Good article,Bruce.The psychology of prior investment is one hurdle which the West will have to jump in order to get out of Afganistan.
There is also the geopolitical aspect with resources looming large as well as great power rivalries.

In the latter case,what Halford J MacKinder wrote in 1942 in his "Democratic Ideals and Reality" may still be valuable.

Now that the USA is talking to Iran, they should simply let Iran take over Afghanistan,and let Muslims deal with Muslims. The idea of sending Christian Soldiers to fight Muslims, in a country as rugged as Afghanistan is simply not intelligent.

Iran will use laws they understand against them,and stop the flow of opium, and have a fairly effective and efficient Army.

Let us be sensible about this.

What a confusing jumble of items .. what are you actually writing about?

The summary asks what US and Australia are doing in Afghanistan when there is so little chance (in your opinion) of finding Bin Laden or breaking Al Qaida. If the UN in Afghanistan, its not just US and Australia I hope you realize, pulled out, would you berate them for giving up?

Then the conflict is compared to the British time there, which was not all a failure, but that's the part that populists remember. Then the Russian time there, when they were up against the Mujahadin and the USA.

Then a comparison to Vietnam, which is a really long bow to draw. Vietnam was so politicized you can't genuinely compare it. It had all the silly BS with DMZs and cease fires, which both sides ignored and both sides tried to use the media which ultimately the US regretted. Anyway, the UN was NOT in Vietnam.

Then to a possible of Taliban killing women and children for propaganda reasons, but of course you are trying to bring up the ghost of My Lai and Lt Calley, (poor bastard, crucified by the press, then his own government).

To end up you say the minister can't ask CDF to investigate an alleged incident with our troops, as if the CDF is a sneaky untrustworthy type. Who would you get to investigate it, the ABC's Media Watch, Warringah Council, the RSPCA? What an absurdity.

So ultimately, this is a just a loose collection of items being used to undermine our military and it reflects poorly on you for doing it.

By all means write another hate piece on the USA, but keep the allusions of Australian treason to a minimum, please.

Iran arent stupid. They know what it means to fight a war in Afghanistan and how pointless it is and how unwinnable it is. Only idiot, so called "superpowers" are dumb enough to sacrifice thousands of their children to the fields and mountains of Afghanistan.

First the British got the crap kicked out of them. Then the Russians had a go and got slaughtered and now the Seppos and friends are falling into the same trap and will inevitably leave with their tails between their legs and Afghanistan will return to its age old ways until the next fools decide to have a go.

Pretty impressive really. Who else defeated the British at their height of empire, humiliated the Soviets and is now grinding down the Americans. All with primitive weapons, society and tactics. And they grow almost all of the worlds opium. You'd think they would be a bunch of drugged hippies who couldnt organise a bbq let alone a war but somehow they manage to continually defeat the worlds best with nothing more than a ragtag bunch of tribesmen and local knowledge.

A better article than Bruce's last one pounding 'hearts and minds' in Afghanistan.

While 10 Austalian soldiers have been killed in that barbaric country, Rudd has allowed several boat loads of Afghans to arrive illegally and live in Australia.

While Labor supporters and left looneys rubbished Howard for Iraq, they are not heard on Rudd and Afghanistan.

While Afghanistan has a 'government' run by that character with a name sounding like a dunny, the Taliban will never be defeated.

The 'fight against terror' has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Australia can protect itself from terrorist without fighting tribal thugs in another country.

As P the B suggest, let Muslims all over the world kill each other and work out their own problems.

In response to the question " Why are we in Afghanistan"
Simply put: It's because the military are making decisions that should be made by the Parliament.

This is a matter that should gravely concern the Australian Public.
We have a military 'cabinet' that's perceives a need to spend it's budget allocation making War lest it be reduced....We are in Afghanistan because the USA want us as part of the coalition of the willing to help justify their slaughter of civilians as they conduct the 'war' from the safety of their air arm . Who had any doubt despite the mutterings of the Prime Minister that we were going to send more troops ?

