Prev
Next

Nine years on, it could be another ten in Afghanistan

Leo Shanahan

by Leo Shanahan

19 Oct 06:50pm

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: Afghanistan War, Islam, Julia Gillard, Taliban, Terrorism, Tony Abbott

34 comments

The beginning of the debate into Australia’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan is a refreshing exercise.

Julia Gillard presenting her speech on the Afghan war today. Picture: Ray Strange

For a cynical electorate it has provided impassioned and well reasoned political debate - albeit one in which the major parties agree – and the best thing the new paradigm has provided to this Parliament.

While Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott agreed to the need for Australia to stay in Afghanistan there were subtle differences in the arguments that they made in support of it: one given by somebody with the responsibility for the military commitment, the other from somebody with a firm belief in its ideological commitment.

Gillard’s speech was the clearest indication yet that the Government doesn’t expect our soldiers to be in the Afghanistan for just 2-4 years, but an indeterminately longer period than that. Ms Gillard told Parliament:

Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists.

Australia’s key role in that mission, training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan, is expected to take 2 to 4 years, and President Karzai has said the Afghan Government expects the transition process to be complete by the end of 2014.

But let me be clear – this refers to the Afghan Government taking lead responsibility for security. The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and Australia will remain engaged.

In other words we can’t tell you how much longer this will go on for, but we’ll be there till its over. How much longer? Well according to Gillard it could be at least another ten years:

We expect this support, training and development task to continue in some form through this decade at least.

Our mission in Afghanistan is not nation-building.  That is the task of the Afghan Government and people.  With international aid and development, we will continue to help were we can, but entrenching a functioning democratic Afghan state could be the work of a generation of Afghan people.

This is a pretty incredible admission - especially given that it has been nine years since our forces went to Afghanistan and only now are we having the first parliamentary debate.

It is also a pretty realistic commitment. To give a deadline creates the impression of a war that can be won or lost in a conventional sense. There will be no surrender ceremony if and when the Taliban eventually pack it in.

As someone who cannot say whether we will stay or go within the next few years, Abbott’s speech cast the war in a more ideological shade of khaki green:

No country should lightly commit its armed forces to combat and a democratic electorate would almost certainly punish any government that did. Still, a country that was not prepared to defend itself against an aggressor could hardly be taken seriously. If self-defence is justifiable, mightn’t the defence of others be even more so? War should never be glamorised or idealised but might there not be at least some nobility of purpose about a military campaign to defend other people against their persecutors?

We shouldn’t forget that the military expedition to East Timor was to stop defenceless people from being brutalised. It’s hard to see the moral difference between our military campaign there and the campaign in Afghanistan just because the latter is yet to come to a more-or-less-satisfactory conclusion.
Abbott also liberally smattered his speech with references to Islamic fundamentalism being the cause of this conflict, something that Gillard held back on, no doubt out of fear of being labelled a neo-con crusader. Abbott had no such apprehension:


Our objective is to allow Afghans to choose what they think is right for them. The Taliban’s objective is to impose what it regards as the one right system. We are prepared to accept choices by the Afghan people that we don’t like. Our key stipulation is merely that Afghanistan should never again become a base for international terrorism. By contrast, the Taliban and even more so their al Qaeda allies insist that their version of Islam is not only right for Afghanistan but mandatory for the whole world. To them, it’s not enough to execute women in a sports stadium for moral transgressions; this is the law by which the whole world should be ruled.

Abbott (correctly) also made more of the threat of Pakistan imploding as a result of any withdrawal from Afghanistan. The nightmare scenario is not so much the Taliban retaking Afghanistan, but success of the Taliban in Afghanistan acting as a bridgehead for the fall of Pakistan – along with its 60 nuclear weapons. 

Still the overriding message from both leaders was the same. While Gillard played more the dove to Abbott’s hawk they both ended up in the same place: sticking around in Afghanistan for a long time.

The muted screams of a female protestor taken out of the House just moments into Gillard’s speech, were a reminder that while the stance taken by neither leader is particularly popular - and they’ll be plenty more to disagree with them in the coming days - at least she can no longer complain we’re not talking about it.

