective :  to establish a Pashtun-controlled, fundamentalist Sunni state replicating the world and values of 1200 years ago in Afghanistan.  Its focus is entirely regional and doesn’t extend much beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

      And I’m not sure just how much room there really is for negotiation with people who think that women being educated or people listening to music is grounds for beatings or executions.The Taliban want absolute control of Afghanistan (with a view to extending that to Frontier Province).  Grievances have nothing to do with it.  Tribalism has everything to do wioth it.

    • Bill says:

      09:55am | 01/09/12

      Adam - your analysis is simplistic and ignorant of what is happening in countries like Afghanistan.

      Perhaps you’d be happy if we just ran away like a dog with its tail between its legs but smarter people know that we have to fight evil everywhere it exists to prevent further attacks on our communities.

      You talk of dialogue. I’m sure that terrorists will put down their weapons if only we’d ask them to…

    • M says:

      10:12am | 01/09/12

      On bin laden and America’s interference in the region; as ye sow, so ye shall reap.

    • JT says:

      12:36pm | 01/09/12

      I would be handing in your so called Historian credentials if I were as it is clear you seem to have no understanding or knowledge whatsoever.

      You wish to talk peace with people who just in the most recent example cut the head off a 12 year old boy and a 6 year old girl. You cannot have peace with people such as this, sheer lunacy to think you can.

      Secondly Afghanistan is in Asia, not the middle east and if you truly think so called ‘‘interference’’ in middle east affairs is the reason for their barbarity than you are indeed a useful idiot.

      I think we should pull our troops out, I support destroying the Taliban and Al Qaeda (and continued airstrikes can have some effect there after we leave) but do not believe the peoples of that country will ever be more than what they are now.

    • Bruce says:

      08:37am | 01/09/12

      Our soldiers are maimed and killed overseas, ostensibly to protect our borders, while the unAustralian Labor Party opens our borders to all and sundry. If that is not treason then what the bloody hell is it - bring them home!

      Reply

    • Martin H says:

      10:36am | 01/09/12

      “the unAustralian Labor Party opens our borders to all and sundry. If that is not treason then what the bloody hell is it”

      Congratulations Bruce, this is probably the most stupid comment I have ever read on The Punch.

    • nihonin says:

      12:13pm | 01/09/12

      Bruce, The previous Liberal government (along with the support of opposition at the time) committed our troops to the action in the first place.  Labor are keeping our boys there as they too support what our troops are doing.

    • Christian Real says:

      02:45pm | 01/09/12

      Bruce
      It was your Redneck Liberal party that deployed our soldiers to Aghanistan,Not the Labor Party,and I would not be surprised if the previous Liberal government led by Howard had locked in a deal with the former US President, George W Bush, and our soldiers cannot be brought back home until that deal expires.
      And Bruce,the only Un-Australian political party is the redneck Liberal/National party that you and others follow

    • marley says:

      07:39pm | 01/09/12

      @Christian Real - well, never having heard of a “lock-in deal” in international relations, I’d be very surprised.  Geez, you think that if there was such an agreement and we abrogated it, the Americans would nuke us? 

      Look, there’s much to criticise about our relations with the US, but inventing deals for which there is no proof, nor even precedent, nor any common sense, is not doing your cause any good at all.  Maybe you should take the second part of your handle seriously and “Get real.”

    • Bruce says:

      09:10am | 01/09/12

      Our soldiers are maimed and killed in Afghanistan, ostensibly to protect our borders, while the unAustralian Labor Party opens our borders to all and sundry. Bring them home!

      Reply

    • Karen from Qld says:

      11:20am | 01/09/12

      Could not agree more. Goodness knows how many of these so called refugees were at one time firing bullets at our soldiers and we reward them with generous handouts and welfare.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      11:44am | 01/09/12

      Well said. A most important role of our armed forces is to protect our borders. If we cannot stop the boatpeople totally now we shall be in for a very rude shock when Asia descends into total chaos before 2050.

      We must destroy NOW the popular and entrenched belief in Asia that Australia welcomes boatpeople.It may take more than 10 yrs of absolutely tough border policy to destroy this popular belief in Asia. If not when there is total chaos in Asia Australia will be swamped by a tsunami of millions of boatpeople.

      So why let out soldiers die in Afghanistan when we do not have to will to close our borders to the boatpeople?

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      09:31am | 01/09/12

      I hear what you say and as a supporter of the belief that if there is true political bi-partisanship by the major parties for a policy then it must be the best for Australia to follow that course.  But this one is very hard to believe. 