Blind Freddy can see what such a converse role of the military is doing in Indonesia. The way we are going, we are in danger of fulfilling Keating's prophecy and becoming a banana republic.

We should not be in Afghanistan and the sooner we decide to get the hell out of there, the better.

Unless the Yanks are prepared to Nuke Afghanistan like they nuked Japan, they have no future there. They had to nuke Japan, or spend another million lives defeating men who were not afraid to die for what they believed in, just as the Vietnamese did, and many Iraqi's.

The hardest man to defeat is the man who is not afraid to die. These men are not afraid of death, and suicide bombers will continue to blow up people, as long as Christians try to dominate them.

We all know that nucluear is not an option,so its out. Obama should face reality there, and give Pakistan all the help he can, so it will act as a counterweight to Iran. Iran would probably take over Afghanistan, and stop the opium farming, and probably negotiate pipelines for oil, so everyone would be happier, if not totally happy.

rpg, did you *seriously* call William Calley a "poor bastard"?

"Dozens of people were herded into an irrigation ditch and other locations and killed with automatic weapons. A large group of about 70 to 80 villagers, rounded up by the 1st Platoon in the center of the village, were killed personally by Calley and by soldiers he had ordered to fire. Calley also shot two other large groups of civilians with a weapon taken from a soldier who had refused to do any further killing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai

maracas1, what sort of decisions do you think the military are making? They did not decide to be in Afghanisatan, nor do they decide on the numbers, that's up to the Australian government. Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious, just curious as to your reasoning there i.e. did I miss something?

PtB - I agree with you that the only way to suppress this area, and the borders are really arbitrary let's face it, is to wipe it off the face of the planet. A mite excessive possibly, but strategically a good move, tactically it also stops tons of opium poppies ending up eventually killing kids.

Pakistan was drawn across several regions that probably should not have been divided, Kashmir and the Punjab, this has led to endless problems.

I would put forward that Pakistan is lost though, I cannot see the Pakistani government being organised enough to end the fractured nature of its command to be effective against the Taliban. They lack political will as well, and cannot divorce themselves from playing silly games with India.

It may well be that India nukes Pakistan to end the possibility of Taliban ending up with nukes.

Australia in Afghanistan, well we have to be there as the US have told us to be there, we can't not go where they ask us to otherwise we will have to fund our own defence. That would effectively be many more billions than the trivial amounts we spend now, considering our geographic position.

Clownfish, I say he was a "poor bastard" because his own government treated him as a political football. I don't condone the killing, but his defense was that he did it under orders, the Major who gave them denied it but later, after his trial, admitted he had lied. Calley was sentenced to Life, which was converted to 20 years in military prison, which was reduced to 3 years of house arrest - such was the commitment of the US Military who knew one of their own had been stitched up.

Have a read of Lt Calley's autobiography if you want to get Lt Calley's reasons of why he thought he was doing the right thing, and like many others, following orders. (Wiki is interesting, but often only has one side of accounts where clearly several viewpoints exist, much is reported in the daily news that is corrected the next day).

This was just after the Tet offensive, where the US got a kicking and people were not only trigger happy, they were expecting trouble everywhere and maybe went looking for it.

Many people are charged with crimes and get off due to following orders (Nazis in WWII war crimes), or were really drunk at the time or were provoked, a defense still available in most states of Australia. (I believe this is true?)

Did you know the survivors of the My Lai incident were wiped out "accidently" by the South Vietnamese Army in an artillery barrage? No one was charged. People die in war, so it goes.

The invasion of Afghanistan is a criminal piece of idiocy, and quite apart from the fact it has no ethical justification, it has zero chance of success.

This war has little or nothing to do with the defence of Australia and is an offensive aggression by the Australian state against bewildered goatherds and hill-dwellers who have never done us any harm. In any event, the Taliban as a political force is entirely an artefact of the USA’s dopey imperial foreign policy in the first place.

What is the USA doing there? Indulging the welfare/warfare state’s usual dream of dominating people and forcing them to obey – for their own good, of course.

What is Australia doing there? Crawling up the USA’s arse, as usual.

In my view we should get out of Afghanistan .

The value of the lives of our boys eclipses the value of the entire Afghan population .

Afghans and Tali ban are heathens of the finest order .

If they move outside their borders use nuclear power .

Bruce

While I normally agree with you I think you're stuck in Vietnam mode.

What most don't seem to recognise is that Afghanistan is largely an instrument of the main game, which is Pakistan.

Looking at the attempted Indochina War parallels - there are few. The al Qaida jihadis who are still enmeshed with the Taliban were largely a Pakistani/Saudi/US instrument to bleed the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

The Taliban were a continued Pakistani ISI "policy" to control Afghanistan on Pakistan's terms. After 9/11 Pakistan was only too happy to play both sides of the game - accepting US War on Terror money to fight the Taliban while also, more secretly, keeping the Taliban operating as a viable anti-Western enemy.

So the Afghan-Pakistan war is largely Pakistan driven. What makes it completely dissimilar from Bruce's memories of Vietnam is Pakistan's nuclear weapons - and India's nuclear armed hatred of Pakistan. The US is aware that a "limited" Indo-Pakistani nuclear war could happen quickly if the Indians became nervous enough. How limited is 30 million dead?

The prospect that Islamic extremists in the Pakistan military will get on top as the Taliban become more influential scares the daylights out of those (from all sides) with access to the nuclear order of battle. Pakistan's nuclear missiles in an unstable country justifies more than withdrawals or negotiations that have always failed in Afghan and Pakistani history. You get stalemates then things get worse.

Bruce needs to think up something better than Vietnam era slogans. Just think of a North Vietnam with nuclear weapons whose commanders are imbued with a feeling that suicide on a grand scale is glorious - different ball game.

That is why the democratically elected main Government AND Opposition parties Both support Australia’s efforts which seek to prevent the Talibanization of Afghanistan/Pakistan. The issue is constantly being argued by those we vote for.

Its too risky to permit nuclear megadeath between South Asian countries.

Pete

America is still in Afghanistan for the same reason it decided to invade well before the events of September 2001 - to ensure the control of the flow of oil from the Caspian region.

The country is vitally strategic, lying between the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, Turkmenistan and the Indian markets of China and Japan. That's why the Russians were interested years earlier.

The only Caspian oil and gas export routes were then via Russia so alternate piplines to Turkey, Western Europe and the Asian markets (via India) were required - via Afghanistan - and the Taliban were a problem. Other countries and regions affected by similar pipeline strategies are Chechnya, Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia, Macedonia and China's far-Western region.

The ongoing civil unrest caused UNOCAL to pull out of its cross-Afghanistan $2 billion pipleline project between Dauletabad (Turkmenistan) to Karachi in Pakistan.

There was a meeting in Geneva in May 2001 between the US, Iranian, German and Italian officials to discuss strategies to topple the Taliban and again at the G8 meeting in July 2001, where India contributed its own plans.

A few days after that G8 meeting, there were talks in Berlin between the US, Russian, German and Pakistani officials and a plan resulted, consisting of military strikes against the Taliban before mid-October from bases in Tajikistan. Colin Powell was even quoted about this in the Sydney Morning Herald at the time.

911 merely precipitated plans that were already in place.

Within weeks of the post-911 "victory" the pipeline construction was back on track but still remains vulnerable to hostile attack from pro-Taliban forces.

Then again, maybe they are simply there to spread democracy and happiness among the oppressed.

Perhaps the need at the moment for USA and it's Allies remaining in Afghanistan is to dilute the direction of military action by the Taliban and the Pakistani intelligence service and prevent a larger conflict involving the whole of the sub-continent.
If the Taliban and its collaborators in Pakistan get close to the control of Pakistan's nuclear munitions I suspect that India will react most violently.
Do not forget there is a viseral hatred between these two countries and it wont matter what outsiders say.

