Should Rudd pull us out of Afghanistan?

Eric says:

03:27am | 22/06/10

The above quote shows that you don’t know anything about the military or its purposes.

Nigel Catchlove says:

07:09am | 22/06/10

“A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living.”  -  John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
The above quote should explicitly determine (whatever that means) why Australians should not weakly hide behind pseudonyms to respond to complex arguments with simple, mindless, irrelevant quotes.

The only helpless pawns in Afghanistan are the people born there who have lived a lifetime under oppressive Taliban rule.

Jon says:

08:46am | 22/06/10

The above quote tells you a lot more about Henry Kissinger, than the Military.

Scot says:

10:55am | 22/06/10

War is a racket. We have some of the best fighting men in the world. You are one sick person, and should go and see a specialist. It just shows how ignorant you are of the need to put these mad ideological dogs down to stop the spread of rabies around the world. They are killing their own people. And many of the dogs that have been rounded up have come from other countries like Saudi Arabia, UK, USA, Australia etc. Now they spreading their disease in Yemen. In Afghanistan it is the Taliban dogs that must be muzzled.

Ryan says:

11:23am | 22/06/10

I would fight in a war, I would be right behind our prime minister.. he goes first.

Ken Robinson says:

11:51am | 22/06/10

US leader Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere.” The underlying sadness of terrorism is that it appears where it is least expected. It utilizes no logic, no cause and effect in determining its victims. The goal of terrorism is subjugation of any group unsubscribed to the ideals.

Eliminating it now will prevent the lose of Australian lives later. It is a just fight.

mystery says:

08:59pm | 22/06/10

lets get our troops out of Afganistan
you cannot kill all the terrorist sitting in the agansitan
let them take care of themselves
troops are not need there any more - if they are for how long for how long

Molly Daveson says:

04:27pm | 23/06/10

If they pull out of Afganastan now the result will be that we will very shortly fight this war on Australian soil. Not only will we fight those from afar but those already enconsed safely via Rudds free passage. What a joke we are to those who outnumber us greatly. Thankfully those responsible for this situation have children so it will not just be the everyday citizen who pays.

Dan says:

06:02pm | 23/06/10

Molly Daveson, to blame Rudd’s immigration policies is a joke, and to imply that some of the refugees are sleepers is not only ignorant but incredibly offensive. It’s also paranoid.

Heather says:

11:28am | 08/03/11

The might of the Russian army could not Tame Afghanistan what makes the US think they can ?

If it were an all out ‘war’ maybe but appears just pot shotting at each other and many wonderful young men+womens lives being lost.  Too many bring ‘em home.

In vain does valour bleed !

Shifter says:

01:47pm | 22/06/10

They seem to benefit a lot more from this than us though.

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

11:20pm | 21/06/10

The Taliban helped to train the Bali bombers with over 100 Ausie dead. Isn’t it better to take the battle to them rather to let them come here?

Chris says:

01:35am | 22/06/10

I think the invasion of Afganisation was warranted as well as our involvement. The Taliban were knowingly harboring terrorist entities performing attacks on Australian allied countries, seems like a pretty good case to honor a military alliance to stop this from happening in the future. Iraq on the other hand…..

PaulB says:

05:35am | 22/06/10

For Heaven’s sake Robert, you don’t seriously believe that spoon-feeding Murdoch line anymore do you?  Do you really think it was all that simple?

John A Neve says:

07:21am | 22/06/10

Robert,
It is no good living in the past, the Germans and Japanese killed more Australians than the terrorists. Yet we buy their cars, sell them our goods and claim to be mates!!

Regarding the question in the article; No, Rudd should pull our ADF people out. Then spend some money on the rehabilitation of Afghanistan.

Tim says:

07:58am | 22/06/10

@ John A Neve

You may have also noticed that the Japanese & Germans formally surrendered and ended hostilities. When the Taliban/terrorists (yes they’re co-operating with each other so I draw no distinction between the two) do the same, then we can pull out of Afghanistan.

Paratrooper says:

11:21am | 22/06/10

Afghanistan was never a threat to Australia. If anything we are less safe now than we were pre-invasion, because now we are percieved as anti-muslim and the more extremist clerics hate us. Soldiers generally go overseas for money and professional credibility, rather than noble intent. Only the most brainwashed protaginist could ever seek to link the Afghanistan campaign with our sovereign defence. A military victory is simply not possible there, as demonstrated by 500 years of nearly coninuous warfare in the region.