Most commented

34 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • nosthow says:

      07:15pm | 19/10/10

      Some military expert interviewed on SBS news tonight drew the same comparison between Afghanistan and Vietnam . I remember the Froggies got driven back into the sea in Vietnam before beating a retreat back to Mother France then the US came in with Military advisors at first then troops. Australia lost some 400 plus gallant men in Vietnam. The US under Tricky Dicky Nixon finally beat a very messy retreat. To Afghanistan and the Russians came full of bravado and quickly found the going tough finally beating a retreat. Now our gallant men and women are there along with Coalition troops and its hard to see if we are making progress ? In Vietnam one of the problems was that the enemy was very hard to detect, having tunnels, mingling with peasants by day and fighting by night etc etc. In Afghanistan they hide up in the mountains sniping whenever they get the chance and sneaking down to set the dreadful roadside bombs. I dont normally listen to Alexander Downer but he made an excellent point tonight on TV saying its time for us to negotiate politically with the enemy, basically inferring we are wasting our time trying to win this as a military venture ?

      Reply

    • Ted N says:

      06:47am | 20/10/10

      Some good points there although we never sent enough troops to actually “win”. 1000-2000 is only a token force. It was more a statement that we hadn’t left our 20th century “Gallipoli complex” behind - being ordered into a battle by a bigger, arrogant, accident prone imperial power (then the Brits now the U.S.) , *not choosing the fields of battle to fight*, and therefore being picked off at will, at random by the opposing forces. Our Diggers are an awesome fighting force - but not when they are put into dumb situations with one hand tied behind their backs.

      Alexander Downer didn’t have the intelligence then or now, to recognise that while he and John Howard and then copycat Rudd, were tooling around in Afganistan, (punching well below their weight but suggesting otherwise) a flood of drug crops were being grown by the Taliban increasing Taliban/Warlords funding by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Alexander Downers faulty, visionless, strategyless leadership has now plunged Afganistan in the realm of Mexico’s drug wars. Will the national police / army be able to counter this scale of narco-war? We lost.

      Alexander for all the pretentions of being an educated “leader” hasn’t read the failure strewn history of invaders getting repulsed in Afganisatan over hundreds of years. As they say those that don’t know history are bound to repeat its mistakes…

      Time for some new ideas and voices. Alexander caused part of this problem - let us find someone else to fix it and/or surrender gracefully. And learn.

    • Gregg says:

      10:29am | 20/10/10

      There’s all manner of experts about lostnow and the comparison of Afghanistan with Vietnam has been around since before involvement even occurred, it being referred to as Russia’s Vietnam and look back into history and you’ll see that even before three Anglo/Afghan wars you had the likes of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan there.
      Your familiarity with the mountain scene is bereft for there are many areas of Afghanistan far from the high alps where War Lords and the Taliban still rule.
      The only reason Alexander the Downer is attempting to get his negotiating head seen is that Karzai has already for some months been rumoured to be attempting to talk to the Taliban and that is now not a rumour at all, same thing happening in Vietnam, only they went to Paris for peace talks and we all know or should know what came next unless you were as lost then as you are now.
      As for the Opium business, that has been going on for yonks and more controlled by the War Lords, something the Taliban attempted to curtail but now with a fight on for their existence, they will no doubt use it for funds.

    • ted n says:

      03:56pm | 20/10/10

      @ Gregg you need to check the rapid increase in opium crops in the last decade… yes it has been going on for yonks but kindly research what the crops are worth now and try to explain how millions of dollars are not ending up in the hands of the Taliban. You also seem to infer that the Taliban are not opium farmers too? Why wouldn’t they be when there is plenty of evidence that anyone, including peasants can get a loan from warlords and start farming?

      You also need to realise that the Taliban where trained by Americas best guerilla warfare experts both in Afganistan and in America itself… this is a little different to Vietnam. Especially spawning into a major narco-war…But I guess the likes of George W and his mates have made there super profits from the war and it’s time to move on..?

    • stephen says:

      07:31pm | 19/10/10

      General Gration, who used to command the Defence Forces, reckons we need a…. ‘rationale for eventually withdrawing our forces’.
      A useless comment, and quite non-sensical,too.
      It supposes that we won’t succeed, and that a face-saving method of evacuation should best be dreamed up now, lest we bocome the laughing-stock military machines everywhere.
      If our mission is successful, and it will be, that energy of rightness and completed will, will carry us over to a return home.
      I use rationales in making custard.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:46pm | 19/10/10

      It is what I call a Santayana moment.

