Kellie,

You cite the costs of the conflict of the war well and how such money could help the plight of Afghans.

But is that good enough for an astute commentary piece. In the real world, don't opinions also have to weigh up just how successful your strategy will be.

Now if the West gets out, would not the Taliban gain further control in some provinces?

So where will your money go if the Taliban destroy schools and denies women their rights?

How about thinking of consequences about how your ideas will play out?

I do have sympathy for building up societies in the first place, but your ideas may have been much more appropriate 30 years ago before the damage was done when the West abandoned the region.

To suggest that we just throw money there now must also give consideration to just how effective such aid will given there is little law and order established yet

Kellie
I don't dispute that Clinton's talk was full of hot air but will the Afghan MP's talk be any better? Doubt it. Just spin of a differnt kind. There are various reports on Afghanistan you can download and read if you wish to get past the hype and newspaper reporting. However, a realistic time line is about two years. the Americans have just changed strategy. If there is no real improvement soon, then western patientce will be at an end and those Afghan women and chuildren about whom you care so deeply will be left to suffer.

As for spending money on foreign aid one of the major themes in this area is looking for ways to give aid without doing more harm than good. If the Western powers pull out any money given in aid would simply go straight to the Taliban, and probably spent on arms.

Curmudgeon, might I respectfully suggest that if the West pulled out of Afghanistan, the Taliban would no longer have any need to spend money on arms and could devote more of their resources to helping their own people.

David

It costs $50 million to kill one Taliban.The Marfia could do it say $10,000 per Taliban.What the heck,the tax payer foots the bill and war does profit a few scumbags.

I'm swinging from one point of view to the other. From being there to withdrawing.

In my confusion I've come to think we should just pull out and when the taliban allow al quiada to re build those terror bases then we should just do as George Bush originally did after 9/11.

Bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age.

It would be much cheaper and we'd be spared the leftie commentary on how terrible we are for assisting the current elected Afghan regime and how our quest for a modernised and democratic Afghanistan with a reasonable regime of human rights for all, is just so terrible, because it's cost in terms of human life and money is just too high.

Why don't people rant about the cost, in terms of human life and money, of freedom in the west, eastern Europe and many parts of Asia?

It hasn't come cheap. It has cost much to win and costs huge effort, money and lives to maintain!

Hasn't it's cost in human life alone been in the multi millions?

Completely agree with Chris Lewis and Curmudgeon.

VK3AUU...do you even remember the real Taliban?

The war in Afghanistan, right or wrong is now our responsibility.
We took that responsibility when we sent armed troops there. A responsiblity to make sure we don't leave the country in a worse state than before.

I wonder where the "this-must-be-done" group of people who so loudly advocated for the war in the US and to some extent in Australia have gone. War brings death: military and civilian (cowardly termed "collateral damage"), destruction and it costs money, time and resources. And war never goes as planned, just look at all the conflicts in the last century alone.

Now, if only our politicians had the courage to debate the issue of deployments before they are done.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

It might also be germaine to point out that the Taliban, whilst looking after the welfare of their commmunities in other ways, are not the only group in the world who deny women their rights as perceived by our "more enlightened" society. There are several sections of our Christian churches who follow the Pauline doctrine of treating women as being subservient to men. The Catholic, Presbyterian and some sections of the Anglican church are all against women priests. A few years ago, my cousin who married into the Catholic church was exhorted to obey during the marriage vows. The notion of subservience need not imply a lack of love or respect for those regarded as being of lesser rank.

David

CHRIS... in my view, Kellie Tranter does not 'listen'...she 'speaks' from her batcave. We are expected to pay careful and dilligent attention to her every word and salivate in expectation of her next discourse.

My view is that this from the Old Testament sums her up admirably.

"I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of congregation on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High." (Isaiah 14:12)

Yep... reminds me of the progressive attitude.

