This is an encouraging article of good sense in the sea of foolishness that has overtaken the Howard and the Rudd/Gillard governments since Bush, Blair, Howard and others morphed the crime of 9/11 into a war. Eventually we will bring our soldiers home from the AfPac theater, and when we do, we will leave behind all the conditions needed for a civil war. That civil war will happen.
Could it be possible to misread a situation more thoroughly than we in the west have misread the Islamic world? Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All in meltdown and none helped by our interference. Lebanon and Jordan are not far behind, and no one wants to talk with Iran, arguably the closest we have to a natural ally in that world.
Meanwhile, relations with our near neighbors Malaysia and Indonesia are being dragged through the mud over asylums seekers and live cattle exports respectively.
Does no one in Canberra realize the precarious position Australia is now in? The next time Hillary Clinton comes to town, ask her to pay for her own hotel room. She won't come back, and that will be a good thing.

Our contribution in Afganistan should be entirely projects that win hearts and minds. Leave military action to the Afghans. If we want to give military training, then provide it to their recruits in Australia.

If we want to help Afghanistanis and to be regarded as an honest and true friend in a time of great hardship, then shouldn't we be helping to equip our partners in peace by providing the resources in fighting corruption, exposing and punishing corruption, strengthening the rule of law, and helping local officials to tackle discrimination, building free speech into the media, establishing human rights protections and efforts to provide employment skills.

Why not provide business opportunities for the population and develop two way trade and a better cultural understanding between Australia and Afghanistan?

Gillard and Abbott don't get it. They think that by supporting the USA with our military participation and death toll, we have proved we are best of friends. Too bad that the best interests of Afghans don't figure highly in their moronic militaristic calculus.

Hi Bruce

A good article in line with my comment on Friday's article which highlighted "stay the course". See below:

"LETS HOPE OUR LEADERS CAN DROP SAD U.S. SAYINGS

I'm hoping that the new Chief of the Defence Force and Minister Smith will not insult all Australians with that brainless excuse for destroyed lives "stay the course". I've heard it before from several [recently] serving officers - probably 'all the way with the USA' [Jim] Molan?

Both Canada and the Netherlands (which left Afghanistan) have suffered years longer than Australian forces. Some Canadians (who have lost more than [150]) and Dutch pro-war advocates clutched for reasons to stay in Afghanistan. However no pro-war advocate can genuinely locate a reason for fighting Afghans other than being there because America wants our countries to be there - and we have to be loyal to the world's most powerful Army.

Our flags flying alongside America's are a diplomatic cover to disguise America's particular national strategic reasons for having us all in Afghanistan indefinitely. If counter-terrorism was the reason then America could easily run a counter-terrorism campaign on its own with just a few thousand troops rather than a full-fledged counter-insurgency with over 100,000 troops and us and NATO.

The political gamesmanship of the Afghan campaign is revealed in Obama's apparently prescient decision in 2009-10, that 2 years hence, that is next year (2012) 30,000 US troops could and will be 'de-surged' back to America. This return will symbolize Obama's sound leadership in war (essential for continuing US Presidents) just before the 2012 US Presidential Election. Funny forward thinking that.

We haven't heard "stay the course" from our new Defence Chief as each of our brave troops body's return. The Chief looks far too wise, and humane, to echo other leader's lies, I hope.

Peter Coates
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 3 June 2011 5:44:28 PM"

It is impossible to challenge anything said on this subject, both in the article and (to date) every comment made.

If there was ever going to be a victory fighting anyone in Afghanistan it would have been the Russians who committed so many troops and armaments to their battle. In the end, a combination of high casualties, deteriorating morale and real money brought this to a "tail between the legs" withdrawal, just as we will see in just a matter of time when this US dalliance either loses its charm to the militarists, the demand for drugs dries up, (currently under the protection of the US Forces) or someone who has a level of financial credibility adds up the cost, not in lives, they're par for the course and therefore acceptable,(hardly get a mention these days), but in deteriorating dollars.
The US just has to stop spending sooner or later

Something else will soon take America's fancy. There are many theatres in which the US would love to play their destabilising games, yes, some with oil, and one of the "emerging" countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and/or four or five others will make the mistake of accepting American "friendship" to fight their battles and they will be off again on another burst of Imperialism, as the UK was doing, 150 years ago, creating empires. We are still part of it, have been since 1788 now with an old Queen and all the same trimmings.

The sideshow funerals for our young men with the public speeches, respectable deep voice and serious countenance for Gillard as she waddles from one to the next , mouthing “staying the distance” yet again together with other puerile inanities, her personal trademark.

The reality is that we could be a force for good in our own little backyard instead of playing what started as the Howard sycophantic ‘man of steel’, morphing into a Gillard “America can do anything”, taking our place in history again as the tail on the US attack dog, shedding all our self-respect along the way

This is of course related to Fridays essay about how right-wing populist media functions.
Remembering that such media was, and still is, beating the never ending "war against terror" war drums. They were also describing those who opposed the war effort as being un or anti Australian and American. You know, the "self-loathing" cafe-latte and Chardonay swilling "elites".

Very much like Cate Blanchett has been vilified in recent days. As though being relatively rich, and successful disqualifies someone from participating in the politics of persuasion.

"those who opposed the war effort as being un or anti Australian and American"

Yes the old 'with us or against us' diatribe.

I had no problems supporting the original mission in Afghanistan to take out OBL and the taliban.

However the detour into Iraq stuffed it all up and we no longer have any business being there.

It's an insult for our troops to clean up after failed neocons.