Dear Paul

I recognise you as my OLO nemesis.

Your sour, yet petulant, tone has been remarked on by others in OLO and its really rather sad.

I can see you are again parroting the US/Israeli neocon line on what MAY happen to the Iraqi people if they are not continually protected (when not being shot) by the guns of Uncle Sam. A bit like your inspiration (George Bush II’s) oration today on the shame of NOT continuing the Vietnam war.

However, Craig, Keith and I are attempting to discuss what may happen to the relatively tiny Australian forces (on the ground) in Iraq and trying to nut out whether they may be more effectively used in Afghanistan.

Now, concentration on Australians may be foreign to your grand American derived visions but think outside the square old chap.

Regards

Pete

Whatever the USA does in Iraq you can bet Mr. Howard will suport it. It is my opinion Mr. Howard has been using weazel words just trying to soften his the stance that he has previously taken. His aim being to provide an impression that troops may be withdrawn from Iraq without creating the definite expectation that it will happen.

It's been poor decision making that involved Australia in Iraq; we now have an opportunity to change who administers Australia, let's make a better choice for the future at the next election. Iraq being but one example, of many, of poor administration by the Coalition Government.

Dear Bruce,

I find it incredible you so misread my post that it resulted in you suggesting I thought 'we are badly served by the quality of our elected representatives.'

Just to make it clear for you I will simplify my comment:

We are badly served by the lack of bias from our 'experts' and the media.

My point was commentators, like yourself, and many in the media are loathe to give the Howard Government any credit at all for any of their successes in any field. As can be seen you overlook in your commentary any of the positives in foreign affairs...your field of expertise. That makes your commentary and opinion biased. It makes it look as though you'd carry a brief for anyone opposed to the Howard Government.

I don't agree the majority have yet seen through 'Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Andrews, Abbot et al.' but they will see through the labor leader, 'just as they saw through (his labor colleagues) Beazley, Crean and Latham' once the election rolls around.

You ought to check on the betting on the election outcome. This week saw a huge amount of money going on Howard to win.
NB the date of the revelation of that grubby little episode in NY for it truely is the turning point.

As for my current view on Afghanistan and Iraq. I think our forces will remain in Iraq until the US is shown a genuine attempt by the Iraqis to govern themselves and to control their own security. At that point led by the US we'll withdraw regardless of who is PM. At that point we'll also up our representation in Afghanistan and possibly become involved in covert operations in parts of Pakistan.

keith,

Oh I really hope we do not get involved in Pakistan. The country is teetering on the knife edge of islamic fundamentalism and any move by the US or allies to cross the border is likely to see it fall into the arms of the fundamentalists.

Then we're going to see what everyone has been trying to avoid, a nuclear armed islamic fundamentalist nation. Never mind Iran, Pakistan already has the nuke and if Shareef is toppled and replaced with hardliners, the possibility of such nukes being used against either western forces or India becomes so much higher.

Yep I agree Pete, putting pressure on Pakistan is important,but how to do it is the question.NWF Province, Baluchistan and much of The Sind are no go zones for the Pakistani Army.
As you know these are poor areas and lack of money/economic oportunity
drives the political/religious agenda.The same can be said for much of Afghanistan.
Dealing with a harsh environment has shaped ethnic, tribal, clan, village and family life as well as outside threat including invasion and occupation.
Topography has also shaped responses and outlook and continues to do so. The Hazaras, Tadjiks, Uzbeks and Pathans all have a different outlook on life with the former three sharing a dislike of the latter.
It's hard to see Afghanistan becoming a united state in the modern sense of the word. Should the occupying forces seek to treat them all differently?
During the war against the Russians the British did.
Should we concentrate on the Pathans and the politics/military stategies of the border region?
Should we look at the creation of a new state containing all of the Pathans?
That would mean a loss of Peshawar and Quetta to Pakistan. Would Pakistan accept that? Could it be made to accept that? What sweetners could the international community offer?
A post in Kabul need not be large. That would reduce the number of troops needed to provide protection.(Perhaps we could employ a platoon of Ghurkas!).
The post might comprise one DFAT official as head of mission, one allied DFAT official,two Military Attaches,two AusAid officials and one Immigration official.
Anyway as you indicate Bush has demonstrated just how out of touch his Administration is with its non-sensical reference to Vietnam. Does Howard go along with this rubbish?
The graffiti is on the wall in Iraq and it is not pretty to read.
The die is cast Paul.
Keith do tell me where Howard has had a foreign policy success. Don't cite East Timor where he was dragged kicking and screaming.
What is your understanding of Australian foreign polcy under Howard and Downer?
Define what you mean by the war on terror?
Bruce Haigh

Hmm... interesting piece and interesting comments. Pete seems on the money, though I can't help but wonder if Howard really wants to play an Iraq card. I suspect unless pressed by Rudd, he'd rather keep the whole affair low-key, which would indicate we won't even get vague statements before the election.

For my two bob, I'm particularly interested in developments in Pakistan.
I can't help but wonder what kind of reaction any uranium deal with India is going to provoke north of the Indian border.
Given that Saudi Arabia represents the financiers of AQ, Afghanistan the front line and Pakistan appears to be the centre of operations, it would appear to me at least, that sooner or later either Pakistani proxies or US forces are going to have to undertake some form of engagement in Pakistan. Probably not for a few years yet, but soon enough.

It'd be interesting to see what role India plays in any Pakistani manoeuvres. They can't play an overt role, that would inflame the situation immeasurably, but I doubt they would merely take a back seat either.