Kellie apparently believes that to write an article for OLO is an 'accomplishment' worthy of listing in her personal "I made this" list.
http://www.kellietranterattorney.com.au/tranter-profile.htm

The error I would prefer to make war on is hers.. and her 'progressive'(Communist) views.

Here is the fatal flaw in Tranter's article:

//Afghan MP Malalai Joya, who will be speaking at Sydney's UTS at 5.30 pm next Tuesday, is just the kind of eye witness, personally and actively involved, who will be able to corroborate or refute Ms Clinton's sweeping statements.//

She simply assumes that because this person is 'Afghan' she will be totally impartial and not try to use such a platform to pursue an agenda of some kind... socialist.. progressive...Islamist.. who knows?

But ONE thing we know is that she is just as biased and 'tribal' as any other person in/from Afghanistan.

Fast forward to today, there are signs that:
There is still very little law and order (all the attacks and opium farming occurred while Afghanistan is under our watch after all), the country is still in many ways divided by tribal and racial alliegiances, there is no government worth supporting, there is still a substantial fundamentalist population (not just the Taliban), opium production has worsened, and the Taliban are concentrating more on Pakistan- a place we cannot reach;

I say we highlight all the regions of Afghanistan that actually TRIED to improve, become more moderate, allow women's rights (but were inhibited by law of the Taliban)- and have them secede from Afghanistan and become a Republic (or multiple among ethnic lines to prevent another attempt by some to use the Parliament for ensuring tribal hegemony)- the remainder that we failed to reach out to we can sell back to the Taliban- on condition that any failure to respect the sovereignty of their neighbour states (old and new), failure to stop Opium, or any harboring of terrorists will result in another visit from the US army.

I think that would be a better approach.
The alternatives are to:
-leave and hope the Taliban don't take it back (no chance)
-Negotiate with the Taliban to assume control of the WHOLE country again based on the conditions above
-or, considering the condition of winning this war is to win the hearts and modernize every backwater tribal nutcase in the country under a legitimate, transparent government- continue to fight and die for an unwinnable war.

Pick your poison.

Hazza....the Taliban (and most tyrannical regimes) have a simple approach.

"Where is your leader/chief?"

Here.

Question... "Do you support us?"

Answer..."no"

BANG.

There is only one way to fight that mate.

I can tell you one thing..it sure as heck is NOT 'win hearts and minds with projects etc' :)

At least you can see one thing.... that situation is EXACTLY what you read about in the Old Testament (see Joshua/Judges/Samuel)

There was a solution :).....why not see what they (The Israelites) did... we all might learn something.

After all..when u can see a winning strategy...wouldn't you want to follow it?

VK3AUU
sorry but the simple withdrawl of the West most emphatically does not mean that the Taliban would refrain from spending aid money on arms.. no, you're thinking that the Taliban are something like a extremist fragment of the Labor party. that is, its viewpoint can at least be understood by us.

No, their reasoning would be, now that we've got rid of the West from Afghanistan, the real war can start.. after all, the West is there in the first place because some lunatic knocked down two towers in New York..

In that way they are nothing like, say, the North Vietnamese, who at least never tried to launch terrorist attacks in the West.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that they would be able to take over Pakistan, or anything like that, but they could make an extraordinary nuisance of themselves both regionally and internationally..

Algore- that won't work either- there is no finite isolated supply of terrorists that we can simply genocide out of existence, as if it were merely a weed problem where once you pluck up the last root and spore the problem will go away;

These people are a spontaneous change of attitude, anywhere in the world, from what they believe to be necessity.

These people go from becoming your everyday adulterer-stoning nutcases whose only concern is to ensure anybody in their midst who says the earth revolves around the sun is promptly executed;
-into members of an international terrorist group willing to leave their godly paradises to the sinful lands abroad to go to war, is the presence of a foreign invader in the lands of one of their 'brothers' trying to make it un-Islamic.

