What exactly are we aiming for in Afghanistan?

D Chung says:

09:01am | 27/08/10

Have you spoken to the mainstream citizens in Afghanistan?  Do they support their continued suppression under Taliban terrorists?  Would they enjoy a democratic life and freedom of association and act?  You only imagine the finer details of occupation.

With respect to Australia, what if the new occupiers determined ethnic cleansing was desirable?  No hills would protect you.  We have vast valuable resources, enviable lifestyle and physical country.

Without the most powerful ally in the world, we would not be here.

Bald Eagle says:

09:49am | 27/08/10

Once agin doing the bidding of a foreign overlord.

The Japanese would have rolled over our fathers and grandfathers if not for the “foreign overlord”.

You are either with us or against us. If you want to support the Taliban, ask David Hicks how to go about it. I’m sure he can tell you where to send those donations and how to sign up.

Carter Billingham says:

12:36pm | 27/08/10

We need to break ties with the US Redneck nation completely. Get out of Afghanistan - make sure we don’t get involved in the upcoming attacking on Iran. And start worrying about the top end of Australia.

Peter says:

03:05pm | 27/08/10

@ Bald Eagle. The Americans were here in WW2 to serve themselves. Any perception that they were here to save Australia is complete rubbish. We were a convenient base for them.

Even England weren’t interested in Australian soliders coming back to protect our homeland.

It is completely false to suggest the USA were here to protect Australians… There were always just looking after their own interests..

Let’s not re-write history and pretend that the USA came here to look after Australia. It was just by-product…

Peter says:

03:07pm | 27/08/10

@ Bald Eagle. The Americans were here in WW2 to serve themselves. Any perception that they were here to save Australia is complete rubbish. We were a convenient base for them.

Even England weren’t interested in Australian soliders coming back to protect our homeland.

It is completely false to suggest the USA were here to protect Australians… There were always just looking after their own interests..

Let’s not re-write history and pretend that the USA came here to look after Australia. It was just by-product…

Nick says:

08:45pm | 27/08/10

T , Chong, ur a armchair expert i actually work with up to 20 afghanis in Kabul who are happy that America and other countries are actually letting them have jobs , schooling and education for their kids , people like you really discust me sitting back writing about things you have no idea about , stop hugging trees and actually open your eyes, , does it make you wonder why there are virtually no attacks in Kabul , Its because the Afghanis there are educated have faciilities school etc where as in the poorer Tallban infested areas they have nothing.

Gregg says:

04:55pm | 28/08/10

Peter,
You do repeat yourself but just like Julia says moving forward repeatedly does not mean we will nor does your repeating mean what you say is any truer and you yourself have actually distorted words for
” The Japanese would have rolled over our fathers and grandfathers if not for the “foreign overlord”. “
is quite a bit different to
” The Americans were here in WW2 to serve themselves. Any perception that they were here to save Australia is complete rubbish. We were a convenient base for them.
It is completely false to suggest the USA were here to protect Australians… There were always just looking after their own interests.. “

Now sure they entered the war in the pacific because of the attack on Pearl Harbour but just how Australia would have fared against the Japanese without their entry into the conflict is another matter entirely.

And if by your statements including perception and suggestion you feel that an inference was made to what You describe, then your statements are total BS.

What is quite possibly beyond doubt is that we should be most thankful for the Americans being drawn into the conflict even if the cause of that drawing was not so desired.

Markd says:

12:02am | 29/08/10

What right do you think you have to say that? these brave boys are their to serve Australia regardless what race you may be yes you may have the right to have your say because australia is a place of peace! but will you fight for australia or your country of origin? I have served my son is serving and my father has served so do not dis respect our Boys!

RJP says:

04:18pm | 29/08/10

It’s not about the Afghans, Chongy…it’s about TERRORISM!!!  How would YOU feel if no other nation came to our aid in the event of a Terrorist invasion?  Do you honestly believe it will never happen here?  If you do, then you are VERY naive!!  We already have “sleepers” here and once they get the call to awaken, then I hope to God there are countries out there that will come and help us get rid of them!!  It’s about Global stability and if we can’t control it, we will have more and more ppl who will come to Australia seeking “asylum” and drain our resources….then we will have them fighting amongst themselves here…

thomas vesely says:

12:02pm | 31/08/10

“If Australia was invaded, and occupied”
i would ask john howard where the guns are?

Brian says:

04:24am | 28/08/10

So David, you have written just what I was looking for.
Do you really want to create another generation of Veterans’ who will spend the rest of their lives questioning themselves about their war, their abilities, their sacrifices, their being? The 508 KIA in Viet-Nam, plus the many DOW, WIA etc just listed as casualties, would argue with you, as would my many mates who have been involved in the War Against Terror “the medal clasp says ‘ICAT’ or INTERNATIONAL Coalition Against Terror”.
Yes, we went down a similar path in Viet-Nam, but the men and women who went came home to be under-appreciated for over 25 years. Take the Politicians out of the equation, and let the forces persecute their mission(s) - That’s their job. I proudly display several stickers, from my car to my laptop, imploring Australians to “Support Our Forces”!
I suggest you do the same

Samuel says:

10:49am | 27/08/10

You do realise that Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t the same place, right?