Thanks Plantagenet.My references to Vietnam had two parts. The first related to the media and the uncritical acceptance of govt. policy, which in the case of Vietnam began to change by the middle of 1968, and the second to Australian involvement in a military undertaking over which it has little influence in terms of policy and planning.
Of concern to me is the secrecy with which the Australian military operates in Afghanistan. Secrecy is necessary for planning and military action, however there is a fine line and secrecy can also cover up mistakes and abuse.
Swat may only be 100 kms from Islamabad, but it is a pretty rugged 100kms.Any major set piece battle for control of Pakistan would be fought on the plains and in such a scenario, the Taliban would be outgunned and out manouvred by the Pakistan army, perhaps with assistance from close friends and other neighbours.
A sparse and poor environment has fuelled tribal fighting for many generations in the rugged hill regions.Fundamentalism, as a uniting force, has pulled some waring tribes together and in other instances has become a force to rival these old groupings. Central govt. indifference and corruption can be added into the unifying mix, plus the confidence gained from seeing the Russians off. Perhaps Pakistan may fracture along the fault lines of the Hindi Kush, but the plains will remain in the hands of the Punjabi's and the Sindhi's.
Bruce Haigh

Hang on Bruce.

My counter comments keep growing and would like to be an article when they grow up

Some parts support your misgivings, many don't.

Off Topic - I WAS going to write about the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen (June 4th). The memory is already being minimised round the world in deference to China...I'm confident our pollies will do their blend of sorrow and customer relations bit.

So Af-Pak it is. By late May hopefully.

Pete

Write the Tiananmen piece Pete and seek comment from Rudd and the China lobbysts.
Af/Pak needs more focus, facts, discussion and debate.
I'm afraid in my desire to stimulate some analysis I have not done the issue justice.
Bruce Haigh

OK Bruce

A kind of relief really - with new info coming in. I'll write a Af-Pak piece by late June.

I'm leaning towards the camp that Obama has adopted Af-Pak as his own project towards hardline foreign/defence policy. The US military, a huge national juggernaut, is an essential constituency in itself for any President.

Pak is always a nuclear risk - that risk is a highly subjective assessment beyond Australian int capabilities - so in some ways what else is new about the muddling Af-Pak region?

I'm saying this is really hard - you have a better local handle - agreement or even disagreement on this this war that is killing many, including Aussies, can only help.

Regards

Pete

Yep, agree Pete. Where are we at? No debate on proposed defence acquisitions,no debate on water, a climate change debate driven by the coal industry,not even a debate about the importance or otherwise of sponser driven sport and the abuse it engenders.
All the best
Bruce

rpg, while Calley was certainly scapegoated to a large degree, his use of the Nuremburg defence is an appalling piece of self-justification.

Soldiers are only required to follow *lawful orders*.

If US soldier deserves sympathy for My Lai, it's someone like Hugh Thompson, who was mercilessly villified for years for trying to do the right thing.

The problem should not be considered a religious one because Al Qaeda disobeys many Islamic tenets.Why the war is difficult for Australia and the USA is because they do not realize that terrorists have huge weaknesses and can be defeated easily.Instead they make terrorists heroes by calling them jihadists and Mujahideen.This is strange and suggestions infiltration and compromise.View details in my blog,http://satanistterrorist.blogspot.com/.Thank you

The problem should not be considered a religious one because Al Qaeda disobeys many Islamic tenets.Why the war is difficult for Australia and the USA is because they do not realize that terrorists have huge weaknesses and can be defeated easily.Instead they make terrorists heroes by calling them jihadists and Mujahideen.This is strange and suggestions infiltration and compromise.View details in my blog,http://satanistterrorist.blogspot.com/.
Thank you