It is fair to say that there is a growing sense of unease in Australia about our commitment in Afghanistan. Twenty-one Australian soldiers have now died.

Blair of Steel. Picture/Getty Images

The latest casualty, Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, was laid to rest just nine days ago. Five hours after his burial his widow Beckie gave birth to their second child.

Beckie’s friend, Courier Mail journalist Jane Fynes-Clinton, wrote a heartfelt but forthright column about the broader meaning of this family’s private tragedy. She argued on behalf of her friend that Australia should honour Jared’s memory by staying the course in Afghanistan.

“As rumbles about the part Australia and her allies play in Afghanistan become more audible, Beckie could not be more sure that the cause he fought for, defended and gave his life for is noble and just,” Fynes-Clinton wrote.

“Australia must stay until Afghanistan has learnt to help itself, she has told me. Australia must stay until its job is done, until Afghanistan has the training and the abilities to take on its foes on its own.

“Australia must stay or Jared will have died fighting for something that will never be. And that would break her heart all over again.”

Many readers queried this assertion, arguing that the private loss of one family should not provide the basis for an open-ended national commitment to fighting a possibly unwinnable war.

In a piece demanding a wider public debate about the purpose and conduct of the war, News Limited columnist Paul Toohey said the loss of troops should not automatically translate into emboldened support for our commitment in Afghanistan.

“The problem with this thinking is that it sets forth an emotional strategy of continuing the war based on respect for those who have died. It inadvertently proposes that we never stop losing our troops until there is a form of victory in Afghanistan.

“The chances of that happening appear, at this point, very faint. The war is being conducted like a seasonal blood sport, with a playing season and an off-season. And our team captain, the US president, is not convincing when he talks of the value and strategy of the war.”

These two columns, both published on our website The Punch this week, book-ended the emerging debate in Australia about the chances of victory in Afghanistan set against the growing human cost of continuing to fight.

This same week saw the publication of the candid and self-critical memoir by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, entitled A Journey, where he talks at length about the event which got us into both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the mistakes the western world made as it entered those conflicts.

Blair admits that the decision to go into Iraq and subsequently into Afghanistan was not just a matter of principle but payback. And rightly so – what happened could never have gone unpunished. But the bigger question which Blair canvasses retrospectively is – the payback of whom, as it is now quite clear that we are not up against a small band of would-be hijackers, who could be rounded up and dealt with like some IRA terrorist cell:

“The history of Islam – its origins, its rise, its present predicament – is essential to understanding the significance of the events of September 11. It is precisely here that I made a mistake: I misunderstood the depth of the challenge. I was ignorant of the pervasive nature of the phenomenon. As at September 11, 2001, I accepted what most accepted: this at was perpetrated by a small group of fanatics wholly unrepresentative of Islam who could and would be crushed.

“If I had known then that a decade later we would still be fighting in Afghanistan, I would have been profoundly perturbed and alarmed….Back in the instant following the cataclysmic act of terrorism that stunned, shocked and appalled the world, the issue was clear: the madmen had declared war. They would be rooted out and eliminated. No one – or very few – disputed it, or the action that followed.”

From where Australia stands, there are two issues with Afghanistan which are obviously intertwined – the first is winning the war on the ground, and the second is maintaining support for the war at home. 

Our ability to achieve the second is hampered by the failure of Blair and, particularly, former US President George W Bush to make out and maintain a compelling moral case for the war in Afghanistan.

This war should by rights have the same galvanising effect as the battle against Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s.

For the Left, in particular, it should be every bit as compelling a cause as the Spanish Civil War, as in the Taliban we have an enemy which aside from its violent opposition to democracy, pluralism, freedom of assembly and worship, is also committed to a bloody and active brand of misogyny which kills teachers for daring to educate girls.

As Blair writes in his memoir, in the aftermath of September 11, both Iraq and Afghanistan were regarded as conflicts with a readily identifiable fanatical core which could be quickly identified and eliminated.

His ominous but accurate assessment is that the greater struggle now is within Islam, to see that the extremists do not prevail.

“Such struggles don’t last an electoral cycle,” he writes. “They last a generation.”

Most commented

37 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:56am | 20/09/10

      This struggle has lasted more than a generation - it’s been over 1400 years by now. There have been some periods of relative quiet, but Islam always seeks to expand, by its very nature.