    • Gavin Butler says:

      12:08am | 20/10/10

      Yes Stephen, ex-CDF often come out with non-sensical comments (thankfully the incumbent is immune). Now , we could debate “success” ad finitum depending on its definition but if you agree with our national leaders and say that it (success) will occur in AFG by “preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists”, then one must question how that can not translate into ‘forever’.  Of course ex-CDF are prone to thinking through highly complex problems without necessarily taking you through every step of the process - such a troublesome trait.  I won’t presume to answer for him but perhaps Gration was considering the likelihood that “The Taleban” will be a signifcant part of the reconstituted Afghan National Government (post-American occupation, that is).  Perhaps he also considered that the US has far wider security interests in the region than the prevention of terrorist havens and that this will prevent them from departing regardless of its “safe-haven” status. Yes, we will win, of course.  We are self-appointed arbiters in this regard.  In the vain that we won in Iraq, we will win in AFG… but the question is will we have to stay until every barrel of oil/cubic metre of gas is shipped out of the region before we can triumphantly withdraw back to our shores?  Most likely we will but I guess Gration sees it as a proposition that should at least be held up for dispute, or perhaps even disagreement.  In so doing, he is also perhaps acknowledging that should a counter position be considered by Australian leaders, you’d do well to have developed a coherent reason for wanting to depart the area of operations.

    • Herb Holden says:

      08:56pm | 19/10/10

      So the Taliban fund their war with opium,according to sky news tonight, strange news to me,a few years ago they were verily anti opium. I suppose now that Donald Rumsfeld is not around, they have to find their money somewhere ,those I.E.D.,s are very expensive to make. Aint it strange we fight wars where there are valuable commodities and corruption is rife.

      Reply

    • dancan says:

      09:16pm | 19/10/10

      How can you have a “debate” when both sides agree with each other?  Who represents the interests of the Australian public, the ones who asked for this to happen in the first place.

      Reply

    • Farkurnell says:

      09:23pm | 19/10/10

      We cant use Tanks in Afghan…..  Can any of you armchair generals explain the need for Aussie Tanks .Why do we have them if we don’t use them.?
      There’s one for the waste watch committee.save us billions.more money for the NBN

      Reply

    • neil says:

      09:51pm | 19/10/10

      There can be only one exit strategy from a war: Victory. If this is not our objective why did we go there?

      After WW2 anti allied terror attacks in Germany did not stop until the mid 70’s, 30 years after the end of hostilities, the Americans stayed in Germany for 50 years, they still have bases in Japan.

      Winning the war takes much less time than winning the peace. The greatest conquers in history, the Romans, enslaved defeated cultures for two generations before giving them rights, to ensure they were completely severed from thier pre-Roman past.

      Where we are failing in Afghanistan is the US’s idea that you can force democracy from the top down simply by holding an election within a few years of military victory.You can’t you must take everything away from them make them totally dependant on you, punish defiance, reward compliance until they accept that conformity is their only hope of self determination. Then build democracy from the local level up, this takes decades. You effectively need to replace the population with a generation that knows nothing of a life without the conquers.

      That’s the way it works, that’s how Europe (Greece, Rome, The West) has over the past 2500 years conquered 70% of the planet.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:27am | 20/10/10

      It also helped when they denuded the conquered provinces by committing wholesale genocide and selling off large swathes of the population into slavery - is that what you are suggesting?

    • St. Michael says:

      01:35pm | 20/10/10

      Also, Neil, the main reason there are bases in Japan and Germany held by the US is mainly because they’re strategically well-placed for strikes or operations against the US’s opponents in countries *other* than Japan or Germany.  They’re not bases for holding down the local populace, they’re to launch airstrikes against (if necessary) North Korea, China, and/or Russia.

    • Razor says:

      10:41pm | 19/10/10

      The War against Islamists is a generational one - it will take decades.

      Reply

    • Mick Newman says:

      12:54pm | 20/10/10

      Razor - there is not now, nor can there ever be a “war against Islamists” (or muslims if you will, being the common name for someone who subscribes to the religion of Islam). These aren’t holy wars and to shape them as such is to do a great disservice to the Coalition’s purpose and to the majority of peace-loving Muslims around the world.