      I personally have little or no faith that Afghanistan will ever pull itself out of the dark ages.  I was there 35 years ago (Kathmandu to London by bus and before the Russians) and was amazed by the Afghanistan / North Pakistan’s violence, poverty and primitiveness, all in the name of religion.  This is one of the areas in the world that confirmed my theory that religion (Christian and Muslim predominately) only flourishes where there is poverty and lack of education and is always backed by violence.  The place is the same now.

      I think we are staying there only because we do not want to leave our allies in the lurch.  It is really one in, all in.  It is valid reason to stay but bring on 2014.

      By the by: Wilkie’s cheap “blood on their hands” statement was a lazy bit of politicking and beneath him, in my eyes.  He usually does better.

      Reply

    • IC-1101 says:

      10:00am | 01/09/12

      Leaving Afghanistan would essentially be giving up on the Afghan people that face certain oppression under a Taliban rule.  Leave, and watch the Russians arm the Taliban.  Do that, and the Taliban will probably arm the rebels in Syria, which is what the Russians want to create a proxy battlefield, and turn the whole region to crap.  And who is smack bang on the middle?  The only developed, democratic state in Israel. All Western, democratic, rich states have an obligation to rid the world of oppressive regimes, and ensure prosperity and individual liberty.  War is a necessary evil sometimes, and these soldiers know what their goal is.  Without Western presence in Afghanistan, the Taliban will have a stronger presence than it did pre-2001.  Peaceful dialogue is not possible with ideological lunatics, much in the same way it’s not possible with DPRK.  The only way is force, or tactical resilience leading to eventual citizen revolt, which we will see in DPRK if they ever instill economic reform and give power to the people.  Give it 15-20 years there.  But Afghanistan is different.  The Taliban don’t deserve a people or a country.  Afghanis deserve more than nothing at all.  The local military there will crumble post-2014, and any idea of freedom will be forced out of the people.  All because a few of the rationalist idealists think its more humane to NOT a least attempt democracy and prosperity.  For democracy, and any hope for it, the Afganis need the Allies.

      Reply

    • petery says:

      06:54pm | 01/09/12

      @ic1101
      some of this is confused rant, but bits I agree with.

      As I understand it, Afghanistan is made up of tribal and cultural factions, some of whom have leaders who are no better than Osama Bin Laden. some of them too are ideological lunatics, and they are on our side. for that matter, theTaliban are also factionalized, but the ideological lunatics seem to dominate, or so the media have always told us.

      you assert confidently that the local military will crumble post 2014, and this seems to suggest that whatever we do then, stay or leave, is doomed to fail.This is just an assumption and not a fact, because it has not happened yet.So where is your evidence that this is likely to be true?
      I agree that there should be an attempt at prosperity and democracy, and I thought that is what we had spent the last yen years attempting to do. 

      However,since as you state it is all going to crumble in 2014, then if we leave now what difference is it likely to make.

    • boneman says:

      10:16am | 01/09/12

      I wonder how many Taliban infiltrators have arrived on our shores via Christmas Island. Not to mention all the other undocumented criminals, spivs and deviants.

      Reply

    • FightYourOwnBattles says:

      10:51am | 01/09/12

      If the people of Afghanistan aren’t willing to stand up and fight for themselves, then why should anyone else fight their battles for them?

      Reply

    • LS says:

      03:01pm | 01/09/12

      How can you blame the people of Afghanistan? The Afghani’s did not ask anyone to fight for them, they didn’t want this war. America invaded their country under the guise of stopping terrorism and under John Howard Australia followed like sheep. We should not have gone in the first place, we on the left have been saying this from the beginning.

    • Mouse says:

      07:39pm | 01/09/12

      LS, it is you on the left that is keeping our soldiers there, remember!!! (:o/

    • Gregg says:

      11:48am | 01/09/12

      Looks like my first response may have been a little too pointy so I’ll attempt again to be to the point without being too directional.

      It is all in the text of Laurie’s article and the core aspects need highlighting.

      ” Whether we pull out of Afghanistan now or in 2014, President Barack Obama’s exit date, the central government in Kabul will not be able to control provinces like Oruzgan.

      Large areas of Afghanistan will revert to being wild and dangerous places, locally ruled. The Australian Government is well aware of this. “

      So leaving aside knee jerk reactions, just like the original focus became a bit vague, surely we ought to be promptly reviewing whether any more than we have done can be achieved.