      Many Muslims might be peaceful and tolerant, but a close reading of the texts will inevitably produce authentic, militant Islamists who cannot be reasoned with - only opposed or surrendered to.

      I don’t know whether Islam could be moderated the way Christianity has - there are inbuilt safeguards against change in the Koran. However, it can be contained. Whether fighting in Afghanistan is a good way to do that is open to question.

    • Doug Graves says:

      06:37am | 20/09/10

      Terrorists exist in many other countries,are we then compelled to commit to fighting in Indonesia,Pakistan,Syria,Iran,Palestine,Lebanon,U.S.A. and the list goes on. The assumption that these issues are generational,is an understatement,the only way to defeat extremists is to win the hearts and minds of the rising generations for many years to come,how I don,t know,but laying down the weapons and building infrastructure might be a good starting point.

    • Brian B says:

      03:45pm | 20/09/10

      Nice sentiment Doug - however I fear that the hearts and minds of these extremists cannot be won. Their mission is to dominate the World and the preferred method of negotiation is extreme violence.

      We sit on our hands and they will eventually dominate us.

    • L. says:

      07:44am | 20/09/10

      From the article..

      “Blair admits that the decision to go into Iraq and subsequently into Afghanistan was not just a matter of principle but payback. And rightly so – what happened could never have gone unpunished.”
      By “unpunished” I suspect your are referring to 9/11. However, punishing those responsible for 9/11 is one thing, invading Iraq was another. Why did Blair do that again..?? Oh yeah, because he touted the lie that Saddam could launch a WMD attack on Europe within 40 mins….That info was taken from a grad students homework of a decade earlier.

      As for Afghanistan… Sadly, some stories simply don’t have a happy ending. The sooner the West realises that you can’t force 21st Century social and political ideologies on what is essentially a medieval society.

    • Jim says:

      08:51am | 20/09/10

      Sometimes things only become a lie when a new truth is revealed. On the back of the emotion and disgust at 9/11 world leaders took the reports of WMD’s at face value. And when the truth was revealed it was only an issue when opposition governments around the world started using that as ammunition.
      What’s more disgusting - going into a country under a false pretext to eliminate someone responsible for genocides and other atrocities? Or politicising millions of deaths as part of a power struggle thousands of km’s away?

    • L. says:

      10:53am | 20/09/10

      “What’s more disgusting - going into a country under a false pretext to eliminate someone responsible for genocides and other atrocities? “

      Right…so when do you suggest we roll into China or inavde East Africa to depose Robert Mugabe..? Personally I couldn’t give a rats what happens in Mid East countries.. It’s their problem, it’s up to them to choose the road ahead. There is no doubt in my mind that if Iraq had no oil, we wouldn’t have given the Saddam Vs Kurds thing a second look.

    • Aitch B says:

      04:03pm | 20/09/10

      @L.

      The problem is that Iraq doesn’t have much oil - or the technical ability to extract what they have left.

      That’s precisely why Hussein invaded Kuwait. He wanted their oil so that he could pressure the West by reducing output.

    • L. says:

      05:02pm | 20/09/10

      “The problem is that Iraq doesn’t have much oil - or the technical ability to extract what they have left.”

      Estimated reserves of 112 BILLION barrells isn’t “much”..?

      http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/world_oil_reserves_chart.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.solarnavigator.net/hydrogen_world_navigation.htm&h=314&w=467&sz=7&tbnid=oycwrcB3HplMZM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=128&prev;=/images?q=world+oil+reserves&zoom=1&q=world+oil+reserves&hl=en&usg=__R3iQI_l2ecHXP03iVpZqBUXa93M=&sa=X&ei=KgaXTMniD4i8vQP0xtmZDQ&ved=0CCkQ9QEwBg

      Saddam invaded because (among other things) he accussed the Kuwaiti’s of slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.

    • dale says:

      07:51am | 20/09/10

      The people of Afganistan did not ask for help or change. you can not expect to push your culture onto another race at the end of a gun and expect it to take hold.

      How can there be talk of staying the course? when the US pull out if our troops arnt home with beer in hand they will all be slaughtered

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      08:01am | 20/09/10

      Blair, Bush and Howard were wrong on Afghanistan.

      What we have in Afghanistan is “BLOW BACK ” from the Carter and Reagan Admin for funding and supporting with military know how the Islamic Fundamentalist MUJAHIDEEN.

      The United States created this problem in the vain of curtailing Soviet Expansionism (i.e Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan 1979)

      Isn’t BLOW-BACK a bitch. raspberry

    • Markus says:

      11:38am | 20/09/10

      I need to find more information on the subject, as I just do not understand how assisting Afghan forces defend their land from an invading force caused such a negative attitude toward the US.
      I assume it happened one of two ways:

      - The hatred began after the weapons stopped flowing in. In which case, were they seriously expecting the deal to continue after the Soviets withdrew?

      - The Taliban always hated the US, but decided that their fundamental hatred of Western ideals was worth selling out so long as they were getting a lovely flow of weapons out of it.
      Hardly the holy warriors of Allah in that case now, are they.

    • Gregg says:

      01:02am | 21/09/10

      @ Markus,
      Perhaps it was not so much the Afghanis in general that had a negative attitude towards the US but Al Qeada who were in cahoots with the Taliban who were one side of a civil war that was raging in Afghanistan.
      For the A lQeada and Osama hatred you need to go back to the Gulf war and the Saudis allowing the US to use Saudi soil and even their women in the military was apparently an issue.
      Osama decided that Afghanistan was a place to call home, a home offered in return for assisting the Taliban who were not agreeable to handing over Osama for 911.
      So the US in attacking Afghanistan to get to Osama and Al Qeada became greater enemies of the Taliban.
      And this is not so unisual for the US has had relations with a number of ME countries in a topsy turvy way:
      . Supported the Shah of Persia before it became Iran
      . Rumsfield was even in Iraq with Saddam before Desert Storm
      But obviously they had a mission in Afghanistan they kind of lost sight of for a few Iraq years.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:16am | 20/09/10

      So, if an Afghan defends their territory from our invasion , and military occupation, its because they are Muslim zealots ?
      Maybe they are just nationalists fighting a military occupier, much the same as The Resistance of many occupied countries of WW2 fought the Germans, as Bitian would have done if they were invaded.
      Were the Resistance Fighters also terrorists?
      Who here would side with a militay occupier invadins us, for our own good?
      Who would collaborate?  Who would oppose?
      And if you would oppose, why do you think the Afghans are different?
      To link all opposition as Taliban/ Al queda is exactly the same as claiming all Germans were Nazis - simplistic rubbish.

    • Gunga Din says:

      08:24am | 20/09/10

      To link all Afghans to the Taliban “resistance” as you do is simplistic rubbish. Afghans elected a democratic government, which the Taliban are trying to overthrow.

    • Jim says:

      08:41am | 20/09/10

      Well Chongy…6 months of reading The Punch shows me you’d know all about simplistic rubbish. The West chased first Al-Qaida then helped the deposed Afghanis topple the Taliban regime. It was not an invasion of Afghanistan…the presence there is to prevent the Taliban regaining their power. The Taliban and Al-Qaida do not recognise borders - Afghanistan just happens to be where they are hiding out right now.
      Get off your soap-box for once Chongy.

    • ChrisG says:

      09:03am | 20/09/10

      T.Chong, let’s not extend the argument put by the Australian counterinsurgency expert, David Kilcullen, in his book “Accidental Guerrilla”, too far. Your point about some of the opposition to Coalition presence being nationalist has some merit, in keeping with Kilcullen’s analysis of such wars. But please don’t suggest that the core of the fighting force against the Afghan Government and Coalition forces is anything other than a hard line Islamist group committed to re-establishing a theocratic regime opposed, fundamentally, to the West and which was complicit in the attack on 9/11. We should look, as Gen Petraus is now, at separating tribal forces simply opposed to any foreign presence, as part of an Afghan strategy, but I don’t think we should abandon the Afghan people to the pre-enlightenment fanaticism the Taliban and al-Qaeda represent.

    • Jon says:

      09:42am | 20/09/10

      The first concentration camps in Germany were for Germans, political enemies of Hitler. Some estimates have 300,000 having died. They tried many times to kill Hitler on the last failed attempt 5,000 German were executed. The difference here is religion, this mess is result of a poor understanding the hold the Islam has on the mind of the Afghan people. So as soon as some of the people try a break free its hold, the current Afghan government, Taliban, Al queda and Warlords etc can always play the Muslim card to keep them in check. Blair should have figured this out earlier and the Americans should left Afghanistan to the Soviets.

    • Dan says:

      08:16am | 22/09/10

      Jim, the West did invade Afghanistan. That does not mean it was not warrented (although it had nothing to with human rights abuses), but it was absolutely an invasion.

      Jon, how Islamophobic are you? The Taliban are a pervertion of Islam! Islam is not the problem, extremism is! Just so you know, plenty of non-Muslims are extremists. Like you.

    • John GW says:

      08:17am | 20/09/10

      It is folly to assume
      1 Big Brother will stand by us.  Remember that the US was planning to withdraw from Vietnam without consulting us.
      2 We can “liberate” every country in the world.  Why not Burma?  Why not Zimbabwe?
      3 We can impose our views of life on other nations.  Otherwise I would say we need to liberate Saudi Arabia.
      4 We can fight Islam with the sword.  George Bush’s reference to “crusade” was fatal.
      We must withdraw from Afghanistan, but allow enough time for the Afghans to have some semblance of order.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:32am | 20/09/10

      “For the Left, in particular, it should be every bit as compelling a cause as the Spanish Civil War, as in the Taliban we have an enemy which aside from its violent opposition to democracy, pluralism, freedom of assembly and worship, is also committed to a bloody and active brand of misogyny which kills teachers for daring to educate girls. “

      Finally someone sees the hypocrisy of the left. Hallelujah

    • Jon says:

      09:59am | 20/09/10

      Yes, hypocrisy of the Left is deafening, where are those volunteers off to Afghanistan to fight a group far worse than the bad guys from the Spanish Civil War.

    • Chad C Mulligan says:

      10:59am | 20/09/10

      Excellent!  David, Adam and Jon,

      Please pack a toothbrush.  I’ll be over later this arvo to gift you all a lift to the recruiting office.  No doubt you’ll all be keen as you sound to get over there and help in the fight.
      No?

    • Jim says:

      08:32am | 20/09/10

      The loss of any Australian soldier is tragic. But then, weigh it up against the damage and innocent Australian lives lost during 9/11, Bali 2002/2005, the Turkish Consulate bombing, the Australian Embassy bombing. Then there’s people in our own backyard - Faheem Khalid, Willie Brigitte, Jihad Jack, the Sydney Five, Benbrika, al-Shabaab - they’re just the ones that have been caught!
      Allowing the Taliban to win, with all their evil ideoligies, will be allowing every single extremist group to win and carry on with their terror. As Blair says - Madmen have declared war…if the West pulls out due for political reasons then the world will become very scary very quickly.

    • L. says:

      08:37am | 20/09/10

      “Were the Resistance Fighters also terrorists?”

      Did the Resistance Fighters blow up busses and destroy building in other countries prior to the invasion?

      With that said… One must remember that the Taliban wasn’t the target in Afghanistan.. AQ was. The Taliban was the UNSC recognised government in power at the time who refused to hand AQ over to the US. Now Oz, the US and NATO have invaded, the former gov of afghanistan is fighting back.

    • Trooper Booper says:

      08:45am | 20/09/10

      Send all refugees from Afghanastan back to their own country to fight for it. Or make them enlist in our army.

    • LeeC says:

      12:45pm | 20/09/10

      I agree Trooper Booper and the sooner the better. The deaths of our soldiers is tragic and I fully understand the reasoning of Jane Fynes-Clinton. However, do we stay there and lose more lives for this reason?My son will be deployed there next year and I am not prepared to lose him for this war that cannot be won particularly while we have these bludgers coming iuninvited into our country.

    • Sherekahn says:

      10:25am | 20/09/10

      As usual Penbo, you are stirring a “witches brew.”
      “Blair admits that the decision to go into Iraq and subsequently into Afghanistan was not just a matter of principle but payback.”
      Payback!  3,000 died at the World Trade Centre, 100,000 have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and still counting.
      A very Christian typical payback Mr Blair.