Sam says:

07:16pm | 22/06/10

everyone knows about the war machine and how they set it up to make money, lets end the war and concentrate on a better life

Noname says:

11:54am | 24/06/10

I strongly agree with Dale Colbeck. Afghanistan wasn`t our problem, therefore we shouldn`t have invaded unless Bin laden attacked Australia.
NOW that Afghanistan is unstable because of all the troops went from America/Australia and other countries. They are our responsibility . Before the invasion of Afghanistan Taliban murdered millions of Afghans whom were shia muslims and from particular ethnic group of Afghanistan.Can you image what would happen if troops left Afghanistan now. Millions of innocent people would be killed and we would be responsible for the murders of those innocent people.

Ben says:

08:43am | 22/06/10

Very good point Tim! Comparing our enemies of the world wars to the terrorists of todays age is both stupid and simplistic

John A Neve says:

11:07am | 22/06/10

Ben,
Tell us what is “stupid and simplistic” about the comparison?
To the best of my knowledge the terrorist have never attack Australia and until we got ourselves involved, I doubt they would have even thought about Australia. But now we have stuck our noses into the issue, who knows?

Luke says:

11:17am | 22/06/10

John A Neve - We are allies of the United States. Did 9/11 shock you? Did it make you wonder if we were going to be next? If Australia was under attack would you expect United States to ignore us and say Oh! we don’t want to get involved, you can defend yourselves in case we become a target. Get in the real world.

coldsnacks says:

01:21pm | 22/06/10

John:

ANZUS 1950.

That is all.

James1 says:

01:44pm | 22/06/10

coldsnacks, ANZUS was signed in 1951.  Also, it applies only to attacks on the parties (but not New Zealand) in “the Pacific area”.  Also, it contains no guarantee that the US would defend Australia.  Only that they would act with us to “meet the common threat” in “accordance with their constitutional processes”.  No common threat, no assistance.  No Congressional or presidential agreement, no assistance.  That is “the real world”, Luke.  A robust, independent defence capability is the only option for Australia in “the real world”, and as far as Australia’s territorial defence is concerned, ANZUS is pretty much worthless. 

Besides which, there are many other far more compelling reasons to fight the war in Afghanistan than some old piece of paper.

John A Neve says:

03:01pm | 22/06/10

Luke,
Based on the actions of the United states in the last 20 years, I am not proud of the fact that we are their ally.
“Did 9/11 shock you?”, yes it did but so did yesterdays air crash, I fail to see the relevance.
“If Australia was under attack”, depending on who the attacker was? I have no idea what America would do.
As to the “real world”, Luke, WW2 was half over before America declared it’s hand and that was only after they were attack. I’d suggest it is you who should get into the “real world”.

JR says:

05:27pm | 22/06/10

James1 I’m pretty sure I have read you trumpet on about asylum seekers are not illegal due to international law, from an agreement also signed in 1951. Article II in the ANZUS treaty is what is relevant to Afghanistan.

James1 says:

05:46pm | 22/06/10

That all parties must engage in self help and mutual aid?  Irrelevant, as it requires nothing of us technically.  Much more relevant are Australia’s current strategic interests.  Jim Molan is interesting to read on those issues.

Also, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants under Australian law as well.

Roja says:

06:27pm | 22/06/10

There were certainly Australians in the twin towers that died, despite what we might say about the US - they are our strongest Ally and I certainly feel safer in a world with them than without them.  Ergo when 9/11 happened the majority of Australians were in favour of attacking terrorism at it’s central HQ, which at the time was Afghanistan.  In fact it was over 70% in favour.

Regardless of what has turned out since, we as a nation willingly joined the fight in Afghanistan and what you start, you should always finish. 

To John a Neve, WWII was not ‘half over’ when the US joined the fight, courtesy of mistakes by Japan and Germany (one to attack, the other to declare war in conjunction with Japan).  France was still occupied and the British were most certainly on the back foot.  Importantly Russia was also on the back foot and had they fallen, the German army would have easily held France.  While I don’t agree that the US won the war in Europe - 21million dead Russians have to this day failed to receive the credit they deserve - they certainly bailed our arses out in the pacific theatre.  The amount of Americans that died each day in that fight still outnumbers the total we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.  They took a while to join, but when they did they didn’t do it by halves.  Their sacrifice should be remembered as dearly as our own soldiers on ANZAC day.