      As for:
      ”  “We cannot have a circumstance where loss dictates how we will engage in this war and see our mission through,” she said. “In my view, that wouldn’t be appropriately honouring the men we have lost.” “
      People in all sorts of positions can all too easily lose perspective and rather than it be a Prime Minister’s view of honour, should we not be thinking also of further losses that could be sustained.

      If it comes down to honour, we cannot ask the dead whether they would want it on their honour to have more of their comrades needlessly join them and so if we want to make decisions on honour, even if that is appropriate, then should we perhaps not canvas those who may be closest to the fallen in understanding the circumstances - the comrades?

      Certainly it is nowhere near the norm to have the view of soldiers determining whether they fight or not but we do have a very abnormal set of circumstances with Afghanistan and surely it would be honourable to the living to consider their view before we honour more dead.

      Somehow I think it is more being entrenched and politics than honouring our fallen or those who may remain fortunate enough not to fall.

      As for leaving token forces after 2014, people with that concept have to be joking do they not or at least they have not really thought through potential scenarios of entrapment and slaughter by vast weight of numbers.

      Reply

    • seniorcynic says:

      11:49am | 01/09/12

      The Afghani’s have fought and defeated invaders for the last 1000 years so the allies will end up on the scrapheap as well. As for the loss of the soldiers’ lives while tragic for the families it is miniscule compared the the civilian deaths and minute compared to Vietnam. At least the soldiers were volunteers not conscripts as were many in Vietnam.

      Reply

    • Soames says:

      12:05pm | 01/09/12

      The people of these ancient countries have lived with religious and factional wars for centuries. There is no foreseeable change. Our military commitment in these wars, is under the UN Charter, and the support of the United States military. Today, our strategic military and foreign policy falls largely under the protective umbrella of the US, but historically under the then British Empire.

      Neither Government or Opposition will move from this position, understandably so, given our large country with small population, and therefore relatively small military effectiveness.

      The is no other effective strategy, regardless of political spin, or media arguments.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      12:48pm | 01/09/12

      When we stop giving aid to a country who supports the Taliban ,Pakistan. Giving money which we have to borrow to a country who in turn are buying billions of dollars worth of jet fighter planes who in turn habour these people ,  just does not make any sense. Others for over 2 centuries have been trying to pull Afghanistan into the present and failed . There is no doubt in my mind it will take another 2 centuries to achieve an outcome where the Taliban culture will be eliminated. The reasoning it will be dishonorable to the soldiers who have already died although a good argument the people to ask are the soldiers themselves . I know a soldiers job is to defend if trouble breaks out, go to wherever the government of the day tells them die for his country if he must . The governments who have defence personnel in Afghanistan should let the long serving fighting soldiers vote on it in this instance as it is a contentious issue , not politicians who mostly don’t have an inkling of what it must be like in a war zone. If the vote was to be to stay then our soldiers must have the very best of weapons amour and support and lets beat the Taliban once and for all.

      Reply

    • PsychoHyena says:

      06:13pm | 01/09/12

      @Anjuli, the only problem with giving soldiers the vote on whether they stay is that personal feelings do not belong on the battlefield. Soldiers may look at what is happening around them and see positive or negative changes occurring and this would affect their decision, if you see positive changes then you will want those changes to continue. Throw into this that soldiers have recently been killed and a level of vengeance for their fallen comrades comes into play.

      I don’t support countries going on an offensive, however I would hope that our security forces and intelligence officers would provide accurate and detailed information regarding decisions on whether to go to war or not. Unfortunately with Afghanistan and Iraq the information provided was from the US and later found to be inaccurate.

      To say a Government makes the choice is true, but those choices are based on advice from the military as to whether a) It’s required and b) whether it will succeed.

      A military intervention without chance of success is the same as no military intervention without chance of success, except less people die. Needless military intervention with high chance of success gives a poorer result than diplomatic responses with a low chance of success.

    • Petery says:

      06:14pm | 01/09/12

      @annuli
      why I agree with you basically, you say some questionable things in your post.
      how do you know it will take another two centuries to defeat the Taliban?it might take fifty years,it might take a hundred, it might take three hundred. it is this sort of unsubstantiated assumption,an opinion being disguised as a fact, that gets us into wars in the first place.We assumed a quick and easy
      fix to the problem of the Taliban as a fact, which of course it wasn’t. you offer similar assumptions as facts when you offer no evidence to suggest how they might be true.