      Don’t mistake me, the Taliban are striving to protect some truly abhorrent practices under the guise of Islam but this does not make them Islamic warriors anymore than the coalition are ‘Christian Warriors’. They invoke religion because it serves their purpose but to suggest that their actions are supported by the Qur’an or by everyday Muslims around the world is incorrect. The laymen who are fighting the coalition are most-likely Muslim but that is coincidental to their armed resistence, not causal. They have been fighting aggressors for a very long time and the coalition forces are but another chapter in their sorry history. Their resistence is borne as much out of habit and indoctrination from youth as it is from any impassioned spiritual belief.

      Saying this, I belive the coalition forces must be there because there is hope for this country to break the cycle but it will only occur if the despotic Taliban regime is not permitted to regain power. At the moment, the people of Afghanistan are starved of a suitable alternative so resisting the foreign forces seems like the most suitable practice but if we can work this conflict across all fronts, there is a real hope that Afghanistan will become a self-determining state. Military aid and training is essential for this but it is only one ingredient and it must be tempered with diplomacy and community aid.

      We may not be “nation building” but we are certainly “nation aiding”. And whatever you choose to call it, we are most definitely not at war with any religion - that includes Islam.

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:27am | 20/10/10

      we did not enter East Timor to stop a blood bath, we sat on our hands and ignored the blood bath while Downer lied to the UN and US about who was slaughtering the people of Timor during the massacre at the time of the referendum.

      We scarcely fired a bloody shot in Timor because the military had all gone,after destroying everything they could on the way.

      Gillard is completely and utterly without a clue.

      As for the so-called Taliban, they are just a tribe of pashtuns, sort of like the government.

      Meanwhile we are still jailing innocent Afghan women and kids and for anyone who gives a toss we have spent nearly $1 billion doing that this year alone, only to have to let them all out again, while giving the corrupt Karzai mob $120 million so his cronies can build mansions.

      They are all ignorant morons in the lib/lab party and hey should be ashamed.

      And what’s more we sat around for 24 years while Indonesia murdered 183,000 Timorese and now we are dealing with the same murderous torturers as they jail innocent Afghans for us and torture Papuans.

      Reply

    • Smee says:

      12:43pm | 20/10/10

      Marilyn - Which Government was in power when the \indonesians murdered the 183,000 Timorese?

    • dead to me says:

      05:48am | 20/10/10

      I watched Gillard’s speech, she sounded like a pompous school teacher talking down to her students. Worst PM ever!

      Reply

    • GGibson says:

      07:04am | 20/10/10

      Do you want a horror picture?
      The great military flaw is that as the West weakens herself in places like Afghanistan we in fact give China the victory.  Mao said he could foot 200 million soldiers (early 1960s). Wikipedia says the PLA has over 300 million fighting age men available for service…fresh, young men.  No war-weary with them. In Revelation chapter 9:16 there it is again…200 million soldiers in an asian confederacy army called the “Kings Of The East”.  200 million soldiers plundering asia…all the way from the Far East right across asia to Israel. As the West thrashes against the Taliban etc China secretly manufactures guns and ammunition, builds vehicles,  stores food for 200 million soldiers.
      Likewise all through the Christian churches of Australia (going back to the mid-1970s) are visions, dreams, prophecies and personal Words of Knowledge from The Holy Spirit about an enemy taking part of good old, sunny old Australia.
      If we really wanted to do the right thing by our women and children we would be watching China and what she is doing…we would jolly-well be packing up in asia and coming home.
      Last year my mate Kevin was at the Cairns gun club when Bob Katter spoke to the gun clubbers. He told them face to face…“you guys are the last line of defence if we get invaded”. Many were shocked. They were “it”, Bob said, on Australian soil when an enemy arrives and the ammo runs out. The Australian Defence Department is a disgrace, as are an endless series of federal governments. Like rabbits they sheltered under the US nuclear umbrella and did nothing about an invaders footfall on Australian soil…other than the pipsqueak 8,000 weekend warriors. There are no plans for a civilian home guard defence force and no weapons in the cupboard for one either. No wonder part of Australia falls.
      The classic revelation on the invader is from the book WHAT WILL BECOME OF AUSTRALIA 1974 by Jack Burrell. They ought to teach Jacks book at the Defence Acadamy. It might scare them into responsibility.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:34am | 20/10/10

      OMG! The Chinese are coming!