While it is tragic that more soldiers have died, they did so believing they were making a difference there. I agree with them, since they are the ones whose life is on the line.

John A Neve says:

06:27am | 23/06/10

Roja,
To the best of my knowledge WW2 went from 1939 - 1945. America entered the war in December 1941, after being attacked.
I rest my case.

Roja says:

01:46pm | 23/06/10

John, if the US had not of entered the war… it would not have finished in 1945.  Although that said if it was over by 1945, it would have been because we lost.

If you are resting your case, I happily accept your surrender.

Othello Cat says:

06:45pm | 23/06/10

James 1, comments like coldsnacks’ are indicative of the common public misperception of the ANZUS Treaty.  There is a prevailing popular (or populist) belief that our white big brothers across the pond are duty-bound to gallop like knights in shining amour rescue Damsel Australia from the hoardes of envious swarthy villans (see Zaf’s fantasy below) who, as we all know, cannot contain their lust for fair-haired maidens. 

Repeat after me, boys and girls: the ANZUS treaty is not binding. 

I just wish they’d teach school kids this to save on setting the record straight to the ignorant masses.

MJ says:

08:18pm | 22/06/10

So why are our boys there?? Pull them out for gods sake. This is going nowhere.

Jon says:

08:57am | 22/06/10

Well many people in Muslim countries think Al-Qaeda exists and many Muslims in the west think it exist. And are acting based on its agenda.

Matt says:

10:50am | 22/06/10

@Jon

Of course they are… The Wahhabist sect of Islam which is backed by the West.

The West create their own enemies to justify their existence in countries that have no ability whatsoever to attack the US.

Russia, China etc have the ability but not the will or agenda and they are left well alone. It only shows that Australian foreign policy is holding onto the pocket lining of the bully thumping USA who arms the nation first and when the bank cheque clears they invade.

Jon says:

11:47am | 22/06/10

Matt@ having lived Saudi in the 80’s the Wahhabist had same agenda then as they do now, to spread their religious crap around the world. I was not surprised when read that they had funded 9/11.  The problem for the Americans is the Saudi Royal family that runs Saudi Arabia controls the Military but not education system, which is sadly run by the religious nuts and who would like to get rid of the Royal family. The Amercians and us need the oil so we are back to rock and hard place.

Regarding the CIA funded and trained the Mujahadin to fight the Soviets? Some funds came from the Saudis and some from the CIA. CIA money was found by right Christian Senators who felt they were fighting a holy war against the Atheist, Socialist, Soviets.

It would have been better for all of us if had not bothered.

Macon Paine says:

11:50am | 22/06/10

@ Matt
“Bali Bombings happened after the invasion….
The Taliban had nothing to do with it and you have 0 proof.”
I cant find any post by him where he states they did.
“Are you at all concerned that during the 1980’s the CIA funded and trained the Mujahadin to fight the Soviets?”
Im aware of various countries (including Saudi Arabia and even Israel) funding their jihad against the soviets. Can you prove they where trained by the CIA? And what is your point? Why should people be so concerned about this?
“Are you at all concerned that Obama’s advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski posed with Bin Laden? Google Zbigniew Brzezinski + bin laden
Here’s Ziggy saying to them that there cause is just:”
No. I dont see where your going with this. But I did find this link from your suggested google search: http://911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_and_Brzezinski
This link seems to indicate that the man in the photo is not even Bin Laden. Which would make sense considering there is no evidence Bin Laden was ever in the pakistani army. Or do you have evidence he was?
And yes fighting communism is a just cause.
“We’re in Afghanistan because of 9/11 ok? Not Bali.”
Seems about right.
“Al-Qaeda is a myth, it doesn’t exist as a physical entitiy and only exists in name only and propped up by Western and Eastern propaganda.”
Care to source this claim? So its a big conspiracy between western and eastern intelligence agencies to promote the myth of al-queda?
“Al-Qaeda means ‘The base, the toilet’ in Arabic. It’s our Goldstein to scare us into submission.”
It means “the base”, I dont know where you get “the toilet” bit from. Goldstein? What are you on about?
“Support the troops, f**k the war.”
Nice throw away slogan. I doubt you support the troops either.

