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