      Umm…how exactly are 300 million PLA soldiers going to get here? They don’t have a fraction of the airlift and sealift capacity that they’d need to get anywhere near here.

      Its almost as nonsensical as the morons that keep screaming that the Indons are about to invade Northern Australia…..how exactly?

      The Chinese have long memories. The last time they ‘intervened’ it cost them over 150 000 dead soldiers in a short amount of time and virtually on home turf. Having a large ground force doesn’t mean squat when your air and sea assets can get blotted out in a few days by far superior weapons platforms that their neighbours and the US has in the area.

      Not unless the PLA swims all the way here….

    • Matthew Cheyne says:

      07:08am | 20/10/10

      This article raises some interesting questions.

      Firstly with Gillard’s speech. She is asking us the Australian people to stay the course with her for another ten years after not getting any say whatsoever as to whether we should be in the way in the first place, not even a debate between our elected representatives up until yesterday.  Conduct like this flies in the face of the so called democracy that we are supposed to have in this country, that same democracy we are being asked to create and build in another country.

      Now onto Abbott’s speech. He says that we are sending our troops into harms way to enable the Afghan nation to choose what it right for itself, the nation being the sum of its people. The only problem with that premise is that they have already done that and its produced a corrupt government that is either or both unwilling or unable to respect basic human rights in particularly basic human rights towards women.

      Now onto another country where the people should be able to choose what is right for them. We have a broken two dominated parliamentary system in this country that is screaming out to be reformed and a situation where big business campaign contributions dictate policy and leglislative outcomes over the votes and the will of the people.

      I think I know which country should be able to shaped and ruled by the will of its people first.

      Its this one.

      Reply

    • OriginalAussie says:

      07:16am | 20/10/10

      Oh NO, 10 more yrs of this crazy war? 10 more yrs of Afgan boat ppl; it’s Vietnam all over again.  There should be a moratorium on this subject;

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      08:17am | 20/10/10

      Afghanistan is not a war, it’s a presence.  The troops are there to provide some stability whilst low lever, on the ground, negotiations are undertaken.  At least that is the way it should be and if those negotiations are not taking place, we are simply wasting our time and money with so little troops.  The US have proven time and time again that brute force cannot win these types of conflicts.  Britain and Australia (hopefully) understand that these conflicts are won over cups of tea.

      Reply

    • PaulB says:

      08:56am | 20/10/10

      This is not something decided by our Government, it is something decided away from our shores and then sold to us by the traitors that pass for our Government.  There was no debate on the issue there was a wall of bipartisanship intended to stifle debate.  Our Government is not governing for us.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      09:40am | 20/10/10

      At least they’ve stopped using the recycled rhetoric of the war on terror and now justify the military presence as being a training / mentoring one.

      But that just confirms for me we have to withdraw.

      Last time the US and UK went to Afghanistan, the people they trained ended up becoming the Taliban. So what’s going to become of the Northern Alliance? We’re going to end up arming and training another Taliban. They need to break the dangerous cycle of arming the very people who end up shooting those weapon at them.

      You look at Iraq - ‘farming equipment’. The US sent them ‘farming equipment’. Like flamethrowers. And tanks. Because you need a tank to pull a plough. Bill Hicks said it best, they didn’t push into Baghdad after liberating Kuwait because they were waiting for the cheques to clear! They knew how good their weapons are because they still had the reciepts!

      Then they go to Afghanistan, and they’re suprised at how good the Taliban are at hiding and fighting… because they taught them how! US Special Forces, UK intelligence, hiding out there in turbans through the 80s, teaching them all the tricks in the book. And then acting suprised when those same skills are used against them. IED construction was taught to the mujahedeen by the US as a cheap and efficent means of stopping Soviet vehicles. So the Soviets took to the air, and the US gave them Stinger surface to air missiles and rocket propelled grenades. Now no one else showed up in a helicopter for 12 years - and we’re suprised when the Taliban still have all these weapons to shoot at the new invaders?