And watching our poor handling of Afghanistan on TV, just like our excuses to invade Iraq due to "terrorism" and WMDs- motivates these people to make the jump from bad and local, to worse and international.

When the problem of infidels existence is over "there"- they are usually too preoccupied trying to find more free-thinkers to execute in their own midst to even notice- unless they can trace any social problem back to a foreign infidel.

This war has nothing to do with the freedom of the West.It is about making profits from human misery,the $93 billion heroine inductry,the $ trillions of lithium for the battery industry,and oil and gas piplines from Turkmenistan.Even Noam Chomsky a Jewish intellectual says the invasion of Afghanistan is illegal and immoral.The FBI admit they did not have the evidence on Bin Laden for the 911 attacks.

The whole war on terror is nothing but an elaborate fabrication to justify corporate imperialism that JFK and others warned us about.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Hazza...it's a mess eh :)

We can however learn from history how to handle such things.

Certainly would not be something "Human Rights Watch" would approve.

But then...HRW is funded by George Soros aka "god" (in his own mind)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iSZRe9axrSAMLyvbyJ7fk3jWrMdg

Sadly Gore, disregarding human rights laws may provide a direct combative advantage in terror tactics, but looking at the broad picture it only solidifies us as a demonic nemesis of Islam in the eyes of the broader Islamic World (read, potential recruitment base);

Becoming a terrifying entity to scare away Islamic extremists ONLY works when we are otherwise of no immediate threat or presence.

That is;
If the west stayed outside the Middle East, and presented itself as a terrifying entity as you would endorse- we would be in their eyes, a terrifying civilization far away that they would dare not tread, as you would predict;

But if we, as a terrifying entity started invading various countries in that region (and even making up false excuses to do so) they would simply have no choice but to take up arms against us (and our viciousness only making their urgency to fight us greater).

For example- virtually every NATO country invaded Afghanistan virtually on impulse in response to fighting the perpetrators of 911- quite the opposite of anyone hoping the attacks would scare the west into submission.

Good to see most people are ignoring Tranters (socialist) tantrums.

War on Terror...(not error) ? here is some of what we are at war against... a bunch of about 30 Muslim terrorists screaming "British Troops-burn in HELL" at the armistice day remembrance.

Around 50 EDL were there to give a bit of push back...but of course the EDL are just 'right wing thugs' arn't they?

Were any arrested on the day ? Nope (but..but...they are THUGS according to the lefty script)

Were any Muslims arrested ? Yep..3 one for assaulting a Policeman.

The argument that the West expands the growth of terrorism by invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan rather than stop its spread cannot just be dismissed as socialist babble. To do so is dangerous.

Evidence suggests that illegal invastions merely stir the fires of terrorism and the passions of would-be terrorists both overseas at home. The invasion has not stopped the trade in illegal heroin and terrorism has just moved offshore to Somalia,Pakistan, Yemen and other parts. You cannot fight a terrorist network like you can fight a war where there is one invader and one defender. Terrorism is a mindset that knows no State boundaries.

The US PR machine is out and about lately to make friends with Indonesia and allies like Australia being fully aware of public and foreign sentiment on this issue. The best strategy would be to plan the stages for a full withdrawal sooner rather than later.

Social, diplomatic and economic efforts would bring better rewards in the long term. Fostering corrupt governments does not aid in defeating terrorism and most terrorist activity is fought using the best intelligence sources and information from the public both on home ground and foreign ground.

I do wish some people could see past personal politics and look at the war purely on strategic grounds.

The West is far more at risk of home grown terrorism furthered by war than from any foreign invader/terrorist plot.

Terrorists are often fragmented groups, one arm not fully cognisant of what the other is doing, many acting on their own 'initiatives' without any semblance of a well coordinated strategic and networked plan.

The West is already better coordinating joint intelligence and law enforcement services as part of counter terrorism policy hopefully putting behind past mistrusts, internal politics and inferiority and superiority complexes.