      As for serving soldiers voting on the problem, I thought if they were on the electoral roll,they already did.I do not think they should be allowed to overrule politicians ,otherwise we might as well have military dictatorship In this country

      Yes our politicians are stupid and illinformed on this issue, but so were the
      majority of people who elected them in the first place.

    • Jacko says:

      12:52pm | 01/09/12

      Bring our troops home - we have no business there and if the Afghans want to beat the Taliban let them figure it out for themselves!! Pull your finger out Government and get our soldiers out of there!!

      Reply

    • LS says:

      01:38pm | 01/09/12

      This is what really gets to me about conservatives. You can’t just invade a country, start a war and then decided you don’t want a war after all when things get really hard. Why on earth did you support this war in the first place? What did you think was going to happen, we would folllow America in there and it would all be over in a few months?

      You knew huge numbers of soldiers would be killed and maimed, you knew the Afghani’s did not want this war, you knew it would create a huge refugee problem, didn’t you???  Now your crying that Afghanistan is a lost cause and we need to bring our soldiers home. Well if it weren’t for you they wouldn’t have been sent in the first place. If you want someone to blame look in the mirror.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      03:39pm | 01/09/12

      Gosh, and here I thought we had had an ALP government for five years.  You can surely blame the Coalition for involving us in this war;  you can surely blame the ALP for not having the courage of its convictions, and failing to pull us out of it.  Neither side has clean hands.

    • Martin H says:

      04:09pm | 01/09/12

      Too true LS. Does it really surprise you though when they have a leader like Abbott?

    • Esteban says:

      04:11pm | 01/09/12

      LS. Afghanistan has had bi partisan support from the outset.

      You might be thinking of Iraq which is widely acknowledged as being a mistake.

    • Gregg says:

      06:25pm | 01/09/12

      Just because it wasa conservative government in power at the time LS does not mean all conservatives agreed with the decision other than that some justice needed to be brought re the 911 attack.

      As it was, the Al Qaeda people involved in the 911 attack were not from Afghanistan nor Taliban and yet there was partisan agreement to join with the US in seeking justice, it seeming that in being unable to get the 911 attackers, the next best approach was to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan.

      Sure, it has got even messier but we do not have a conservative government continuing on with the policy of staying the course.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:02pm | 01/09/12

      Wrong, Laurie - apologist supreme for the ALP - you are totally wrong & deliberately misleading people.
      The UN authorised the USA, who had a sycophantic Australian Prime Minister at their beck & call, to invade Afghanistan to ” Rid Afghanistan of the Terrorist Organisation known as Al Qaeda, which had been responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC”.
      That was the sole reason we were given for that invasion.
      If it had been authorised in order to get rid of the only government Afghanistan had at the time that would have been illegal. No-one, including the United Nations, has the right to invade a country with the intention of removing the regime in power - no matter how repulsive that regime may be.
      If we were able to then why has the world not declared war on Syria & sent in troops to remove the Assad Regime?
      Because it is illegal to do so.
      The USA, Nato & at the behest of Howard’s pal George W Bush, Australia joined in.
      In 2001 it was announced to the world that Al Qaeda had been driven out of Afghanistan.
      Foreign troops, we were told, would remain there until Afghanistan had been re-built. Until Democracy was in place. Those foreign troops would train the new National Security Forces.
      What the politicians were too stupid to realise was that the Taliban in Afghanistan is almost entirely manned by Afghan citizens. They may have been, temporarily, driven out of office but they were/are still there in their millions. They are simply waiting until all foreign troops - at least those still alive - have left. Until then they will simply escalate their attacks on those foreign troops with the intention of killing as many as they possibly can.
      Julia Gillard & Tony Abbott are both fooling themselves & lying to us when they say that we will remain in Afghanistan until the “Mission is completed”.
      Short of adopting the Killing Fields introduced by Pol Pot into Cambodia in which he authorised the slaughter of, as yet, un-counted millions and slaughtering some millions of Afghans, the “mission” will never, ever be completed.
      Have a look at Iraq today, Laurie, we went in based solely on lies emanating from the USA. Yes, it resulted in the destruction of Saddam Hussein & his murderous regime, it also resulted in the deaths of, again as yet uncounted, 10s or 100s of 1000s of innocent men, women & children being slaughtered.
      What do we see happening there today? Sectarian slaughter, suicide bombers. Absolutely nothing has changed.
      Our troops, after the 2001 Expulsion of Al Qaeda was announced, had, nor have, any business being in Afghanistan which is currently engaged in a Civil War. Why else are the Taliban universally called by all politicians “Insurgents” & not “terroists”. These are Afghans fighting Afghans for control of Afghanistan. That is what a Civil War is.