Phill says:

12:06pm | 27/08/10

How about the good and rational reason of helping people out of opression and teaching them about democracy?
You say 1,000,000 civilians dead.  I think you would be suprised how few of those deaths were caused by our side as opposed to the insurgents.

TheRealDave says:

01:38pm | 27/08/10

@Phill - less than 20% by most UN reports

John A Neve says:

01:52pm | 27/08/10

Phill,
To the families of those killed, does it matter who did the deed?
We did not go there to teach them about “democracy”, it was about WMD, remember?
But you tell me, are they anny better off?

John A Neve says:

02:31pm | 27/08/10

Samuel,
No, I did not know that, thank you for telling me. Pehaps you could tell me where we are?

PaulB says:

02:36pm | 27/08/10

Phill, we NEVER went to Iraq or Afghanistan for that reason.  That was a later justification from the professional liars of the media to feed us after the “WMD…Imminent attack” scare proved to be without foundation, as many of us suspected from the start.  Either your memory is short or your vision is blinkered.

John Adams says:

03:15pm | 27/08/10

@Phil
How about the good and rational reason of helping people out of opression and teaching them about democracy in Sudan?

We follow in the foot steps of the US, they aren’t there so why should we be?

Afghan and Middle Eastern initiatives that we are involved in is purely the BUSINESS of oil!

TheRealDave says:

04:02pm | 27/08/10

@John what oil would that be in Afghanistan?

So now its Oil, Gas and now trillions of dollars in minerals - just in this comments section alone.

You conspiracy nuts need to fine tune your performance, you’re all over the shop. Get together and workshop it out. Don’t come back to us till you have agree on what conspiracy theory it is.

LJ says:

01:14pm | 27/08/10

I’ve opposed every war Australia has been involved in in my lifetime, but in this case, I think we need to stay and fight. In fact, our presence there should be increased.

The Taliban is an organisation that right at this moment is threatening to kill apolitical humanitarian aid workers in neighbouring Pakistan who are trying to help the millions dispossessed by the floods. They would rather their kin died from natural disaster than be helped by the Western world. So they must have nothing but contempt for their own people, who they want living back in barbaric conditions under barbaric laws.

We can’t allow these backward regimes to flower for any longer. It’s hypocritical for us - who would be in the streets rioting if our leaders tried to make us live like people did 2000 years ago - to say it’s ok for another culture to subject its own people to such barbarism.

PaulB says:

02:41pm | 27/08/10

The Taliban were of no consequence to any of us until the Americans carried out their (preplanned before 911) attack on Afghanistan.  BTW, the Taliban largely eliminated the poppy fields claiming cultivation of drugs was “Unislamic”.  Under the US backed puppet regime poppy cultivation is at an all time high.  Can’t some of you people stop repeating crap you’ve read in Murdoch papers as though its some kind of gospel truth?  You know better from this truly abhorrent organisation.

AdamC says:

03:18pm | 27/08/10

Davido, I agree with your sentiments here, but the problem is that simply eliminating the Taliban is not a viable endgame - they will simply come back. Afghanistan needs the infrastructure, governance and institutions in place to repel the Taliban, or else we will keep sinking back into the quicksand.

In the past, of course, one would simply have made the country a protectorate and governed it directly. This strategy is now politically unfashionable, which leaves the western armies reliant on ineffectual and duplicitous locals to try to govern themselves. A feat which Afghanistan has not achieved, to my understanding, ever.

What baffles me is that the US continues to refuse to intervene directly in the governance of Afghanistan, despite being constantly criticised for being ‘imperialistic’. If you are going to be criticised for something, you may as well actually do it!

Davido says:

08:13am | 28/08/10

To eliminate the Taliban you need to destroy the factors that allow them to flourish. To my mind this includes:

- a deficient political and taxation system in Afghanistan;
- sympathetic, soft and compliant political states;
- cultural acceptance or tyrannical regimes both in Afghanistan and elsewhere (Pakistan for one!);
- drug money;
- religious based funding and schooling (read brainwashing); and
- the ready availability of arms.

Ultimately, as people have pointed out, you need to win over the hearts of the people. To do this you need to engage and embrace moderate Islam as a legitimate and beneficial religion. Only with the help of the moderate Muslim will you defeat the scourge that is the Taliban.

I would suggest that setting up and funding a school system (controlled from outside of Afghanistan) that taught moderate religious values would have at least as much impact on this issue as military action.

thomas vesely says:

11:22am | 27/08/10

spot on,

pmg says:

02:55pm | 27/08/10

Clearly some people will believe any nonsense the government feeds them. Anyone who thinks we are in Afghanistan to “help the people” is either delusional or mentally deficient. As has always been the case the war in Afghanistan is about securing access to resources. The pipeline from the Caspian Sea is what this war was always about - the US bases dotted along the proposed route says it all. Tommy Franks famously said that capturing Bin Laden was “not part of my mission” because he knew the score. The Saudis also treat their women with contempt and as third class citizens but since the oil flows freely there is no need to mention that as it would then be obvious to all what a sham it is to claim the war in Afghanistan is about US concern for the women of Afghanistan. Talk about gullible.