Matt says:

12:27am | 23/06/10

@Macon Paine

My father was in the Air Force, his mate in the Army and I know of several friends in the Navy.

Cut the b/s.

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

12:59pm | 22/06/10

Well said, a little bit of sanity at last.

Roja says:

06:30pm | 22/06/10

Hear hear Matty, well said

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

01:05pm | 22/06/10

I have to disagree with you Ian, quite a few of my Afghani friends are considering going home due to the efforts of our diggers, so NO they don’t hate us, most would like to be safe, that’s all.

Tony says:

09:20pm | 22/06/10

Read todays news (NOT Murdoch ) on Afghanistan:
Fighting between Generals and White House, Surge petering out and so on.
The real problem is Pakistan so unless you are across the geopolitics of the REGION don’t comment if you are not a senior member of the CIA or Pakistani Intelligence you don’t know and we have parrots to squawk the official US/Aust line..

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:35am | 22/06/10

Christian Real :  Rudd holds the office that decides the issue of our involvement in Afghanistan , for 2.5 years he has had the power to bring our troops home , but Labor firmly agrees with our presence in Al-Qaeda land and so do i.
Your attempt to cast blame when the going gets tough is sickening in this instance , instead of supporting our troops you resort to an act that is tatamount to desertion in the face of fire.
This is a bi-partisan issue Christian , let’s keep it that way.

Lee from WA says:

10:20am | 22/06/10

How about we do forget King Richard and his Crusades because they have absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan.

If Australia chickens out when we lose 16 Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, I wonder how we’ll if we are ever required to make a large-scale deployment of regular forces anywhere in the world? We didn’t enter any of the wars we’ve fought with assurance of victory, or a clear objective beyond ‘beating the other guys’, or any of the things we’re demanding of our governments now. You fight because it is right not because it is easy.

PeterB says:

11:55am | 22/06/10

Greg,
have a look at the Crusades? You mean the push-back against Islamic Jihad from the 11th to 15th centuries?

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Christian Europe learnt the style of religious Holy War from Islam.

Bruce says:

04:17pm | 22/06/10

Lee WA: Agree.  I do not want to see Australia or Australian troops as being part of a withdrawal…..for the want of a better word. I do not want to see Australia compared with some of the other gutless nations who “withdrew” just because things became a bit tough. Why is it always left up to the USA and the Brits to do all the dirty work ?

Roja says:

06:42pm | 22/06/10

I once thought there was some merit in the Crusades comparison - they were implemented due to attacks on religious (Christian) pilgrims in the area (the Muslim interpretation of “innocent” only applies to Muslims, so they were not protected by the word of the Koran). 

Of course that was where it began, what it ended up as was a complete over response, a land grab with a massive slaughter of both Muslims and Jews, and then eventually Orthodox Christians as they started to fight each other when they all lost the plot.

They did leave a lasting impression though, you still hear reference to invading soldiers as ‘crusaders’.  I imagine sealing innocent muslims and jews inside their places of worship and then burning them to the ground does that. 

However this is where the argument falls to pieces.  This is not a war between religious entities (the Pope, Orthodox Christians and the Muslim world), this is a war between (mostly) secular governments and a religious based terrorist organisation.

Sally says:

08:01am | 22/06/10

WKH,
I assume if the cat had kittens it would be 100% attributable to Rudd as well.  Howard committed our troops.  They are still there with bipartisan support (bipartisan, get it, both parties agree).  Why make this topic the forum for your anti-Rudd views?  I suppose you agree with Tuckey’s sentiments regarding the aircrash in the Congo as well.  Some people…...........

Doh says:

08:58am | 22/06/10

Hey, are you trying to link me to Rudd??

On topic though, I could not agree more.  Th Wall Street Journal says it best:

“Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311011923686570.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_2

Adam Diver says:

11:27am | 22/06/10

@ Doh, that is the most succinct quote I have read about the troubles the west is facing. I won’t even comment on it as I won’t add anything to it, just hope people read it and really think about it.

Jon says:

02:17pm | 22/06/10

Doh@ Thank you for your comment. Hear Hear!

Dan says:

09:57am | 23/06/10

Doh, that quote was tyoical of the WSJ’s ignorance. We aren’t winning in Afghanistan, not because we aren’t using use our full military might but because we did not understand, just like wih Vietnam, that some wars are unwinnable and military might isn’t everything.

Greg says:

11:36am | 22/06/10

Exactly Woff and why Lee from WA misses out on how attempts to impose your power on others will not always end with a peaceful outcome even as far back as King Richard’s crusade days Lee.

Joan says:

07:59am | 22/06/10

10 Years in Afghanistan and in that time there have been terrorist attacks around the world- how is it that Afghansitan is repsonsible for this with USA and allies there? Afghani men flee and choose to seek haven in Australia- rather than fight for their rights, a democratic government and a better Afghanistan   Rudd provides clean bed and sheets, safety on arrival as he sends young Australian men to die in an unwinnable `war`.Obama shows no passion about this cause, neither do European leaders   or even Rudd.- you can’t win if you have no passion - Taliban has plenty of it and they will do anything to remove foreign armies from their land as did Viet Cong in Vietnam.  Bring the soldiers home, this is mindless loss of liife for little gain.

:grow up says:

09:59am | 22/06/10

@ ocean 4 Most of the young men arriving by boat do have the courage to fight for their own country in their homeland,why do you think they would help here,their only here for welfare benefits and are economic opportunists

Jon says:

09:16am | 22/06/10

Thank you John L, the Pollyanna’s think that if we leave all will be rosy. If Pakistan fails as country and the Islamist’s try to get an N-Bomb the resulting conflict would make Afghanistan look a picnic. Sadly we have no easy choices.

Greg says:

11:57am | 22/06/10

Depends on the view you want to take John for Obama’s latest surge war cry was we’ve not focused enough on getting Osama whether he be dead or alive.
That ghostly ghastly attempt which is including more attacks on civillians in the Pakistani NW frontier region border with Afghanistan will of course have the people of that region against the attackers.
It is a lawless region with a permeable border and Pakistan basically adopts the stance of letting the Taliban have their own turf.
The putting of pressure on the other side of the border has of course driven people further into Pakistan and Pakistan has copped more attacks because of that and also through reaction of attacks on people in Pakistan.
And Jon, Pakistan is choc a bloc full of Islamists already and also many in India who btw are getting considerable grief from Maoist terrorists too.
I suppose we can ask whether other than the Ghan and that name came from there being Afghani’s here in Australia driving Camels in the centre [ and why there’s so many camels about now ] prior to trains and modern transport, had we heard of too much trouble there before it became Moscow’s Vietnam?

Andy says:

09:57am | 22/06/10

I agree! They are trying to blow us up. Remember Bali? 22 Aussies killed and there would be more of us killed if we weren’t over there trying to stop them.Does anyone seriously believe that getting out of Afghanistan and letting the Taliban take over again is going to keep us safe here? Get real please!

Greg says:

12:07pm | 22/06/10

Don’t know what you believe about 911 Benny but a roll call of those involved in it might just say that it could have occurred with or without Afghanistan and nothing to say that it may not again given the perpetuation of hatred.
What do you propose?
A few dozen genocides?
Perhaps why there’s a good bio stockpile growing! 
And then those reds under the beds did not overrun the US after Vietnam did they?
And Andy, it was not the Taliban in Bali [ and about 88 Aussies died there btw ] but more your home grown thugs just like as in Spain, the UK and other attacks in Indonesia.

Manuel says:

09:12am | 23/06/10

Ben you’ve got it wrong…9/11 did NOT happen in Australia!!!!!!!!!!

or was the Rip Van Winkle Syndrome operating for you then??
What would you say to Afghan troops in the Northern Territory making sure that our indigenous brothers are being treated correctly & can self-govern in a “Territory” not a “State”???  Bring our troops home otherwise we shall all be subscribing to “Free funerals for our fallen troops” cause in fb.

Rob says:

12:06pm | 22/06/10

Well said Martin, spot on. As you quite rightly put it, this was simply a tragic accident in an operational area.  It could quite easily have happened here in Australia.