      And Australia, we’re just as bad as them! Look at all those guys we trained in East Timor who end up taking to the hills, or Fiji. You know why the Fijian Army is so good at coups? We taught them! Solomon Island militias? We taught them! PNG raskols? We taught them too! We probably even gave them their bad arse name!

      One time, my girlfriend threw a punch at me because I hadn’t washed the towels. I noticed how piss weak it was, and concerned for her safety should she ever need to defend herself, I spent hours teaching her how to throw a punch.

      And then next time I didn’t pack the dishwasher, I lost a tooth. That’s the ultimate lesson in geo politics. If we all stopped teaching violent people how to be more violent there would be less violence.

      Reply

    • Ken Maynard says:

      09:45am | 20/10/10

      We cannot win in Afghanistan merely by engaging terrorism (what-ever that might be) We can only win by constructive engagement with Islam itself.

      As secular Australia is not an agent of God, (it does not assume the title ~defender of the faith~) it can only engage crime (terrorism or human rights abuses)  The secular state has neither the instruments nor the authority with which it can engage a religion which is wrong in God.  In sum, this war is external to the jurisdictions & powers of a secular state.  Like it or not, it falls solely under the dominions of God.

      Victory in the Middle East, cannot be obtained by secular means, it can only be obtained by Christian means.  Yet so long as the west disdains Christianity in favor of secularism it has no choice but to engage by secular instruments alone.  In this, Islam has not defeated the west; the west has surrendered itself & all that we stand for by its rejection of the Christian faith.


            Ken Maynard….   
      Link to Home-page…. http://www.communichristi.org.nz 
          Use a Firefox or Safari Webb-browser for full use of this site.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      10:50am | 20/10/10

      The scary part is the psychos who started the war actually agree with you.

    • Ken Maynard says:

      11:06am | 20/10/10

      If you do not know where you are going you are just lost in the woods.  The goal posts keep moving in the Afghan campaign, because no one has any clear idea on its objectives.

      The politicians say we are there to fight terrorism not Islam; yet anyone with any knowledge of Islam knows terrorism & Islam’s general campaign of conquest & subjugation is virtually a homogenous whole. 

      There is no defined boundary where terrorism ends & Islam begins; if you are fighting one you are fighting both.  As someone said in a debate on Afghanistan a week back, to define a boundary you must first invent a ~moderate Muslim~ & the Quran allows no such Muslim to exist.  Individual Muslim’s might like to be, as so many basically decent humans do; BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED.

      We need to abandon the political correctness & ask exactly why are we there?  If it is in fact a war with Islam, then at least we have a defined goal.  We can then assess the relative merits of whether we should continue to pursue it or not, while at the moment we are trying to assess the merits of a mindless muddle.

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:51pm | 20/10/10

      Scary thing is - he’s allowed to vote :(

    • Mick Newman says:

      02:16pm | 20/10/10

      Fortunately only in NZ (I hope..)

    • Gregg says:

      11:10am | 20/10/10

      It would seem our politicians are going to be out with the tin of gloss for talking of being there until 2014 or for another ten years is all moot for the only reason we went there in the first place was at the behest of the US.
      Sure, the 911 attack was something that needed to be addressed and recognition of our ANZUS alliance may have been a reasonable basis to helping out in disposing of the Taliban in search of Osama and other culprits.
      But given that we are only told what the pentagon and CIA etc. wanted to have released to the media and that the Saudis [ where the bulk of the 911 terrorists initially came from ] were not to be offended, even whilst they run their country rather brutally, is the full truth of whay we are still there known or does our alliance take us along as a shadow for a force that knows what it is really about.

      Our leaders are damm cowards if they are not prepared to say we are in Afghanistan to support the US for there may be a time when we woulkd like their support under the ANZUS alliance.
      John Howard stated that very clearly, even if he did not relish it for putting it another way, if we were to come under attack ourselves, depending on who the attacker was, we would be unable to defend ourselves very well.

      So parliament should save all the gasbagging on whether we should be there or not and for how long for if the US decide they want out or Obama wants a big scale down occurring throughout 2011 and 2012 before he goes for re-election himself as he has indicated, then you can look at NATO forces too saying this is too far away for us to be interested just as the Dutch already have.

