Prev
Next

Is the Afghan war in the hands of cowboys?

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

24 Jun 05:29am

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, Barack Obama, Diggers, Stanley Mcchrystal, War On Terror

29 comments

The timing is a co-incidence but it’s a terrible spectacle nonetheless.

All that's missing is the ten-gallon hats. Picture: Getty Images

As we’re bringing another three Australian Diggers home in coffins from Afghanistan, and increasing our civilian presence there, the man in charge of the allied military efforts has been dragged back to Washington because of something he said to a Rolling Stone journalist.

I’m not sure who comes out of this looking worse, President Obama or his General Stanley McChrystal.

Much is being read into a couple of lines in the feature piece, in which McChrystal and his staff made some seemingly benign but inappropriate comments about the President and his Vice President Joe Biden.

The author of the piece, Michael Hastings, says McChrystal and his team were sending a message to Obama that “there are serious sceptics [about the war] in the highest levels of his staff”.

If that’s true, we deserve to know what has prompted that scepticism.

McChrystal is the commander of the International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] in Afghanistan.

Tim Alpin, Scott Palmer and Benjamin Chuck were killed when an ISAF chopper went down on Monday as they were on their way to battle in Northern Kandahar. Seven other Australians were injured, two of them very seriously.

The commandos’ deaths, taking the Australian toll to 16, have prompted more than the usual amount of debate over our role in a war, which has now dragged on into its tenth year.

The fact McChrystal is now 11,000 kms away from the front line fighting for his job in the Oval Office makes you wonder if the war in Afghanistan is out of control.

In the US it’s being interpreted as a sign the ISAF force is on shaky ground.

The Washington Post says there is “growing scepticism in Congress and among the American public.”

Both sides of the Australian parliament maintain support for the Afghan mission, citing the loss of Australian lives in terror attacks this century as more than enough justification for our continued presence there.

Certainly there is a strong argument that to walk away now would effectively hand the country over to terrorists. The same terrorists who trained the perpetrators of the Bali bombings and September 11.

Defence Minister John Faulkner yesterday said our military presence of 1550 troops in Afghanistan would remain unchanged when the Dutch pull out of Oruzgan province, where they have had command, in August.

Senator Faulkner said he anticipated the new arrangements, with a multi-national military team called Combined Team Oruzgan, would remain in place for 2 to 4 years, until it could “transition security in Oruzgan to the Afghan National Army.”

But he qualified that statement by saying the time frame depended on a number of factors, including the situation on the ground at the position of our partners in Combined Team Oruzgan.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said our civilian presence would be increased to 50 in total, including an Australian civilian head of the new Oruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team.

But in The Australian yesterday former executive director of the Australian Defence Association Michael O’Connor argued we just can’t win a war in Afghanistan because of “the religious factor”.

“The only credible solution to the mess is withdrawal. The clever people who constructed the case for intervention are equally capable of constructing a credible case for withdrawal.”

What would be excellent would be if we got to hear McCrystal’s assessment of the mission. Not in a coded jibe at his boss in Rolling Stone, but in a clear and concise manner.

The Australian Diggers already there, and the ones that may end up joining them, deserve to know they’re not fighting a losing battle.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

29 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:41am | 24/06/10

      Obama doesn’t really want to win - he just wants to get out so he can concentrate on his real agenda of transforming (or destroying) America. Hence there is no commitment at the top leadership level.

      Afghanistan may be lost under this President, but it won’t be won. The next President will probably mark a significant change in US foreign policy. Either way, we should remain committed to our alliance, and continue to stand against radical Islam.

      Reply

    • JJJ says:

      06:59am | 24/06/10

      I am not sure anyone ACTUALLY thinks you can ‘win’ a war on terrorism. It’s like suggesting that all die-hard Catholics can be convinced that God isn’t real… the more you try to talk logic to them, the stronger they believe.

      Three Australian deaths doesn’t change the fact that the US already KNOW you CANNOT ‘win’ a war against fundamental beliefs. They are just trying to scare those who would dare speak/act against their way of life into challenging the ‘Western’ way of life in less obvious ways.