T.Chong says:

09:31am | 27/08/10

notsurprised: please use the opportunity to list some of the deeper reasons.

James1 says:

05:23pm | 27/08/10

Having a better reason to be there in no way increases our prospects of success.

Gregg says:

05:11pm | 28/08/10

Well Chongy,
Not that I’m not surprised but for starters have you ever thought of the word Strategy, like in Afghanistan being a strategic location to them.

Their intrusion was at a time before much more strife in their Stans provinces and sunsequent independence generally.

But from Afghanistan if they could have held on they would have been a lot closer to more oil fields and also not too much effort to convince Pakistan that some excising of relatively barren unpopulated territory may have been an appropriate guesture to give them Indian Ocean access.

Commercialising the Poppy industry and minerals development could have been a bonus.

Kordez says:

10:23am | 27/08/10

@Ray, there are women and men in Afganistan.

Sickemrex says:

11:11am | 27/08/10

Why do most debates on most forums end up degenerating to something bad to do with women?  There could be an article on here about endangered golden bell frogs in the Dominican Republic and someone would manage to bag out women in some way.

The author is right, the mixed messages from Canberra (ie we’re there to stop terrorists/liberate the people, it’s going ok/about right/don’t know) is making the loss of those people’s lives difficult to justify.

Ray Graham says:

12:37pm | 27/08/10

Kordez, it’s only the men dying,

Sickemrex, the reason is selective equality

I am sickened by the ambivalence to young men dying, their children being left, and the political expediancy in the reason. Aas well as a reluctance to give men the exclusive recognition when deserved. Their honour is undeservedly diluted.

Bring ‘em home.It’s n ot our fight.

Kordez says:

02:11pm | 27/08/10

@Ray, I’m no defence force strategist or mission analyst, but it makes sense for genetically fortunate male strength and durability to lead in the front line of our efforts in Afghanistan.
Just because a majority of males are found to be on the front line does not indicate a decline in value of tasks females continue to complete, they have accepted the same risk to their life just as any Australian trooper has, and man and woman work as a team to achieve the same result.
Therefore men and women is an appropriate phrase to pass when referring to achievements any Australian has made in his/her duties while serving in our defence force.
Passing sexist comments could only reduce the compassion any soldier deserves to receive if they were to die in battle.

Ray Graham says:

03:17pm | 27/08/10

How sweet Kordez, but the fact remains that it has always been men who make the ultimate sacrifice and women who seek the dis-proportion of recognition, thereby diluting where that sentiment should be placed. It is not a point to get bogged down on but women or other idealists are so tight about it, when military service and recognition should be saluted without favour.  To chill out and recognise that military service and sacrifice should be above petty ideals thrust on society would be best. I repeat I am appalled at the indifference to these male deaths as though it were something that goes with the territory. Politicians are sticking with it.

Sickemrex says:

03:21pm | 27/08/10

Well it’s a moot point given that Australian female soldiers can’t serve in combat positions.  You are whinging that they don’t and no doubt would whinge if they did.  The same tired old men that get the sooks when a female police officer shows up at a job.

Ray says:

11:43pm | 27/08/10

I’m saying that the men don’t get due recognition because we’re too concerned about including women. Women are not in the front line because the line is only as strong as its weakest link. Can’t say that though.

JAX says:

11:57am | 27/08/10

Ray is going to go nuclear on that one, you will get more of his rant about women and equality blah blah woof woof.

JC says:

11:58am | 27/08/10

I agree Wombat, no only should they be home fighting, but the male asylum seekers are like cockroaches, you let one in and soon enough the whole extended family is here.

Markus says:

12:51pm | 27/08/10

Bombs can definitely defeat fundamentalists. It’s hard to be fundamental when your entire nation is wiped out.
We just morally choose not to use the option we have that the fundamentalists would not hesitate to if they had it available to them.

I’m not at all suggesting that we should. I am just saying that THIS is the reason we will never win in Afghanistan/Iraq/anywhere - we are fighting them following a code of conduct and accountability that they don’t have to abide by. They know this and exploit it to their advantage at every opportunity.

RJP says:

09:49pm | 29/08/10

Well said, Wombat…instead we are giving them handouts and Centrelink, which they send back to fund their cause, which is also being funded, indirectly, by charities while our own are living on the streets….thanks to the doooo-gooder brigade who still think America is after the oil…(if you knew how much oil is in America, you would know how stupid this comment is) and those who still go on about the WMD….those who forget that it took the UN 18 MONTHS to allow America in to search for them…giving the Terrorists PLENTY of time to move them and make America look stupid….

Leigh says:

11:11am | 27/08/10

agree 100% Tony.  You cannot turn around this 14th century culture.  Unless you are prepared to go in and level the country, you will not resolve this war.
The governement is corrupt and the bulk of the people are not prepared to fight for their own country, so what hope do we have other than to throw away Australian lives.

Chad C Mulligan says:

12:57pm | 27/08/10

Righto Tony,

Publish your address and we’ll be round to give you lift to the recruiting office.

Pack a toothbrush.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

02:04pm | 27/08/10

Thanks Chad, but I’ve done my bit in uniform. Bit old for it now, I feel.

Dilbert says:

02:31pm | 27/08/10

I wish this was on facebook so I could like it…

All so very true!

Michael says:

04:21pm | 27/08/10

On the recruiting issue, I actually think there’s an argument for compulsory military service—or at least a full, fair lottery for that, combined with an imperative that Parliament has to decide whether or not to go to war, not the Cabinet of the day.  Reason being that you would have Australia committing to a lot fewer wars.  At the moment the all-volunteer army really is the SEOSEC army—Someone Else Or Someone Else’s Child.  That attitude also guarantees a lack of any meaningful criticism of the armed services because of “rear area guilt”—a sense that somebody is doing the job you won’t, or won’t commit your kids to do.

A full, fair lottery that you couldn’t get out of via enlisting to reserve units would remove stupid warmongers from the picture right away since there would always then be the chance *their* child, husband, or brother (or sister, or daughter) would be the one to go to war.

Bob Brown’s idea that Parliament should decide whether to go to war is only going halfway.  It merely changes the deciding parties from an out-of-touch PM whose son or daughter probably won’t wind up with a rifle in hand to 150 out-of-touch politicians whose sons or daughters probably won’t wind up with a rifle in hand.  In other words: introduce conscription via full and fair lottery, resulting in a full draftee army, in combination with a requirement that Parliament declares war, and you’ll see less casualties and less stupid wars across the board.

RJP says:

09:57pm | 29/08/10

And what do you think would have happened, Tony…?  I’m with you, but the dooo-gooder brigade would have screamed blue murder and we can’t upset them, now can we?

Frank K says:

02:00pm | 27/08/10

The US has actually been declared bankrupt by the IMF

PaulB says:

02:45pm | 27/08/10

Who are the bankers and political back room advisors and such who have led the US into this disaster of national banruptcy?  The same people who wanted Iraq invaded.  Hint:  They aren’t Moslems.

Les says:

12:01pm | 27/08/10

Here here.

Sonny says:

06:35am | 29/08/10

A fact is that before the occupation, Opium exports were far less.
Big exports of heroin was removed by troops in Vietnam on military transports which are unchecked. Are we so nieve to think this is not happening now?
Opium is one of many sources. The other is direct cash injection from Pakistan which US pays it since the Soviet-Afghan war in the 70’s 80’s.
US has been pumping in cash and weapons for many years.
Where do you think they got those US rocket launchers and mortars from? Small arms will always be AK47 because of reliability.
It goes way way deeper than helping the Afghan ppl, at the end of the day its about cash and profit like all wars have been.
US over threw the British with guerilla tactics, and i would be doing the same to anyone invading my country. I would do anything i can to defend my country.
We get out and let them ask for help before it is offered.

TheRealDave says:

11:45am | 27/08/10

@Matt - you may want to take a look at Chris Master recent brilliant report on 4 Corners. It may still be available online over at iView. One of the best pieces of investigative journalism on our Digs in any recent deployment….actually, its also probably one of the only in depth pieces done.

Whether its a ‘Closed ADF shop’ or just lazy journo’ s cutting and pasting wireservice pieces I don’ t know. There seems to be a never ending stream of brilliant BBC and US articles and doco’s with reporters embedded with troops but apparent from Chris Masters not a single bit from Aussie journo’s.

How do you look in green Tory??

TheRealDave says:

02:30pm | 27/08/10

hang on…thats a trick question isn’t it?

Z3 says:

08:29pm | 27/08/10

Thank you. I am the wife of a dedicated, proud, patriotic soldier currently serving there. Come what may, I am proud of my husband and his courageous sacrifice to defend those unable to fight their oppressors. I am proud of all of those courageous members of our Australian Defence Force , men and women, who are defending those who are unable to defend themselves. Say a prayer for them.

Stu says:

11:05am | 27/08/10

It hasn’t been an election issue because both major parties support our involvement.  Our gains are to free a country from oppression and to protect out national interests on the world stage (if you come at us, we have allies).

TheRealDave says:

11:47am | 27/08/10

It is heartwarming to see that those with nothing to lose are the first to scream ‘bring our troops home now!!’ whilst those with everything to lose and who have been there or are still there are the first to say ‘we need to stay and help these people’.

Kevin says:

01:19pm | 27/08/10

The army is not a democracy.  These are professional soldiers.  They go where they’re ordered to go and fight whoever they are ordered to fight.  If they don’t like fighting in a particular place, too bad.  Equally, we don’t sustain a conflict merely because the soldiers are “happy” to be there.  I would expect professional soldiers to do their job (and I am sure the Australian troops are doing a first class job) regardless of whether they “believe in the cause” or otherwise. 
That is not to say that the views of the troops should be ignored in assessing what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan.

Realpolitik says:

02:49pm | 27/08/10

Perhaps it’s about time the media stops promoting the ADF (and it’s operations) as a matter of public debate.  Or at least try to promote some understanding of what it feels like to walk in those boots.  People tend to forget that serving in the ADF is voluntary.  Conscription ended with Vietnam.  So public discussion on where they should and should not go (or whether their work is meaningful)  is no different to Joe Blow thinking that his 2 cents is worth a bob when it comes to his opinions on anybody elses job.
As a few people have hinted, the commitment is token and driven by political sensitivities.  Dead and wounded soldiers are bad PR for politicians - hence they’d rather have our troops wrapped in cotton wool and limited in what they can do overseas.  Which only serves to frustrate those men and women trying to get the job done…

The Real Ray Graham says:

12:24pm | 27/08/10

“as sending young men into a war zone is as serious a decision a government can make “

How about all the women they are sending. do they not matter? yeah, thats right. women are expendable.

JAX says:

12:25pm | 27/08/10

don’t forget the women Randal - Ray will chew your ass off for daring to suggest that MEN are the only ones who get sent to dangerous places to risk their lives, that we don’t care etc etc—fill in rant here—

Randal says:

12:34pm | 27/08/10

@The Real Ray Graham
I apologise for the poorly constructed sentence and meant no offence to the many fine women who are an integral part of our armed forces and should have used the term Australian’s and not men.

fairsfair says:

05:36pm | 27/08/10

Randal, don’t fret mate - women acknowledge that the term “man” (and therefore in every day discussion man’s pluram “men”)also indicates a generic descriptor for a group of humans. It appears to me that a couple of blokes (assuming you are one Ray) are making a bit of a mountain where there is only a molehill. How gender is even being discussed following this story is rediculous.

I have certainly put my lighter down, and I will go out on a lim and state that no other lady will be sparking up their bra over your comment either.

Stick to the topic people.

TheRealDave says:

01:44pm | 27/08/10

Actually Russell, the UN sanctioned action in Afghanistan and NATO has been given operational control of which ISAF is the cobbled together coalition doing the work.

Not ‘Majority of allied nations’.

We are tag-alongs, doing the absolute minimum we can get away with politically

The Clairvoyant says:

02:33pm | 27/08/10

Davido the Taliban were the ones who essentially stopped the drug trade…which was another reason the invasion took place.  And I also love ‘Encourage the moderate Muslims’ how - by invading their country and killing and blowing up everything in sight?

TheRealDave says:

02:47pm | 27/08/10

@Clairvoyant - your crystal all must be broken

1. The Taliban turned back to the easy money of the Opium trade once their flow of cash was curtailed and they needed more arms, ammunition, equipment and recruits. They are making huge money off Opium now. Whatever they claimed they did about the Opium Trade in the past is long ago null and void. And its been common knowledge for years now….don’t know where you’ve been….

2. As opposed to ‘blowing up everything in sight’ the coalition is far from doing that. Less than 20% of all civilians casualties have been caused by the coalition. Thats from a UN report mind you - not a US report. Every single civilian death is abhorrent. Every one. But at least through the dedication and professionalism of western troops they do their utmost to protect and defend civilians. More airstrikes are called off due to risk of civilian casualties than actually go ahead in support of TiC (troops in contact). I suggest you read Apache by Ed Massey and Joint Force Harrier by Adrian Orchard for starters. They go into great detail into what happens every single time they get a call for help. The rules and procedures they go through every single time. It is fascinating stuff.

Gregg says:

03:35pm | 27/08/10

Deadly Ernest,
There may wll be insurgents, terrorists, perhaps even freedom fighters if you wish that have flocked to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban against the infidels who invaded for a specific cause and have well and truly forgotten about what they originally went there for.

The invasion/fighting is more than a tad different to WW1 and WW2 btw if you hadn’t noticed just as Vietnam was different to Korea with Korea more along the lines of WW2.
Vietnam came along as an invasion into a country attempting to throw off colonial shackles and there being a civil war that had developed.
We know of the result.
Afghanistan was invaded for a very different reason, though still something of a civil war and so perhaps a similar result to Vietnam is in the making if Iraq and Presidential thinking are good indicators.
But then Quantamano was supposed to be closed long ago!

You need to consider just how long and how strong a chain you wish to support there before you are convinced we stay an impossible course.

Deadly Ernest says:

04:00pm | 27/08/10

Gregg,

I’m aware that some of the root causes are different between the various conflicts, and before you go on at length about the Vietnam and Korean ones being a throw off of colonial rule, they both had huge funding and support from other countries before they started anything, and all through the conflicts there. So they were not your standard civil wars either, and in a way the Afghan situation is similar but from the other side. This is one of the reasons why I said I didn’t want to get into a discussion about the why of it at the start.

But the situation today is NOT what the situation was at the start, and what is at risk is much more than what was at risk at the start. My biggest concern at the moment is the gutless politicians who think nothing of sending troops out to die, will have the troops lives wasted if they think they can win a vote or two by pulling out with the job unfinished, and end up leaving the country in the hands of terrorists who can then use it as a base to attack other countries.

Sometimes a fight is worth fighting because you should fight it, not because you think you can win it. You fight because you know if you don’t fight, you just lost it all.

The situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is more a case of a shoestring response costing lives as those there get on with doing the job without the real support needed, than anything else. Also, with talks of the government possibly pulling it, it encourages the other side to cause more trouble in the hopes it will lead to a pull out and a victory for them.

Gregg says:

04:18am | 28/08/10

First of all DE, I dud say Korea and Vietnam were quite different and Korea was not about throwing off colonial shackles.
Regardless of the support the Vietnamese had there were still 500,000 US troops there with unquestionable superior firepower and it was the Vietnamese will and lack of US commitment that saw the US eventually pull out.
The US public were already getting restless on Iraq and there is already much questioning over whether Osama is still alive and is it in fact worth continuing there.
Re;
” But the situation today is NOT what the situation was at the start, “
I would say not greatly so for you had Al Quaeda there as the reason for going there and they have always recruited from various countries.

”  and what is at risk is much more than what was at risk at the start. “
and that is partly due to foreign troops remaining in the country and that also a lot to do with the Taliban push into Pakistan.
” My biggest concern at the moment is the gutless politicians who think nothing of sending troops out to die, will have the troops lives wasted if they think they can win a vote or two by pulling out with the job unfinished, and end up leaving the country in the hands of terrorists who can then use it as a base to attack other countries. “
If you have a think about it, the 911 terrorists were not from Afghanistan and in fact most were Saudis and they had connections with cells in Germany.
Other terrorist attacks have been initiated from various countries and with no definite ties to Al Q in Afghanistan but being there will continue the call to arms and maintain pressure on Pakistan.
Leaders of both major parties have indicated their support to maintaining Australian forces in Afghanistan regardless of whether it is a good decision or not and they’ll likely only direct a pull out if that is what the US decide and it would be ridiculous to have them remain as they’ll have little chance of doing anything other than dying if facing far greater numbers with limited air cover.

” Sometimes a fight is worth fighting because you should fight it, not because you think you can win it. You fight because you know if you don’t fight, you just lost it all. “
Really!, and even when containment from afar may be a better approach.

Deadly Ernest says:

06:21pm | 28/08/10

Gregg,

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on certain aspects of this issue. Also, I’ve already said most of what I wish to say on this, as it relates to the content of the blog without going into a major thesis and side issues. But I do wish to respond to you closing comment in your last response.

One things that the last fifty or so years have proven, it is IMPOSSIBLE to contain terrorists from afar. The best we could do is to totally close the borders and not allow any visitors or migrants and to cease all refugee migration. None of these are actions I support.

Admittedly, Australia is in a better position than most to take action to shut itself off from the rest of the world, but I do not suggest we should and I doubt it would work in the long term. To deal with terrorists, we need to deal with the cause and not just some of the symptoms. In that regard, we should do what we can to totally destroy the petro economy and become energy self sufficient by the use of what is now called bio-diesel. Once the middle-east oil is of no significant value, you will see the powers behind most of the terrorists in the region stop funding it as they’ll see no profits from taking over the countries. Anyway, that’s another issue for another blog.

Michael says:

04:38pm | 27/08/10

Only quibble I have with this issue is that an army *should* be unused 99% of the time, and having them is an excellent deterrent.

Going to war is, when you strip all the tradition and hoopla away from it, sending hundreds of thousands of young men and women out with the explicit intent of committing mass murder.  Doing so should be a serious decision and not to be taken lightly.  The ADF is the Australian *Defence* Force, and please God that it always is only used for that purpose.

TheRealDave says:

04:13pm | 27/08/10

Just imagine what we could do if we actually wanted to and committed more than a token fraction of our available military might?

its not the military letting us down/failing - its the politicians.

James1 says:

05:27pm | 27/08/10

Its not the lack of a proper military commitment Dave, it is the objectives we set to begin with, and insist on sticking to.  If we could have been happy with a repressive Islamic regime that was not the Taliban, we might have a chance.  Given that we want a democratic, Western-oriented Afghanistan, no number of soldiers can fundamentally change the political culture, and thus victory is impossible.  The best we can hope for is the maintenance of the status quo post bellum - a situation where we can not quite lose, but where victory is equally impossible.

TheRealDave says:

04:09pm | 27/08/10

“By the way, 95% civilian were killed by US and it is still going on”

Stop speaking utter rubbish.

Gregg says:

07:43pm | 28/08/10

Exactly as Tory says Caeser, I’d not take it that anyone does not respect the risk to life that Australian forces deployed anywhere have and even in peaceful training and rescue activities there have been deaths.
I’d expect that most people can acknowledge that services people would mostly accept that what they are doing is a great service to people that could otherwise be in harms way.

There is however more to Afghanistan than where Australians are deployed and what is being discussed here is usually a bigger picture and in this case it is even bigger than Afghanistan itself.
That being so, the last thing people who support our troops want is to have a government or governments, both Australian and otherwise pursuing something without too much of a plan as to what is the ultimate objective and the strategy to achieve it.

Many people recognise that not every muslim is a terrorist and in fact the majority are far from it but terrorists mostly of that faith is what is being fought and when you look at how far back in history events have been occurring and the nature of them, it is that which will make a lot of people question what the right solution is.
If we have services people in Afghanistan for another five, ten or twenty years and consider then an objective has been achieved, how rewarding will it be to in a further five or ten years time to be back at square one.

And it is not so much the success or not but the loss and injury of people for what purpose we would ask.

David T says:

01:54am | 29/08/10

““The war we fight has many elements to it, one of which is removing a potential threat to our own country. “”

Was there even a threat to our country to begin with? when were we ever a target before we dropped our troops in Afghanistan in 2001?

Michael says:

04:45pm | 27/08/10

Actually, Clairboyant, vapor is about what’s left of a person after a large-yield bomb hits them.  I didn’t use the term loosely.  Also, it’s accurate: when the Taliban emerges from the civilian population to fight the US, it loses.  Comprehensively.

You are badly confusing combat effectiveness with humanitarian concerns.  Cruise missles and predators are excellent weapons in that they kill large numbers of people including enemy forces without any loss of life to our own troops.  I regard that as very satisfactory given I don’t want any more Australian troops dead, and given the Taliban likes to hang out among the civilian populace and play “ain’t no one here but us innocent bystanders” with US troops.

And as I said: if the Taliban or those who suppot it want to whinge about civilian deaths, fighting fair or the Geneva Conventions, perhaps it might consider putting uniforms on and fighting man-to-man instead of paying 9 or 10 year old kids to use IEDs against troops in convoys.  I might add that suicide bombers don’t seem to mind how many civilians they end up killing, or that they like to pick on civilian targets like restaurants, hotels, embassies, etc, rather than try to minimise deaths of their own people.

The Clairvoyant says:

05:25pm | 27/08/10

Ah Michael I’m not confusing anything - ‘combat effectiveness’ doesn’t go hand in hand with humanitarian concerns - and really the whole argument you’re making smacks of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Give the Palestinians Abhrams tanks anf F-16s, train them in their use and I’m sure they would ‘fight fair’.  Its simply disingenous to suggest that the ‘native’ peoples of a country (and let’s not get into the ‘taliban’ argument - its a collective noun for anyone fighting the US) when faced with an overwhelming and technologically superior force why would you insist they should fight on the invaders terms?

Michael says:

05:59pm | 27/08/10

Once again, Clairvoyant, If the “native” peoples, as you put it, of a country want to garner legitimate (as opposed to misguided) sympathy from the outside world about “civilian” casualties they perhaps should stop hiding among the civilian populace and using said populace as shield or camouflage.

What you seem to be missing is that the “native” peoples use this strategy specfically because, like Saddam’s old human shields trick, it is guaranteed to kick up sympathy from the Western media and people who have sent someone else or someone else’s child to fight their battles for them.  That’s not carelessness by the West.  It’s a deliberate tactic by the “natives”.

You also misquoted me.  I said fight man-to-man, not fight fair.  And the reason the ‘natives’ don’t fight man-to-man is because they won’t or can’t, without losing.  Although why exactly the US should “fight fair”, as you put it, is beyond me.  War is not moral; it’s the Geneva Conventions which have to be complied with, and to my understanding, they are - and beyond.  It is not the US that is consciously using the civilian population as a direct weapon of war.  That tactic is wholly that of the “natives.”  In wars that do not contain this tactic, civilians get out of the way, and quickly so.

As to the imbalance of technology—tough.  Welcome to what happens when you choose Western economics and Western secularism over Teh Prophet.  Of course, I’m sure there are alternatives.  Perhaps God/Allah/Peewee Herman can strike the infidel aircraft out of the sky with a well-placed lightning bolt? Or better yet, roll over and surrender.  That would save a lot of lives, though probably more Afghans than Americans.

Oh, and “overwhelming superior force”? Hardly.  On a “troops per square mile” ratio there’s less Western troops in Afghanistan than there were in Vietnam.

Incidentally, I’m not saying I want us in Afghanistan.  I don’t.  There’s no purpose to our being there.  But if we’re going to go to war, I say you do what’s necessary within the Geneva Conventions to win it, and win it quickly.  Dragging it out and pulling your punches for no better reason than a media which doesn’t have the facts and most of the time doesn’t care is only going to cost you lives and wasted money.

Davido says:

10:25pm | 27/08/10

Wow, that is a very very perceptive take.

People might note that two of the top three biggest military spenders on the planet are India and China. India has the largest population of poor on the planet yet they import more military hardware than ANY other country.

Anyone else got a clue what all those poor people in India might want to do with those nuclear weapons and all that conventional weaponry one day? Give them an ideology and a grudge and they might just want (and be prepared to take by force) what you have.

Gregg says:

05:37pm | 29/08/10

neil,
You’re being a bit naive for what China may have been thousands of years back, even a bit over a century ago or for that matter not much more than a half a century ago is totally different and irrelevant to what may happen in the next 50 years or century.

China was a closed country without communism and presence of the US and a few European nations hence Hongkong and Macao.
They’re building untold strength as an industrial nation and in military terms and commercially do have great demands for resources.
And let us not forget there was once a country called Tibet.

What could prevail in 50 or a 100 years time is anyone’s guess though I suspect our involvement in Afghanistan will have little effect on what the future may hold with Chinese activities.

Another take on it says:

07:47pm | 27/08/10

I will give Howard, Rudd, and Gillard one thing: they’ve managed to minimise the harm to our military by committing the smallest force possible without putting the ANZUS treaty in peril.  If our role was to actually subjugate regions, this would be a problem, but given we seem to be there basically just to fire the original “odd angry shot” I fail to see why we should commit any more than a token force.

I also don’t see any problem with the government doing this since our biggest partner in the Afghan Experiment is doing exactly the same thing: the US refuses to commit sufficient troops to win the conflict because it’s scared of bodybags.  Canada and the Dutch can pull out all they like; it’s not like they’re going to leave NATO.  Australia does need to bear its alliances in mind.  Are 21 men and women a suitable sacrifice to keep the alliance intact? Maybe.  We spent hundreds of thousands of young men’s lives in World War One keeping our alliance with England intact.  Some of them later were called heroes.

Ian Borg says:

07:47pm | 27/08/10

The only reason we have troops there is because USA told us to send them. I hpe that sometime soon we get a government that will do what is right for Australia, but I can;t see it being either of the current main parties.

Michael says:

02:19pm | 28/08/10

It’s not our job to fix up Afghanistan.  It would be a different story if Afghanistan either (a) had *asked* for us to be there to help *them* bring their country out of the medieval period; or (b) if Afghanistan, like Germany or Japan, presented a real, quantifiable strategic threat to Australia or a nation to whom we are intrinsically committed to support and there was any hope of changing the country long term to an ally of the West.

Neither is the case.  You cannot make an addict come clean, they have to do it themselves.  Let the Afghans give up their addictions to a very stupid version of a religion, criminal activity (the opium trade), and misogyny, and ask for help from the West.  Then, and only then, should we consider being in there long term.  Any other deployment to that country should be on the basis of eradicating whoever attacked us and then getting the hell out - end of story.  Don’t try to bring democracy to people who still think God wants them to murder their own daughters for “honour”.

If you think the cause is that noble, the solution is simple: go over there and start convincing them yourself.  It’ll be the last shock of your life.

neil says:

12:12am | 29/08/10

Andrew, a point of difference. The Sovietes wanted to own Afghanistan, the west hopes to liberate it.

But they are both wrong, just like India or Lebanon, first you must dominate them, then assimilate them. Their internal problems will go on for decades or even centuries. But they have been assimilated. They just haven’t realised it yet.

cam says:

07:43am | 29/08/10

I stand corrected, thanks Adrian, I wasn’t aware the Russians had gone back, under the understanding of attempting to stop the heroin trade.

Michael says:

11:24am | 30/08/10

Adrian, the answer to that is: if the Afghans feel so oppressed by the Taliban, perhaps they should be the ones doing something about it—not a group of Western countries.  Most of the things you mentioned—education, coffee shops,iphones,the internet,  “macdonals”, your freedom of speech, music, electricity,running water and civil decency—come as a result of adopting Western economics and Western secularism, not following a medieval religion.  The “decadent West” got past that after the Crusades.

As for Nazi Germany: stupid analogy.  Nazi Germany was out conquering other countries by direct conventional war, not training terrorists.  Completely different situation.  And I might add, for your information, that the US only declared war on Nazi Germany because Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour.

“Terrorism is a cancer, left unchecked it will surely spread?”
Hah!
I don’t think the US and the West being in Iraq and Afghanistan has done anything *other* than provoke more moronic terrorist groups to spring up.  A stupid US armed response into Iraq was exactly what Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda were hoping for, because it gave them an excuse to spread their religion.

Davido says:

11:14am | 29/08/10

Paul, most cultural and legal systems do provide a defense for killing someone to protect others. They also provide a defense for self-defense.

chris says:

02:34am | 31/08/10

It is a fact that regional terrorist organisations, JI and ASG have trained in the Middle East and run joint training camps with AQ. JI does target Australian interests. That is the link.
I’ve voiced my point clearly earlier in this discussion and Im not a fan of an armed response. But the link is clear.