      Is it any wonder that Karzai has been attempting to get talks going with the Taliban for months now? and Gillard cracks a real funny in relying on his advice for his government has very little control outside of Kabul and not too much there either, one of the reasons you have got various military presences all around the country.

      As for the implosion in Pakistan, you do wonder just how much thay debate based on what various advisors have told them or whether they do any decent research themselves for the NW frontier of Pakistan as it is known has been a region the Pakistani government has always left to itself, the Wild West of digital dates you could say and the Badlands of the WW and all for good reason and that’s it is mountainous inhospitable country that means the people who inhabitat it are going to be rugged and tough, having a law unto themselves and generally these people will be poorer and stick more together, the border with Afghanistan being just a line on a map they may have not even seen for it came about when the Brits carved up the sub continent, they having had a few wars themselves in the region.
      Thus the regions astraddle the border have been home to various tribes that loosely form the Pashtuns, they being the higher % of Afghanis and also of their poor and the Mujahadeen and now the Taliban.
      Drive them into the mountains and where will they end up >>>>>> NW frontier of Pakistan for it’s the NE Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan, part of their home turf you could say.
      It was only when the US applied significant pressure to Pakistan that they attempted some forays into the region and then in recent times we had the Taliban reacting further into Pakistan.
      Some partial peace seems to have ensued with both forces pulling back some.

      But the only reason there will be more Taliban presence in Pakistan is if the pressure is ramped up on the other side of the mountains.
      That may get eased off if Karzai gets his talks going anywhere but it could be the Taliban will play their waiting game, perhaps much as could have occurred with the Vietnam peace talks in Paris.
      One side shows its hand and the other sees a weakness!

      If Obama gets his wishes fulfilled and especially if Osama can be captured or confirmed killed, you might even see Aussies out before 2014 and Afghanistan will be left again to itself just as Iraq will be. 

      It is far more important to Australia for some sensible debate to occur on
      . Saving billions with the NBN
      . Stopping people smuggling with no onshore detention and establishing a UNHCR sponsored refugee centre somewhere offshore.
      . Water resources and more dams/hydro in New England ranges to feed the headwaters of the Murrumbidgee.
      . Decentralisation
      . Nuclear PSs
      . Nuclear weapons for defence.

      Reply

    • Ken Maynard says:

      02:00pm | 20/10/10

      This is probably my last input into the Afghan debate, not least because Blogs have a limited circulation, & no point in endless repeats.

      I find the debate on Afghanistan depressing, not least because those who want to exit are as confused & dis-unified as those who want to stay.

      Those who want to stay often have a good & creditworthy program on paper, unfortunately it seems to bear little relevance to realities on the ground.

      Those who want to exit have no credible policy for dealing with the consequences of doing so, & consequences there will surely be.

      This is not Vietnam where we could exit & Vietnam would not follow us to our place.  True, many of the hill billies are just localized feuding factions with little interest beyond their own small turf.  Yet terrorism is internationalized by Islamic organizations & extensive links with organized crime.  Both of which have fifth columns through-out the world, including the ability to project their might into our countries.

      Diverting off to the supposed threat of China seems pointless.  True all great powers indulge in military adventurism & always have.  Yet China is more concerned with the growth of prosperity at the moment, & for that it needs world trade.  It would fight a war in its immediate interests if it had to, but I cannot see it going for military adventurism any time soon.  Anything is possible in the future, but I see no immediate threat.

      One commentator wants to get rid of AU tanks as a waste of money because they cannot be used in Afghanistan.  This presumes they would be of no use in a place like Iraq, or in a defensive role in AU.

      Another says I am the same as the psycho’s who started this war.  Perhaps so, but will they kindly articulate a coherent alternate because we have a problem to manage.

      Another advocates nuclear weapons for AU.  AU authorities are currently convening a court martial over a few civilians killed in a confused fire-fight in the dark.  I am not sure how Gregg thinks he can unleash nukes on tens of millions indiscriminately.

      Even the US is baulking at the prospect of using nukes against the ranting lunatic & aggressive military machine that runs Iran.

      WWII had clear reverses, victories & policies to pursue.  Afghanistan is nine years old, no clear reverses, no clear victories, no clear policies if we remain, & judging from the confusions of this debate, no coherent policy to pursue if we withdraw. 

      On this note, I withdraw from further debate on Afghanistan, where few parties in the west can agree on anything… muddle & confusion will continue to reign over us.