      I think it’s hiliarious that Obama had to sack one of his own for doing the same thing he is trying to prevent (challenge his world domination). Sadly, we (Australia) are just siddling up to the school-ground bully because we think we need their ‘friendship’. Just because people are questioning the validity of the bully, doesn’t stop them being taking everyone’s lunch money and doesn’t mean we will ever be strong enough to head out into the playground without their support. But deaths (sadly, whether from accident or attack) while at war should be expected. I don’t think we will ever be able to say “Right. 20 Australians have lost their lives in America’s war now. That’s it. We are out”. Not going to happen. It’s the price we pay for ‘protection’ from threats that don’t reeeeaaalllllyyyy threaten us. But they might.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      09:27am | 24/06/10

      You can’t win a war on terrorism, and no one has won a war in Afghanistan - even Alexander did not control the place for long and the Mongols moved on to the greener pastures of India.  It’s a pretty daunting combination.

    • Ryan says:

      09:54am | 24/06/10

      You can win a war on terrorism, just not being civil. I believe the British managed to win a war on terrorism, it was called the Boer war and how did they win it.. by rounding up all the Boers families, men, women and children and putting them into concentration camps (yes the British did invent concentration camps, not the Germans) and basically starving them to death. Now I wonder if the world would let America do that to the Afghans?

    • matt says:

      02:14pm | 24/06/10

      Actually ryan, the British have won several wars on terrorism.

      They won Northern Ireland through a military presence that promoted democracy, and allowed the stability for democratic elections.

      They won in Aden by sending in the SAS and killing every single terrorist who looked at them sideways.

      And who says we can’t win in Afghanistan? If in 20 or 50 years they have a stable government, we might be able to. Remember that just 50 years before the US was able to intervene in World War One and defeat the Germans, it was in the grips of a civil war that killed one tenth of the population.

    • iansand says:

      02:53pm | 24/06/10

      Matt - Don’t forget Malaya, where they won by a combination of hearts and minds, and confining the military aspect of the dispute to the terrorists and avoided collateral damage.  A model that could work in Afghanistan.

    • Dan says:

      03:17pm | 24/06/10

      Ryan, that is more than not being civil. That is being psychotic and genocidal. How you can support that is beyond me.

    • Markus says:

      03:42pm | 24/06/10

      Dan he isn’t saying he supports it.
      He is just rightfully acknowledging it as an option to anyone who claims “we can never win a war against terrorists”.
      Because what they are in essence saying is “we can never win a war against terrorists while fighting by our own pre-determined rules that the enemy do not have to abide by”.

    • Dan says:

      04:20pm | 24/06/10

      Perhaps Markus, however those ‘pre-determined’ rules are vital. They provide the basis for our morality and our civilisation.

    • Eric says:

      06:17pm | 24/06/10

      Those rules go out the window as soon as a civilisation faces an existential threat. That’s the point of the thoughtful essay at http://tinyurl.com/three-conjectures .

      Once terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, which seems likely to happen some time, there will be serious war.

    • Greg says:

      06:26pm | 24/06/10

      A few big differences between the Boer days and now, namely mobility and communications for two not to mention available weaponry.
      And Matt, re ” They won in Aden by sending in the SAS and killing every single terrorist who looked at them sideways. ” could that also be read as they killed who they chose to whether they were terrorists or not.
      Do you think there were no innocents given free transport to Resort Guantanamo or bundled elsewhere into jails, some sunjected to torture.
      I’d reckon that kind of treatment would go a long way to drive more people towards terrorism.

    • Greg says:

      06:26pm | 24/06/10

      A few big differences between the Boer days and now, namely mobility and communications for two not to mention available weaponry.
      And Matt, re ” They won in Aden by sending in the SAS and killing every single terrorist who looked at them sideways. ” could that also be read as they killed who they chose to whether they were terrorists or not.
      Do you think there were no innocents given free transport to Resort Guantanamo or bundled elsewhere into jails, some sunjected to torture.
      I’d reckon that kind of treatment would go a long way to drive more people towards terrorism.