      A more “world statesman like approach” after the ‘towers’ would have seen George Bush invite Al Qaeda to the United Nations on a diplomatic pass to discuss, just why they were driven to such evil.

      Of course the ‘evils’ of American Financial Colonialism and its duplicity in the Middle East would have been aired.
      Christianity has long been avoiding “the Truth” in its entire dealings so such, “World Statesmanlike behaviour” was bypassed for the typical reaction-WAR.
      “Let us pray for the dead and dying.”

    • Markus says:

      03:00pm | 20/09/10

      Sherekahn see my response to Stiffy below.
      Al Qaeda is a sleeper cell terrorist organisation that belongs to no particular country, who exactly could the UN invite that is able to speak for every member of Al Qaeda?

      Macon Paine, some fairly terrifying stuff in there.
      Apparently the USA is responsible for all death and injustice against any muslim in the world.
      The governments in charge of each respective muslim nation are somehow absolved of any accountability, even for deaths that occurred under their rule.
      If this mindset, which has no basis in reality, is shared by the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then no amount of diplomacy will ever help.

    • ChrisG says:

      11:21am | 20/09/10

      Sherekahn, really? invite the head of a terrorist non-government organisation to the UN, rewarding and promoting the slaughter of civilians as a strategy for any secessionist or revisionist cabal in the world? And in terms of your apologetic for bin Laden, I see the parallel: in the late 1930s, we should have realized that Hitler was simply the champion of the victims of the Treaty of Versailles, and we should have done more to understand where his pathological hatred of Jews was coming from and spent more time negotiating?

    • rufus says:

      11:30am | 20/09/10

      What does ‘staying the course’ mean, David? How when we know when we are ‘winning the war on the ground’ and when we’ve won? Will it mean the complete crushing of Taliban insurgency? With the ability of the Taliban to operate from Pakistan, how realistic is this? How long before there is a stable, relatively uncorrupt central Afghanistan government with an effective army able to keep control of most of the country?

      Above all, how can we be sure that any counter-insurgency gains made in Afghanistan won’t be cancelled by motivating and energising Islamic extremists in Australia or close neighbouring countries?

      Your article doesn’t deal with any of these questions, it’s just rhetoric.

      After 9 years of war, we can’t show much progress. Can supporters of the war tell us how long Australia has to stay in Afghanistan and how many Australian lives they are prepared to sacrifice before they too want a negotiated withdrawal? I fear the war will drag on for more years and we will eventually be forced out with nothing to show but more gravestones and grieving families.

    • Stiffy says:

      01:08pm | 20/09/10

      Is’nt it time that we started talking about peace.
      Attacking taliban ‘strong holds’ could mean areas that support the more fundamentalist style of islam. I dont like it and any democratic thinking person should not like it but this is a war which will not end in a ‘victory’. During the winter the taliban will simply revert to their Pakistani border mountain villlages and towns of support. To regroup, train and resupply. They will continue forever to recruit young men who have a zealous hate for the americans. As others have noted there are plenty of other countries in the world which are not democratically run.
      ‘Give Peace a Chance’

    • Markus says:

      02:13pm | 20/09/10

      Hold peace talks with whom, Stiffy?
      If Al Qaeda and the Taliban are fuelled by fundamentalist Islam and a zealous hatred for the Western society, what makes you think they will listen to peace talks?
      And neither of these terrorist groups has a recognised leader (or a known one, at least). Who could the US establish peace talks with that can claim to represent all members of either group?

    • pete says:

      01:16pm | 20/09/10

      you know, what ever you read about any war regardless if it was 100 years ago, the language is the same, stay the course, lay back and die for mother england blah blah.  Lets re introduce conscription and make it compulsory for the young off spring of politicians, then we will see how long we stay the course.

      Afghanistan could not even be conquered by Alexander the Great, so who are we kidding.  We have to stay there in the national interest. Who’s national interest, certainly not Australia’s, unless we need fresh faces in the dwindling ANZAC marches.  Bring them home, and if the only reason soldiers want to stay there is to earn a living wage, then address that, not the holding up of a corrupt regime

    • Scott says:

      01:39pm | 20/09/10

      It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
        To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
      “We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
        Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
      And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
        And the people who ask it explain
      That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
        And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

      It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
        To puff and look important and to say:—
      “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
        We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

      And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
        But we’ve proved it again and again,
      That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
        You never get rid of the Dane.

      It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
        For fear they should succumb and go astray,
      So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
        You will find it better policy to say:—

      “We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
        No matter how trifling the cost;
      For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
        And the nation that plays it is lost!”

    • Gregg says:

      01:47am | 21/09/10

      I really doubt that we can put too much on what Blair claims now if he had known what the scene was all about but doesn’t really say what he would have backed, certainly not a ” You’re either with us or against us stance as GWB was looking for “
      “If I had known then that a decade later we would still be fighting in Afghanistan, I would have been profoundly perturbed and alarmed….Back in the instant following the cataclysmic act of terrorism that stunned, shocked and appalled the world, the issue was clear: the madmen had declared war. They would be rooted out and eliminated. No one – or very few – disputed it, or the action that followed.”
      .......and yes ex PM TB, what then and how!
      You can get greater insight out of what goes down in the Spooks when it was on and the basic theme represented in one episode was the Muslim brotherhood needs the west to get back to the west and stop meddling in their affairs including Israel.

      If we forget 1400 years that Eric mentioned at the start and just go back about 60 or so years, prior to WW2 it was the League Of Nations who apparently passed something in about 1920 about Israel should be a homeland for those of Jewish faith.
      Coming hot on the heels of WW1 and the ME carve up by the Brits and Frogs you wonder just how much say the existing inhabitants of Palestine and surrounding countries had in that.
      So we go on to post WW2 and the Israelis were invading terrorists while the Brits attempted to keep some peace but finally gave up.
      And then you have had the relative poverty of the ME despite the Oil riches being in the hands of those who maintain power with force, the Shah when about, Saddam, and the Saudi royals.
      Poverty breeds contempt, unrest, hatred and rebellion and so it is no wonder you’ll have plenty of recruits from the Islamic world of the ME and even an extension of violence in places like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines as well as strikes into the west.

      Blair admits that the decision to go into Iraq and subsequently into Afghanistan was not just a matter of principle but payback…...!
      And yes his admission re payback rather than justice says something about the Statesman Blair is not.
      And yet he goes on with
      “The history of Islam – its origins, its rise, its present predicament – is essential to understanding the significance of the events of September 11. It is precisely here that I made a mistake….....
      And he has hardly indicated he has any real understanding!
      I disagree with you David on
      ” From where Australia stands, there are two issues with Afghanistan which are obviously intertwined – the first is winning the war on the ground, and the second is maintaining support for the war at home. “
      There is just one issue and that is whether there is much point in remaining any longer. 
      And also with
      ” This war should by rights have the same galvanising effect as the battle against Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s. “
      For a terrorist attack on the west is hardly anything like the massive war machine Hitler generated and the attempt to rule Europe.
      “As Blair writes in his memoir, in the aftermath of September 11, both Iraq and Afghanistan were regarded as conflicts with a readily identifiable fanatical core which could be quickly identified and eliminated. “

      He was more than a little stupid wasn’t he, possibly a rub off from GWB and I’ll always remember just how uncomfortable Colin Powell was when he had to front up with some fuzzy photographs and claim they were shots of WMDs and then there was the story of secret ships at sea!
      Maybe George and Tony had been watching the wrong episodes of Spooks!
      ” His ominous but accurate assessment is that the greater struggle now is within Islam, to see that the extremists do not prevail. “
      Is that a bit like saying we haven’t got rid of the worst communists David?
      “Such struggles don’t last an electoral cycle,” he writes. “They last a generation.”
      And he hasn’t even learnt that Northern Ireland has been far longer than a generation! - like I said, but I was out a few fold for he is a hell of a lot more than just a little stupid!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

tory_maguire

@benpobjie @latikambourke Yes Ben, you are now the official arbiter of what is misogyny and what is not! Good luck. ;-)

tory_maguire

RT @ThePunchHQ: They both look ridiculous, which is fine for Sandilands, but not fine for the PM says @_Torshttp://t.co/gK8MxYGl5H

Lucy Kippist

There really are no words to describe this, @SamClench @newscomauHQhttp://t.co/nzgWuyM5we

Paul Colgan

@jendudley I'm reassured that he says he doesn't want to put "food" out of business.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

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?

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”

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]

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