      Reply

    • Reader says:

      03:16pm | 01/09/12

      All those saying every afghan whoconnects here should fight, are you a solider? Could you fight? Maybe they aren’t either. Maybe to even try and fight in some circumstances would be suicide. We’re not all heroes who can comment from the safety of their computer desk knowing they’ll never have to flee anything.

      Reply

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      03:18pm | 01/09/12

      Julia Gillard has said “After all we have been through, lost & done in Afghanistan, I cannot countenance leaving before the mission is completed” (The Adelaide Advertiser, ABC-TV - you name it)
      Neither this Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Alexander Downer nor any past or present politician has been through anything. They have seen to it that members of their own families have not been through anything.
      They happily send off our young men & women to fight for a Foreign Power in a Foreign Country & possibly die. With regards to Afghanistan for 11 years after the sole reason our troops were sent there had officially been resolved: The expulsion of Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, our troops are still there and are now dying - killed by Afghan citizens.
      “LS” above, it is not just the conservatives who are to blame. Yes, the conservative politicians took us in there, just as they did to Iraq. Not all those protesting in those millions-strong street protests around the world were non-conservatives. In Australia we have not seen either Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard or any other ALP politicians stand up & demand - in Rudd & Gillard’s case order - the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. Indeed your arch-socialist girl-friend Julia Gillard says she is determined they won’t be brought home - at least for between 12 & 18 months. During that time we could see hundreds of our young men & women being totally unnecessarily killed. Who will you plame for that? We will hold the Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard responsible for every death since August 2010.

      Reply

    • Dave C says:

      03:34pm | 01/09/12

      Of all the comments made no one has mentioned as Laurie did the actual reason for Australian troops being in Afghanistan in the first place. Al Qaeda organised and delivered the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington (and no the USA Government was not involved just as the moon landing was not done in a Hollywood studio and the Yeti and the Big Foot do not exist unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary ) The Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda. Also according to Stephen Smith the man who made the Bomb in Bali which killed 88 Australians was trained in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda. Those are the reasons we “invaded a country” because we and our USA Allies (who saved us from the Japanese in WW2) had innocent people killed due to terrorists being trained and protected in this country.

      Having said that look I dont know the answer because if Afghanistan is as backward and what most people posting say it is and if many have tried and failed to drag it out of the 12th century warlord rule and if the terrorists are simply going to return once we and the yanks leave well honestly F*#ked if I know????

      But if what I just wrote happens and even if the west leave the middle east alone totally then how long before Al Qaeda rise up again under a new leader and are then protected in both Pakistan and Afghanistan and how long will it be before the Opera House or the Harbour Bridge gets blown up because we let the terrorists rise up again??? I dont know the answer????

      Reply

    • neo says:

      04:46pm | 01/09/12

      Things are worse now in both Afghanistan and Iraq than before the invasions. More people die every day than before the invasions. That’s what happens when you use a military solution for a non-military problem.

      Reply

    • firefly says:

      05:41pm | 01/09/12

      John, seriously, get some help. Your USA hating conspiracy theories are becoming more deluded by the day. You are becoming as predictable as the punches muslim appologist fml.

      Reply

    • PW says:

      06:12pm | 01/09/12

      If we pull out now, it will mean that those insurgents who have bumped off our soldiers will have achieved their desired outcome and will be thus empowered.

      We have to stay until the previously stated exit time, even though the problems will never be solved.

      Such are the problems of painting yourself into a corner.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      06:41pm | 01/09/12

      If Romney gets in I hope he kicks up the presence of US troops substantially and does a ‘Bush’ and the subsequent surge routs the enemy once and for all.
      Of course, he’ll have to deal with Pakistan too, and such entrails will leave India strong, and China weakened.

      Isn’t that wise ?

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 18 May 13 04:27PM

@wheels002 @janecat60 Prefer your son's excellent turtle.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 18 May 13 04:20PM

“@JoeHockey_MP: Expect #insiders to be a doddle tomorrow." @latingle @dwabriz& I can't agree whether to call u genius or genius AND saint.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 18 May 13 03:12PM

@Rob_Stott ... But don't go to Awaba unless you're a local because they'll treat you like a subhuman

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 18 May 13 12:04PM

Some people are so worried re sexuality of others hard not to think they might have probs with their own . http://t.co/c2Lvg3FJP0

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter