|
June 22, 2010
There have been more deaths of SAS commandos in Afghanistan. And lots of deeply felt expressions of regret from ministers and politicians on both sides of politics. Expect more deaths and bodies they add. They then insist that the conflict is on the right course as they eye the rising American expectations for greater Australian involvement as the Dutch and Canadians pull out.
However, what the politicians say about the constant progress (painting a rosy-picture) often bears little resemblance to what happens on the ground in Afghanistan.
The core justification for Australia's involvement in this war is the Taliban providing a safe haven for terrorists, Al Qa’ida and the threat of a sanctuary and base for international terrorism, and the fact the conflict now involves Pakistan’s future stability. This then requires the defeat the Taliban and keeping Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan.
This justification barely stands up as no terrorist groups threaten Australia and al-Qaeda is now largely in Pakistan. The exit strategy is the Karzai regime standing on its own two feet, but that regime is corrupt and incompetent, and it stands little chance of ever truly being able to rule the country and keep the Taliban at bay. That means that the American military will have to stay there to "do the job" (whatever that is) for many years to come.
The Australians are there to support the Americans as an insurance policy for the Anzus alliance. But no minister will say this. We are offered a flurry of fictions whenever there are deaths with no attempt being made to address whether the NATO forces have the capacity to achieve the goals that have been set when there is no centralized state.
What is not being said much is that the war is not going well for the Americans. This means that Obama won't be able to "declare victory" next spring and start withdrawing troops next summer as he had planned.
Nor do many say that the decision to escalate in Afghanistan was a mistake. Our involvement there is a fool's errand that is rife with strategic contradictions, which is why we keep having "setbacks." The proper lesson to draw is not that it will be harder to get out; the proper message is that the sooner we do, the better.
Update
Anthony Bubalo at the Lowy Institute for International Policy says in The Age that both sides of politics have done a poor job in explaining why the war is crucial for Australia's security:
Explicitly and implicitly, Coalition and Labor governments have justified Australia's involvement in Afghanistan by narrow reference to terrorism and the needs of the US alliance. But almost a decade after the 9/11 attacks, this narrative has passed the time when a broader public - less obsessed than policy-makers with the finer details of counterterrorism strategy or alliance management - will accept it...If the government's justification for Australia's war is less and less compelling, then the only story left to tell is how and when we will leave.
There is a broader narrative of the importance of a stable Afghanistan in a region that is still a central node for international terrorism, a region that contains two nuclear powers (with a third on the way) and sits astride major trade and energy routes. I've only ever heard Malcolm Turnbull make reference to that narrative.eg. on the ABC's Q+A
|
I agree completely. Whatever the merits of the original invasion and occupation, there is no justification for remaining there indefinitely in the vague hope that something will turn up that allows us to claim victory. Some commentators in the USA are now saying troops will need to be there for another 20 or 30 years, without any apparent qualms about such a grotesquely imperialist mentality. The region risks being frozen into another Israelis/Palestinians type permanent conflict that can never be resolved. The sooner we distance ourselves, the better, before the warmongers in Washington get control of policy again and decide to take on Iran.