The Greens might not have the balance of power in the Senate until next July but one of Bob Brown’s proposals, a parliamentary debate on our military commitment in Afghanistan, should be indulged well before then.
Nine years into a war that has recently grown much more dangerous for our troops the two major political parties have fallen back on a bit of a “just because” argument for why we should remain in such a Hell hole.
It’s an accepted reality that both sides are in unanimous support for our mission. But as public unease with the growing Australian toll intensifies, our leaders have failed to properly articulate much beyond championing our training role and that “progress is being made.”
In response this week to the 21st death of an Australian in Afghanistan Gillard said of the current situation there:
What I am being advised is that the intensity of the fighting at this time is very fierce. That is in part because it’s fighting season in Afghanistan. It’s in part of course because of the intensity of the work that is being undertaken in Afghanistan now…
Progress is being made in [the training] mission, training is occurring.The Afghan national army is of course growing in size as a result, so progress is being made.
But it is difficult, dangerous work. There’s no hiding from that. I’ve never sought to do anything other than be as frank about that as I can be with the Australian people.
These statements, and similar ones from Gillard’s predecessor, go unchallenged by the Opposition. Both sides are in lock step - it’s fighting season. But that’s no longer enough for the Australian public.
People on the ground in Afghanistan, such as journalist Chris Masters who wrote in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, say that something has indeed changed.
He wrote:
A common presumption is the spike in casualties is an indicator of a surge in Taliban strength. This is not the view of Australian soldiers who are more inclined to share US General David Petraeus’ position that this is what happens when you attack Taliban strongholds.
Australian soldiers mentoring the Afghan National Army have reached deeper into Taliban territory, now occupying former no-go zones in Oruzgan’s remote valleys. Special Forces soldiers have taken the fight beyond Uruzgan, attacking Taliban and inflicting heavy casualties.
Former Australian Task Force Commander Colonel Shane Gabriel makes the point that the more ground soldiers cover, the more exposure they have. In particular, to the threat of IEDs which have claimed the majority of deaths and injuries.
In a panel discussion on yesterday’s World Today program on ABC radio there was a strong call for a more open debate on the topic. Major General Jim Molan, who was the chief of operations for the Coalition forces in Iraq, said the debate had become very narrow, with just two options: “either we get out or we keep doing what we’re doing.”
I say there is a very, very important third option and it reflects my view that we should do Afghanistan right or get out. And that option is we put in the right number of troops to achieve the right effect across Oruzgan province.
Analyst Hugh White and Jason Thomas, who has just returned from Afghanistan on an aid mission, both said the political rhetoric inadequately addressed the complexity of the situation.
White said: “I think the objectives that we’ve set ourselves are quite unachievable; that we will leave Afghanistan in a few years with Afghanistan looking very much the way it does today.”
He also said:
The Government appears to have taken the decision that it is willing to allow Australian forces to undertake riskier operations. And they need to ask themselves, they need to take responsibility for the decision that the operation and strategic benefits to Australia of those riskier operations are worth the lives they’ve cost us so far and the lives they will continue to cost us if we continue with those operations.
Perhaps it’s too much to ask for political courage during the pantomime being played out in Canberra this week.
But if the major parties want to avoid the Afghan war becoming a political headache for them they could try being straight up with us.
If the mission really is beyond just that of training the Afghan National Army and is in fact to provide long term stability, then maybe they need to admit the timelines they’ve laid out are unrealistic.
Maybe Julia Gillard, or Tony Abbott if he gets her job in the next few weeks, need to say, “this is a nightmare and it may not end as soon as we’d like it to.”
If we need more troops to achieve the mission maybe she needs to say that, instead of insisting that “it’s about right”.
The rhetoric is not keeping pace with reality, and that makes people nervous.
Bob Brown should get his debate, then we’ll all have a better idea what’s going on, and a say in whether or not it’s worth it.
Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day
Get The Punch on Facebook
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision
RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented