While it would be best for Australia to get out of Afghanistan altogether, it is wrong to refer to Taliban ‘moderates’ (there is no such thing) and to suggest talking to the Taliban as a means of resolving the conflict.

Any appeal to ‘hearts and minds’ would be dumb.

There is a huge cultural difference between Afghans – including the non-Taliban – and the West. There is no point in offering Afghans a better life when the Taliban will kill them for accepting anything from the West. As Justin Kelly, retired ADF officer, explains in a recent article, ‘How to Win in Afghanistan’: “Acceptance of Western largesse is practical cultural annihilation.”

And, he says: “No one places their life and the lives of their families at risk by rejecting Taliban authority merely because they have, or are promised, more electricity or cleaner water.” And, presumably, schooling for girls as, Bruce Haigh suggests.

Kelly believes that life cannot be made better for Afghans until “security is established” – i.e. until the Taliban is militarily defeated. “To make them (Afghan citizens) stakeholders in the government they need to recognise themselves, and be recognised, as enemies of the Taliban.”

Talking with the Taliban can and will have to occur, but only after they have been broken militarily. Kelly believes that: “Political inclusion of the Pashtun can only follow the establishment of security, which can only follow from the effective destruction of Taliban military power.”

There is not enough time to merely play at soldiers while the Taliban continues to use its tactic of exhausting NATO forces as they did with the Russians. The Taliban are in no hurry. They and the people they keep in constant terror can live without Western luxuries, as they always have, for ever and a day.

Bruce is right about the Rudd Government being a dud government. But, that applies to domestic politics. In and with Afghanistan, Rudd the Dud is doing just what the Left accused Howard of doing in Iraq. Not much said by the Left about that, of course; despite 10 deaths.

Bruce

I know you are sincere but we need to return to some of the sad realities.

The logic, prospects and cost of out participation in Afghanistan is unfortunately secondary to backing up the US in Afghanistan.

Right now - as in 1915. Australia is a dependant ally - a very junior partner who must participate in the senior partner's interests and wars.

Australia’s main interest is backing up the US because the US protects us with:

- its aircraft, warships and subs in the Indian and Pacific Oceans

- bases at Pearl Harbour, Guam and Okinawa, and

- the US led UKUSA intelligence network including sigint and satellite imagery, etc.

We are isolated and cannot provide the essential defence resources that the US provides now and that the British Empire provided in 1915. To provide our own effective resources would mean a huge unpopular increase in defence spending along the lines of France and Israel - probably including Australia possessing nuclear weapons like those two countries.

But back to dependence. Protection comes at a monetary cost (money to buy US weapons, ie premium on ANZUS) and a dependent policy/thinking cost. I agree with you that we effectively suspend independent defence and foreign policy choices in order to maintain the alliance with the US.

If we had such independent defences we could then the have independent foreign policies that you and I wish for. But no serious Australian politician would waste $35 Billion in defence spending each year to achieve independent defences.

[more to follow]

[second part]

Negotiations with the Taliban have continued sporadically for years - with no effect - because the Taliban knows that it is negotiating while it holds the winning hand - time strengthens the hand - just like North Vietnam "negotiated" in 1972 and then waited for Western withdrawal.

The Taliban is not only bleeding the latest infidel invaders for Islamic reasons its is doing it for tribal and nationalist reasons.

It all means that Australia WILL go when the US is tired and beaten up enough to give us permission to go.

I suggest that Obama needs his surge in Afghanistan this year to prove his/Democrat's tough foreign policy credentials.

However Obama will begin a withdrawal, or at least announce a significant withdrawal of US troops, in 2011 because the US electorate will be growing tired of the costs and US deaths (much higher than Australia's) in Afghanistan. He has the 2012 elections to consider.

Our choices are not whether we stay or go or whether to act as a tiny ineffectual voice in negotiations. Our choice is to minimise Australian casualties while we are there. This is unfortunately until the US says we can go.

It sounds passive but until Australia can provide for its own independent defences our geographical isolation means that we are not in a position to have Independent defence policies. This also applies to a range of foreign policies related to defence.

The will of the US public, as with their exhaustion over Iraq and earlier exhaustion over Vietnam, is our main hope.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

Bruce as usual makes good sense on geopolitics and especially on "gallipolism". Australia is never going to earn international respect as long as it keeps invading the countries of Asian peoples who have never done us any harm and killing their citizens. Scandinavia, Switzerland, Austria and quite a few others have managed to stand on their own two feet for the last half century without engaging in military adventures - and they look a great deal more credible to the world as a result. It is the responsibility of a good ally to discourage this tendency on the part of the US to engage in losing wars, rather than to support it.
Where Bruce may have overleapt the bounds of credibility is in his view that a Turnbull coalition could have anything more to offer. It has been the Coalition that has traditionally got us into this practice of killing foreigners and making enemies for no good reason and one doubts Turnbull has either the powerbase, principle or inclination to resist such time-dishonoured practices.

This was a cegent essay up until the sentence that began

"This is a dud government" - from then on the tone cheapened what came before - as a reference it was absolutley superfluos to requirements - but essentially he is right about the war - western forces can not kill their way to victory - it is false economics

- as well as talking to the Taliban more good could come from forceably destroying the poppy fields and supplementing the income of the locals - it removes the cash flow from the waar lords, reduces the volume of opiates in the market and would probably cheaper in terms of lives and money

JulianC

Absolutely love your term 'gallipolism'! Brilliant.

I hope you're not charging royalties because I have a feeling I'll be using it a lot over the next few weeks.