I too am a former commando from another army and another war and I know that these men are dedicated to the task. If you gave them the choice of pulling out tomorrow or staying the course and winning, I know what the answer would be, and it would be unanimous.

Seeing as most posters want to discuss the merits of our involvement, I’ll say this. Whether we were right or wrong to be there in the first place is a moot point.  What matters is what is happening there now and how we, as part of ISAF,  can win this war.

The real problem in Afghanistan for Australia, is that the pollies want to be seen to be doing something in the eyes of their allies, but are so risk adverse they try to limit casualties by putting in the bare minimum in terms of assets, i.e. troops and equipment. If we are truly committed to our role as part of ISAF, we should take up the void when the Dutch pull out of Oruzgan province and take responsibility for the province so that Australian troops are not reliant on our Allies to provide security and support. If we are not prepared to put in enough troops to secure and hold the province, we should pack up and go.

Lack of troops, equipment and political willpower is the real problem in Afghanistan for the coalition as a whole. All the military assessments have said the same thing, that ISAF does not have enough troops to take and hold ground. So the coalition will drive the Taliban out of an area, only to see them return as soon as the coalition leave at the conclusion of the operation. The current surge is doomed to fail because as soon as Obama announced it, he also announced a draw down (withdrawal) of US troops in 2011. The Taliban aren’t stupid, they know that they just have to be patient and the coalition will leave because we are not truly committed.

marley says:

10:09am | 22/06/10

I can’t make any comment on our level of military commitment in Afghanistan, because I know very little about it.  I do, however, know something about the social, tribal and religious rivalries and political undercurrents there, having spent time next door in Pakistan, gotten to know a lot of Afghans of one persuasion or another there, and having seen the attitude of the Pakistan government and especially the ISS to fundamentalists and the Taliban.

I think your analysis of the background to this is spot on.

Rob says:

12:16pm | 22/06/10

Great analysis Dave. I agree with nearly everything you say, though I think the answer is for us to get fair dinkum, deploy the resources we need to do the job and stop relying on SF for every task.

But, if we won’t do that, then yes, we might as well pack up our bongos and come home

Greg says:

12:26pm | 22/06/10

” If this is the case then it is better to hasten the conflict’s end by playing a greater role in stabilising Afghanistan and the region. “

Ha ha ha!, just like Vietnam eh!
But your real thought
” In the clash of titans it is wise that we pick a side and stick with them. Australia is too weak and irrelevant to project our views on shaping the world without big powers to back us (US, Great Britain). “
And maybe you’re just hoping we’ll have a big brother to protect us from being taken by others, all that coal and iron ore for a northern neighbour perhaps!

If or when push comes to shove, do you really think the UK could do a Falklands for us or the US would risk a nuclear stoush with a well equipped nuclear power to the north?.

Obama does not want to hang about in Afghanistan anymore than he has to and after his surge and finally declaring that Osama must be dead, they’ll be looking to leave and just like Iraq will fom its path with and in blood and guts [ again ] so will Afghanistan.

So Australia should not be pulling out just because three more soldiers have been killed but because there is no future in remaining there.

Greg says:

12:36pm | 22/06/10

As you say DJ, whilst you can predict the future it doesn’t always mean you’ll get it right and just because of being in Afghanistan doesn’t mean we’ll necessarily have help when/if the time comes.
Perhaps we should be putting all our Uranium to use in enriching it for ourselves and have a few nuke power stations and weapons!
Radar controlled missile bases all around our shorelines and whatever it takes.

DJ says:

02:13pm | 22/06/10

and as soon as we do that America will attack us, no there is no guarantee they will help if the time comes but you can bet anything if we pull out and don’t help them I can guarantee they WONT lift a finger

Andy says:

10:50am | 22/06/10

John Howard’s and the majority of the world Leaders in the western world. You reckon it would be better to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the western world isn’t at threat from terrorism? Don’t bother helping out our allies. 9/11 mean anything to you?

Steve says:

04:48pm | 22/06/10

People call it Al-CIA-da becaue they’ve bought in to the conspiracy theories that float around. Easy to believe that stuff if you sit in your cosy home in our sheltered society.
Travel a bit and you see that the world is a big, unfriendly place full of people who would love to take away your right to post your thoughts on sites like this. Travel in the middle east a bit, get to know the cultures and people who suffer under those regimes and you’ll understand why our troops are needed there.

Peasant #3167 says:

01:15pm | 22/06/10

I agree with your comment. When you see these boatloads of young men arriving here and yet we are sending our young men there. Why don’t they stay and fight?

DJ says:

02:15pm | 22/06/10

Then if they did that there would be another blog about how cruel they are to wipe out a nation, they can’t win either way

Dan says:

09:52am | 23/06/10

Well, maybe DJ because destroying a nation is genocide? How would you like it if Australia was destroyed?!

Markus says:

03:30pm | 22/06/10

“Terrorism is never stopped with overwhelming force” by definition, if the force did not stop it then the force issued was not overwhelming.

There are plenty of historical examples of terrorism being stopped with overwhelming force, including entire civilisations being wiped out.
Being able to lay claim to wiping out an entire nation was actually a mark of pride.

Times have changed though, and wiping out a whole civilisation is no longer a desired result for most nations.
We know that America has the capability to end the Afghani conflict with the press of a button, but choose not to.

Not saying they should, just that overwhelming force is not something that is seen too often nowadays.

TheRealDave says:

04:24pm | 22/06/10

“America then Invaded Iraq in Desert Storm, and didn’t bother to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq, but rather got control of the oil back then pulled out. “

Umm no.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US in Coalition with a number of Countries under the UN Banner kicked off Desert Shield then Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait. The US never intended to invade or oust Hussein. The UN never gave them the nod for that and the US followed UN directives.

It was the UN that let the situation in Iraq stagnate.

Despite years of screwing UN weapon inspectors around, violating No Fly Zones and systemically slaughtering the Marsh Arabs, Kurds, political opponents, despite sanctions etc the UN did squat. The US was always going to have to stick the boot into Saddam sooner or later….I was suprised they waited so long to be honest. So yes, they talked about it prior to 9/11. Hell, they were talking about it since 92. No surprise there.

Badger says:

02:19pm | 22/06/10

James1,
                Not “uncivilised”.  but unreal, if there is such a word, would you like to be ruled by people that think that way.  It’s just another Religion, and we have enough of them around.as it is now..
  More people have been killed in the name of Religion or Religeous beliefs, than any wars ever.
If you think their way, go and live with them then, I am not sending my son to fight for their Islamic beliefs, I don’t have a belief, I treat all people the same as long as they do not try and tell me what to think, believe, and do.  Full Stop

James1 says:

03:05pm | 22/06/10

To put it a little more simply, Badger, I do not mean that Islamic regimes are civilised (by Western standards), but that attitudes like some of those displayed here are equally barbaric and uncivilised.

Paul C says:

09:05pm | 22/06/10

I’m with you Steve, I don’t remember anyone asking for the Humanitarian effort to end in Indonesia after the tragic crash of RAN Helicopter Shark 02 in Nias Island. RIP to the 9 ADF servicemen and women who were killed in 2005.

Consider the day that our shores do need protecting, do you expect to magic up well skilled and experienced soldiers from a militia?

Our people are doing great work and one day, we will get some positive reporting to reflect this!

James1 says:

12:15pm | 23/06/10

An robust independent defence capability is our only option Zaf.  The idea that by paying the premium on the so-called “insurance policy” of ANZUS the US will defend us is a pipe dream.  If an invasion or attack on Australia does not affect the US, the US will do nothing to help.  Seems cold, I know, but these are the realities of international politics.  We live in a self help system, and the only reason we have not been attacked so far is because no one has the ability to attack us, and that has nothing to do with the US.

Zaf says:

04:44pm | 23/06/10

Arguable, but just by existing ANZUS makes such an attack much less likely.  Most countries (all of them, in fact, except for North Korea) would think twice before risking war with the US.  Even China isn’t eager for that.  And it is in the US’ interest to make sure that its alliances are taken seriously as deterrents - because otherwise, who would bother?

It may be hard to stomach, but paying to be under the US security umbrella is still cheaper than developing and paying for a robust independent defence capability.  It diminishes our independence, but it helps us punch above our weight, so….it’s a matter of calculating the cost/benefit of it.  Not saying either way, just pointing out that there are both pros and cons to the current situations, not just cons.