      My heartfelt prayers for the troops on the ground.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      03:54pm | 20/10/10

      That’s laughable Kennie, like you do not like other fews so you’re going to clam up and look I hadn’t even seen a prior post of yours as being relevant and not where the pyscho label lies but seeing as you have mentioned me and takem something out of context I’ll answer some of your queries.
      First off, justification for what occurred in Vietnam is very questionable and terrorism is something else, to the extent you could even put that label on the US for Vietnam, SBS just last night having My Lai featured, a significant ammount of internal terrorism having occurred in many colonies by the likes of France and the UK over many decades/centuries, absolute massacres just as occurred with indigenous people here in Australia, the Israelis post WW2 ironically were considered terrorists in Palestine as it was then and many were executed by the Brits.
      The carve up of the middle east and sub continent post WW1 promoted significant terrorism style conflict too, so it may just come down to the times and who sees themselves as the attacked or slaughterers.
      You seem to be able to take ” . Nuclear weapons for defence. ”
      and turn it into
      ” I am not sure how Gregg thinks he can unleash nukes on tens of millions indiscriminately. ” , so perhaps you do in deed suffer from some sort of pyschosis and missed earlier that I had put
      ” Our leaders are damm cowards if they are not prepared to say we are in Afghanistan to support the US for there may be a time when we would like their support under the ANZUS alliance.
      John Howard stated that very clearly even if he did not relish it, for putting it another way, if we were to come under attack ourselves, depending on who the attacker was, we would be unable to defend ourselves very well. “

      And putting it another way for you Ken, what Howard means is that Australian governments do not mind remaining under the thought of the US umbrella offering us protection if it comes to pass we may need it, hence maintaining the alliance especially seeing as the US is the or has been the globally dominant military power courteously so to a large extent because of its nuclear arsenal.
      You may be well versed enough in history Ken to realise that empires come and go and perhaps it is not always going to be the best of defence policies to rely on the same strong friend, hence my suggestion of having our own nuclear deterrent.

      Nuclear weaponry can take many formats and so we should be very clear that unleashing nuclear warfare indiscriminately is your mind set and far from my own.
      And it need not just be nuclear weaponry for have a think of how many radar operated missile stations could be established on Australian soil in place of the $$$billions of defence spending on planes and warships not to mention overseas deployment, how many remote surveillance/armed drones could be in operation helping to protect Australia.
      Of course some aircraft and warships are desirable but the operating and replacement costs should be continually reviewed against operating needs and effectiveness.
      I for one do not say there is not going to be a role for tanks in future warfare but with the potency of portable and even man held weaponry, they could be somewhat sitting ducks just as many water based craft could be.

      As for alternatives to handling terrorists, there are many and if the money spent on forays onto foreign soils was devoted to furthering what is already happening with detection you may well find that just like the US has not had an attack since 2001, we could continue to exist in relative peace.
      In addition you may want to have an international agreement or at least whatever countries want to agree on committing to rapid deployment specialist assault forces based in various countries so deployment is in deed rapid and appropriate support is provided for both insertion and extractions.
      Together with surveillance you could use such forces to take out terrorist training bases and even the likes of pirates.
      It is not a new concept for the Israelis used that approach re the airliner hijack in Entebbe was it many years ago, so with advances in all areas, you could put together a good force.
      Rotating your normal military people in and out of such a force would then allow similar units to be established in the agreeing countries homelands.

      That will be far better than attempting regime change for we have seen how successful that is in Vietnam by two powers, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan by two powers in the past half century.
      There was no regime change targetted in the Balkans and it was essentially gaining military submission to cease hostilities, ironically against muslims and the politics have now been allowed to determine the future.
      But you go and play with yourself now Kennie.

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      05:29pm | 20/10/10

      Okay lets put things in perspective. War is complex and there is no easy solution right? Look at page 31 of the daily Telegraph today. taxpayer subsidised uni nursing grads can’t get jobs when there is a very great nursing shortage, also thanks to the ALP we have the 1st generation of unemployed doctors in a country with a doctor shortage. If they can get domestic policy so wrong I have little faith in Gillard getting anything right overseas. A pseudo PM with pseudo ideas, we are doomed. Good nite!

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

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