    • Ripa says:

      08:13am | 24/06/10

      Unbelieveable, Obama is such a fake, such a pretender, he is10000 times worse than Rudd, spend spend spend, never produced a birth certificate, weak on Afghanistan, weak on the oil spill, bowing to the king of saudi, golfing and going to paul mcartney concerts while the oil spill continued, his wife has 26 servants,    his mother was a progressive his father a muslim, how on earth does he end up going to a christian church!, his parents meet in a russian languague class in hawaii, seperate when he is 2 and divorce a year later, she then marries lolo soetoro an indonesian muslim they move to indonesia and live there,  he spent his life among socialists, communists, and this moronic president is going to dismiss a decorated soldier? based on frustration?

      Reply

    • Bert says:

      09:03am | 24/06/10

      Tin foil hat in need of adjustment.

    • Ripa says:

      09:32am | 24/06/10

      HA!, funny, so he/she did none of these things? save that foil AL is recyclable. “research” is an amasing thing.

    • Ryan says:

      10:04am | 24/06/10

      Ripa: you forgot to include his Aunt who “magically” got asylum status from Kenya.. one of the most stable countries in all of Africa.. I wonder how that is?

    • John Long says:

      08:45am | 24/06/10

      Demanding we “Win” the war against terrorism is like trying to “win” the war on crime. It will never happen, at least not in the terms being brandished by those with less-than-genuine agendas. But we must continue the fight without this narcissistic obsession of being able to claim a “win”. Even if the War was “won” in Afghanistan, a single Islamic bomb in Somalia or Iraq would cause the nay-sayers to say “there,see!. The war on terrorism has been lost and the terrorists get the last laugh”. Focus on fighting militant extremism and ruthless oppression from forces who also wish to eventually inflict said oppression on ALL of us. Sneering at some perceived lack of points on the board is a betrayal of those who gave their lives for the cause. To resist this oppression we need to be flexible and versatile and react to whatever the enemies tactics require, as they change, when they change. Demanding fixed timetables is playing into their hands. Imagine if the Allies, when they originally thought World War II would be over by Xmas, were then held to surrendering to the Nazis when Xmas came because of political pressure to “achieve closure on schedule”. Hang in there boys, whatever it takes.

      Reply

    • JAL says:

      08:58am | 24/06/10

      Former executive director of the Australian Defence Association Michael O’Connor needs to keep his defeatist opinions to himself. And I can’t believe The Australian would portray a bitter and mischievous ex-public-servant latte-drinking union leader as a knowledgeable authority on the prospects in the War. The Afghan Army is muslim, and with our training and support, they will win their nation back. O’Conner is an idiot.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      09:40am | 24/06/10

      Of course you can’t win a “war on terrorism”. A war against a tactic is a silly idea. But that name is just a PR label used to avoid offending certain people.

      It’s a war on radical Islamists, and always has been. An ideology can be defeated, as Communism and Nazism were defeated last century. So a victory is possible, it just has to be understood in real terms instead of propaganda words.

      Reply

    • Jenni says:

      12:49pm | 24/06/10

      It’s a strange human impulse to feel the need to “win” at all costs, to me it is very often an unachievable goal. We cannot “win” the war against drugs, this does not mean we do not fight to lessen the damage caused by drug dealers and people who commit crime to feed their habits. We cannot “win” the war against crime because there will always be an element of society who believe - for whatever reason - that they have to right to behave, act, and take whatever they please, regardless of the cost to others - this does not mean we suspend the police force or open the prison doors and let all the criminals go free. We fight to *reduce* crime to try and make a better world.

      We may never “win” the war on terror - we may never “win” the war against the ideology that creates people who kill and destroy in the name of their beliefs. This does not mean we do not fight. We fight to try and protect people from these extremists, and reduce the human carnage both on the front line and in our own countries. We fight so that *everybody* has the right to follow their own beliefs without fear of persecution and without persecuting others in the name of those beliefs.

      This is a fight that I believe in 100% - I believe we are in Afghanistan for the right reasons, totally unlike Iraq, (please don’t get me - or Eric, for that matter - started on the number of people who think they are one and the same), and I will support any government in this country (no matter what political party) who commits our brave troops to such a fight.

    • Dan says:

      03:30pm | 24/06/10

      “It’s a war on radical Islamists, and always has been.”

