|
September 30, 2010
It is hard to believe but the Coalition has just proposed a major expansion of Australia's military role in Afghanistan, saying the nation should send in hundreds more troops as well as Tiger helicopters, Abrams tanks, mortars and artillery. It's a military solution to a political problem that looks like imperial nostalgia. It's folly.
This proposal by the neo-conservatives indicates that the Coalition has no intention to rethink the strategic stakes at issue in Afghanistan, to help them understand why the current U.S. strategy isn't working, and to outline a plausible alternative approach.
As Stephen Walt observes the situation in Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse since Obama took his advice from his military for a surge:
Obama began escalating the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan shortly after he took office, and since then we've had a fraudulent presidential election, an inconclusive offensive in Marjah, a delayed and downgraded operation in Kandahar, and a run on the corrupt Bank of Kabul. Casualty levels are up, and aid groups in Afghanistan now report that the security situation is worse than ever, despite a heightened U.S. presence.
So what is the point of the war? What we there for? Fighting, not for victory but to not to lose? In all likelihood the US will build up the Afghan army to the point where they think it has a reasonable chance of surviving on its own (albeit with continued and massive US support, including both air power and money to buy off local Taliban commanders), and will then declare victory and withdraw all or most US ground troops.
In all likelihood the US will build up the Afghan army to the point where they think it has a reasonable chance of surviving on its own (albeit with continued and massive US support, including both air power and money to buy off local Taliban commanders), and will then declare victory and withdraw all or most US ground troops.
European NATO governments, like the Australian government tell their populations that their troops are in Afghanistan because Afghanistan is a threat to them. That's nonsense. The only really important reason for sending troops to Afghanistan is to help maintain the alliance with the US because Australia, like the Europeans, is incapable of guaranteeing their own defence against a future resurgent China or Russia. This dependency-driven contribution is publicly called “saving NATO”, and in turn logically justifies Australians and Europeans doing the absolute minimum necessary in Afghanistan to keep the US committed to Australia and Europe.
|
The Coalition is now a vocal advocate of escalating the Australian involvement in Afghanistan. The inference is that the current U.S. strategy isn't working and requires even more surge.
Presumably they think that the current conflict is a struggle between the Karzai government and an insurgent movement? Do they think the reason for intervention is preventing Afghanistan from becoming a “safe haven” for terrorists, and assuring that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does not fall into terrorist hands.