Pelican that would make sense to a logical person with the bigger , more complicated picture in mind;

Sadly this will do little to those who only understand there is only in this world either America (and us) and some large terrorist nation, and us being the only separate entity are targeted by this other 'nation' and we must 'stop it' and claim victory.

And these people will stick to this belief like glue, regardless of how little logic it actually contains.

Pelican,

"Terrorists are often fragmented groups, one arm not fully cognisant of what the other is doing, many acting on their own 'initiatives' without any semblance of a well coordinated strategic and networked plan."

Well, yes, that's how doing random damage works: many groups, all working towards the general goal of a world-wide Khalifa/Khilafa/Caliphate, by conversion or the sword - they don't have to co-ordinate anything specifically: as long as indiscriminate damage is wreaked, then their work is done, road-side bomb, market bomb, mosque bomb, pre-school bomb, it doesn't matter.

King Hazza,

" .... us being the only separate entity are targeted by this other 'nation' ... "

Well, no - in the last few months, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Yemen, various West African countries, Uganda, Russia, the Philippines, Thailand and various other countries have been the targets of attacks, usually bombing, by groups loosely affiliated with al Qa'ida (which of course doesn't exist). These non-existent groups would welcome a safe-haven country, 'this other 'nation'', wherever it may be, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc., to keep carrying out these non-existent bombings with some impunity. Would you advocate giving it to them on a plate ?

Indeed, there are none so blind .....

Joe

India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Yemen, various West African countries, Uganda, Russia, the Philippines, Thailand are ALL being attacked by local Islamic nationalists wanting to either secede or take control of the country, with no trace of motive for wanting to conquer neighbouring non-Islamic populations (except for JI, who specifically want Muslim Indonesia and Muslim Malaysia to form a Caliphate).

No case of any terrorists attempting to attack another country to conquer it- or for that matter, that there has ever been a single international Islamic terrorist attack where has not been a single possible motive outside that country being non-Islamic.

So the "working for an Islamic world" theoretical motive fails to be substantiated by these examples, nor world any of them need Al Queda to carry out attacks.

I'm still waiting for that shred of evidence that CONTRADICTS my point that Islamic terrorism is only either domestic, or international but targeting only major 'occupiers' in the Middle East.

I believe I asked this many times before and no answer could be given.

So the choice is to either see the gigantic lack of evidence to support the presumption that terrorist recruits sincerely do feel like signing up to attack faraway countries for missionary purposes- and the gigantic abundance of evidence to suggest it is to repel outside forces and Islamize their own countries;

Or, take the word of some opinion writers that it still IS the case anyway.

Loudmouth
You are right about random damage but who said Al-Qa'ida does not exist? Al-Qa'ida is just a name tage. See the current listing of terrorist organisations in the link. As you will see even Al-Qa'ida is fragmented into various groups.

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument

From the link provided by pelican: Not exactly sure why the Australian Government has this list that just shows Islamic terrorists as its most accessible.

To veer a little off topic...also from Attorney General's Dept, this shows all the organisations proscribed in Australia:

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%28153683DB7E984D23214BD871B2AC75E8%29~Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF/$file/Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF

But am I reading it correctly that the IRA is only considered a terrorist organisation by the UK?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

jorge
My understanding is that listing a terrorist organisation involves a 'statement of reasons' prepared by ASIO, the Attorney-General signs off on it and then all the legal formalities are set in place. The Parliament can at any time overturn the original decision as events change.

Perhaps some terrorist groups are not as active in some nations. The IRA would not be seen as a threat to Australia and in fact I am surprised it is still listed as one in the UK given the 'new peace' arrangements.

Kellie
It looks as though your opposition has run out of steam for this week.
Please keep on pointing out that those that profit from war are the ones who must be held responsible for all the suffering. Those who created the Taliban (the USA) must bear the responsibility of helping to fix the mess that is Afghanistan.