      It’s actually a war against Al-Quada. Also you can’t win a war against radical Islamists. You can destroy individual organisations, but if you want to defeat radical Islamism, you will need to appeal to hearts and minds, similarly to what nations like Indonesia have been doing.

      “An ideology can be defeated”

      Not really, and when it is defeated, it is not defeated through military means. America can militarily achieve tangible goals, but they can not defeat an ideology.

      “Communism and Nazism were defeated last century.”

      Communism was never defeated. The USSR self-destructed, and other nations such as China realised that in order to achieve economic growth, communism was not the way to go.

      Nazism was also not defeated. Germany, which housed Nazism, was defeated, but that is different to defeating an ideology.

      You can not defeat an ideology, certainly not militarily.

    • Eric says:

      06:20pm | 24/06/10

      Dan, you could not be more wrong.

      First of all, the war is not against al-Qaeda alone. It’s also against the Taliban, Jemaah Islamiyah, and dozens of other groups. They all have one thing in common: militant Islam.

      As for the defeat of Nazism, it was very much accomplished by military means. Same for Japanese imperialism. Look at those two nations now - both transformed utterly. Read some history.

      Likewise, Communism was defeated in the Cold War (which occasionally turned hot). Again, history books are your friends.

    • Greg says:

      10:26pm | 24/06/10

      You cannot even defeat an ideology even if you obliterate the believers in one particular location for all that will do is raise the ire of believers elsewhere.
      When there are real insurgents, meaning fighters from elsewhere in a country fighting a battle, I’d take that as some indication of the spread of believers, just as we have coalition forces.
      Obama has made one prime statement and that was an eye had been taken off what was supposed to have been the main project and that was getting Osama and AlQaeda, hence the current build-up.

      It also needs to be asked however is whether taking the fight to obliterating the Taliban was needed to seek Osama and whether it does not also detract from the main project.
      We may not like the Taliban and what their beliefs are but do we like what goes on in a number of other countries and are we going to invade them?

      The Taliban had just about won their civil war in Afghanistan prior to invasion because their support base came from within the Pashtun tribes, about 60-70% of Afghanistan population and Pashtuns also in the NW frontier region of Pakistan.
      We will never likely know what the truth is about what options there may have been in dealing with the Taliban to seek out Osama but regardless of that, US and other forces could have gone in with such strength to isolate AlQaeda training camps with minimal effect on the more populous areas of Afghanistan.

      That it was a choice to extend the Osama hunt into a wider conflict is history but it will also likely be history that Afghanistan will eventually be walked away from as Vietnam was walked away from.

      If you take the whole middle east region, there has been a good half century of conflicts with people being persecuted one way or another, often by their own brutal governments with support from western countries and I do not find it surprising that brutality plants the seed for violence and ultimately terrorist attacks of one form or another, 911 being the worst that has happened outside of the ME.
      Nazi brutality had resistance fighting units develop and if Nazis ruled, reistance fighters would be insurgents and terrorists.
      Israelis were considered terrorists by the Brits attempting to keep control of Palestine.
      Taking the fight up to Communism in Vietnam and definition of insurgent/terrorist had probably not been coined for the VC.

      The Saudis are a brutal regime with ultra wealthy sheiks and royalty living a great life whilst much of the general population is under the thumb with what we in the west would view as persecution on personal liberty, so would we call freedom fighters there as such and support them or side with the Saudi wealth?

      What is it we are fighting for in Afghanistan and why is it justified?

    • shabangabang says:

      12:54pm | 24/06/10

      Poor General Stanley McChrystal. He seems to have forgotten that the war criminals have vacated the White House.
      His language gives a clearer indication as how how much of a military state the USA became under the Texas Chief.
      People Like McChystal have no place in todays society. Good riddance, dog.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:49pm | 24/06/10

      As I said in yesterday Open Thread - I like the cut of McCrystals gib. Unlike the plethora of ex-Generals, ex-Admirals, ex-Colonels etc that pop up on network news every military crisis as ‘expert’ military commentators, McCrystal has done his talking while still IN uniform, while still in command of troops in the field and whilst still holding the reigns. He didn’t shut his mouth and smile, nod and say ‘Yes Sir’ like these bastards did when they were in charge and only grew a spine AFTER they hung up their uniforms.

