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.

Be my guest, SJF. However, to be a credible neologism it needs a proper dictionary definition: go for it!

While we're on the subject of Afghanistan, I want to know
why I haven't seen anything in the Aussie news, or at least
nothing prominently placed (nothing came up at top of the
list on Google Oz) about:

'Worse than the Taliban' - new law rolls back rights for
Afghan women.

The final document has not been published, but the law is believed
to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house
without their husbands' permission, that they can only
seek work, education or visit the doctor with their
husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.

A briefing document prepared by the United Nations Development
Fund for Women also warns that the law grants custody of children
to fathers and grandfathers only.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-law

It seems the US government is supporting this disgusting bill:

http://jezebel.com/5192134/us+backed-afghan-government-passes-pro+rape-law-to-win-election#viewcomments

I'm wondering why there's no apparent outrage from Australia and

why the media isn't giving this matter appropriate prominence.

(I'm also wondering how it is that a country that is in the crapper in about 190 different ways can prioritize viagra and rape as things the male population must have.)

It's difficult to imagine how a beautiful Poppy and a group of tribsmen so insequire they don't even trust their own woman can wreake
such havok.
Is it possible to win a religious war .
Only if you have enough money might be an answer ?
Russia and USA are the worlds Super Powers , what exactly have they won ? 'Nothing' is an appropiate answer.

Afganistan must be an entirely different country to that portrayed on TV , why is this so ? The Western press portrayes them as animalistic Peasents dulled by Fananatism with incredibly ugly noisey woman who seem to howl and wuba wuba on que living in rubble accommodation that was , maybe built by the mentally handicapped.
Yet they can flog Superpowers ?
Perhaps it's time to concede our position is a no brainer , get out then control the Heroin Supply with nuclear weapons or if thats unpopular introduce Indonesion laws for the users and trafficers .
There must be sofisticated networks to get opiats right across the world so efficently that they can afford the amounts of explosive , is it C5 ? , that they have available .

JulianC

How's this for a definition?

gallipolism /gel´ipilizem/ n. 1. system of belief that imbues an otherwise boring beach in Turkey with profound mythological significance 2. method of foreign policy that relieves our political leaders of ever having to think about whether the wars we participate in are moral, legal or affordable 3. military procedure based on the strategy that the further away a war is located from our shores, the more critical it is to the nation’s defence [origin: RSL]

Pynchme

I found this more recent Reuters article which says the law only applies to Afghanistan's Shia population (about 15%).

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSL2330877

I suppose we could spread a rumour that Afghanistan's Shias are secret communists. Then, one White House phone call to Karzai and poof! The law vanishes as quickly as it appeared.

It is on record that during the time of Taliban regime, they eliminated the heroin crop. It only restarted when Afghanistan was “ liberated” by Bush.
The main reason for the invasion was to open up the way for the oil & gas pipeline to be laid across and into Pakistan.
The US oiligarchy of course was happy to have an excuse to invade and facilitate that.
The poppy crop for the CIA was a serendipitous side effect.

I predicted way before the last election that one Julia Gillard will be wearing Rudd's Dudds.Kevin is just not up to the job.He wears his juvenile boyish imaturity like a badge of honour,strutting the world stage,constantly seeking approval.

The yanks had him summed up in a jiffy and had Kevin in their pocket at the G20.Obama,"The most popular leader in the world."

Hey g'day SJF,

Well I don't feel that the issue is less because it (supposedly) effects only 15 % of the population. That's still a hell of a lot of girls aged 9 and upwards that the government of the whole country says can be handed over in 'marriage'; as well as all the other abuses that go into that package.

As civic law anyway it's unworkable. How does a police or judicial system act to enforce a law for only part of the population when two people of different religions commit the same act. Like does one fella get locked up for trafficking a nine year old girl; while the next fellow gets the nod and can go his way, having done the same thing, because his religious belief is different? I suspect that anyone trafficking a nine year old (or restricting his spouse's movements; or beating her; or making her wear make up; or raping her) will get the nod of ok.

That any government, in this day and age where we are supposed to honour a human rights framework, can successfully bring any such thing into formal law is terrifying. I am appalled that none of our Western governments seem to give a damn.

(Nice to read your posts again btw :D)

Good article Bruce (except for the last few paragraphs.)

On my blog Leonie Bronstein, one of my authors, argues that this is really the battle between two Talibans - 'ours' and theirs.

She goes on to say that if the US is beaten in Afghanistan one consequence is that the American beast will be forced into its cage for a few years and national liberation movements around the world might feel confident to confront their US economic and military overlords.

Australian troops are dying in Afghanistan to protect rape in marriage and keep women locked in the home. That really does give the lie to this criminal invasion being about liberating Afghans, in particular women.

It is disgraceful, but that's the price Rudd is forcing us to pay for the insurance policy of the AnzUS alliance.

I'd love to hear imperialist supporters like Gillard, Plibersek and their ilk explain their support for a regime that allows rape in marriage in Afghanistan. It'll be weasel words because their real goal in being in Afghanistan is defending the US alliance, not liberating people.

What does it matter to them if as collateral damage kids get killed, (sometimes with Australian troops pulling the trigger,) Australian troops get blown to bits and Afghan women get raped?

The US Alliance dominates their thinking and they'll come up with some sort of justification or explanation - eg we strongly condemn the Afghan Government but the fight against terrorism is paramount...

Hypocrites, war mongers and war criminals the lot.

Hi Pynchme

I mentioned the 15% factor in response to your partly rhetorical question of why the media wasn't giving this law more appropriate significance. I wasn't meaning to use the percentage to diminish the law in any way (although I appreciate that that's how it could have come across).

The new law was given some prominent coverage on the SBS and ABC news last night (I don't watch the commercial bulletins), so perhaps it's an issue that's building momentum slowly in the West. If so, then the peace movement and other social justice groups must not allow Western spin doctors to manipulate the issue for their own ends - e.g. to make out that our troops are in Afghanistan to bring an end to laws like this.

I thought it was odd - didn't think you were one to minimize it.

- but geez you're good:

"If so, then the peace movement and other social justice groups must not allow Western spin doctors to manipulate the issue for their own ends - e.g. to make out that our troops are in Afghanistan to bring an end to laws like this."

I hadn't thought of that and you're absolutey right - we'll keep an eye on it. Makes me sick that women and children get used as an excuse when it suits and discarded otherwise.

Hi again, Pynch

‘Makes me sick that women and children get used as an excuse when it suits and discarded otherwise.’

Yeah … everyone’s a feminist when it suits their agenda.

And to make a seemingly irrelevant digression … While Karzai is signing off on these grotesque gender laws in order to shore up his election chances, I’d love to know who his tailor is … and if he has a design consultant. He really is far and away the best dresser on the world stage today.

And while we’re at it, I’d also love to know where – indeed, who – Mrs Karzai is. I have a feeling her wardrobe falls well short of her husband’s – along with her rights.

Well, there you go, SJF, Afghanistan looks like just your sort of place. You can go and convince all those unreconstructed men that they're wrong and you're right and that they should have laws that let women cry "rape" anytime they change their mind in the morning, all in total anonymity, of course, except for the bloke falsely accused, whose name is plastered all over the papers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166466/Man-cleared-rape-court-shown-phone-footage-woman-actively-taking-sex.html.

You're the one who claims to be "militant" and "radical", yet I don't see a rush from you or any of the other gravytrain-riders to get over there and set the Afghanis straight. Why is that?