      Good Onya Gen McCrystal. Telling it like it is. And thats how it should be. We all know that these bozos have no idea what they are doing. And that goes for the previous mob as well, ours and thiers. They look at votes and legacies and not the lives of our servicemen and women.

      We will never ‘win’ in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other third world shithole while we pussy foot around and let lifelong politicians ‘play war’ with our servicemen and womens lives. Ever since WW2 we’ve buggered around and played war instead of going to war with the sole aim of winning the bloody thing. If we aren’t there to win it as quickly, professionally and safely as possible they we should be sending anyone anywhere. End of story. This war on the cheap crap COSTS lives.

      We had the Taliban tossed out and and flogged 8 years ago. But we never kept the ‘boots on the ground’ to keep them out and ramp up all the civilian aid projects that was supposed to bring the civilian populace to Democracy. Instead we pulled out and and pissed off to Iraq and let a corrupt warlord and his cronies run the place into the ground.

      Either go in boots and all to win or stay home. We have 1500 Diggers there, 3/4 of them pogues. Thats jsut embarrasing. And here we are debating it in the press like its Vietnam or Korea. Shit, the Turks, the Poles, the Italians have more troops in Afghanistan right now. We are down with the Romanians and Spaniards in terms of troop numbers.

      Why are we bothering if we aren’t going to have a serious ‘go’ ??

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      02:52pm | 24/06/10

      The afghan war is in the hands of a self interested and self obsessed president who doesn’t see the need in success. He undermined his own last general so as to provoke a response so Obama can claim he is tough on his military. So long as Afghans are at war, Obama can rely on attracting votes for being left.

      Reply

    • Jimmy James says:

      04:42pm | 24/06/10

      Ok a relatively minor issue, but “All that’s missing is the 10 gallon hats”
      Seriously? I’d hardly describe the US president, previously editor of the harvard law review; and a 4 star general , no mere graduate of west point as “cowboys”.  Criticise them what you will, but ‘cowboys and hats’? Just because they’re american, doesn’t mean it isn’t a dumb, lazy stereotype.

      With regards to the sacking of McChrystal itself, correct decision.
      I’m still not sure of the root cause of people doubting obama’s legitimacy for living in indonesia or something (what did they want instead? McCain who was born in Panama); but the fact is Barack Obama is the President of The United States. He is the Commander-In-Cheif.

      McChrystal messed up by blabbing to rolling stone- totally unprofessional conduct, especially for a person in his position. Obama sacked him for this reason, conduct, not because of what he actually said.

      Hell, not sure what McChrystal was expecting…I would have thought it pretty obvious than even if you were taking orders at Mcdonalds and have work issues, slagging off on ‘the punch’ probably isn’t your best course of action

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:10am | 25/06/10

      They’ve given Patraeus the job in Afghanistan now.

      Top bloke he is too, knows his stuff. He’s the bloke that settled Iraq down in a quick hurry with his ‘surge’ and getting US boots on the ground and out patrolling. He has said in the past he modeled his tactics on the successful tactics of the Brits and Aussies in Malaya and the Aussies in Vietnam. He brought about one of the biggest doctrinal changes to the US Army since the second world war.

      Reply

    • George says:

      01:54pm | 19/11/10

      President Obama is trying to end a lie that was started by redneck cowboys bush & blair.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 23 May 13 04:20PM

Column: Ford was hurt by a high dollar, costly labour, and making things nobody wanted to buy http://t.co/duaZQ0CHQY

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 23 May 13 04:14PM

RT @theburgerman: Interesting blog post: it's time for news websites to stop "matching" (i.e. rewriting a competitor's story) | http://t.co…

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 23 May 13 03:55PM

RT @WritersCentreAU: Writing Tips: 31 Most Invaluable Pieces Of Writing Advice From Famous Authors. http://t.co/sc9jz2vJu6

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 23 May 13 03:42PM

RT @KateMidena: Biggest Loser retreat set to open in Aus http://t.co/TTWqbXJpTI

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