The Forum > Article Comments > Afghanistan: what are we doing there? > Comments
Afghanistan: what are we doing there? : Comments
By Bruce Haigh, published 13/10/2009Afghanistan extends deep inside Pakistan: so far the US and its allies have demonstrated few strategies to deal with this.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
BH`s case for withdrawl is overwhelming. But internatioinal affairs are not run according to moral principles.The US is locked into global strategic committments,and "the big picture", the large maps on the wall,determine the policies of the high command, national security advisors, think tanks etc.Just to mention a couple of imperatives:the stability of Pakistan, and the longer term objective of a pipe line from Central Asia.Leslie
Posted by Leslie, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 4:07:02 PM
| |
...plus the capacity to train our troops in real combat situations in collaboration with other forces. And if we lose a few? Well, that's warfare. It brings us closer together in the end -- look at Anzac Day! Not that that's any consolation for the bereaved parents, spouses and children...
Doesn't anyone in power remember Vietnam? Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 8:50:23 PM
| |
Yes leslie,the pipeline is is an objective.Central Asia has oil and gas to equal that of the Persian Gulf,perhaps more.The most viable economic route is through Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They did not have to go to war with Afghanistan.The US had good relations with the Afghani Tribes by helping them oust the Russians.They could have spent money on education an infrastructure for the Afghani people,instead of murderous weapons to kill them. We ignored JFK's warnings of the growth of the industrial military complex at our peril.A new nightmare is dawning and the general pop haven't the courage to confront it. The war on terror was just a ruse for the expansion of power via money.The internet underground knows the truth and is welling like a giant tsunami to defeat this evil. Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 10:41:06 PM
| |
Arjay. Correct. It would have been much cheaper to do it the sensible way.
Those in power have been let off any accountability by the press and the "opposition" has been compromised. These criminals are wealthy enough to corrupt both sides of politics, and can buy out the press. I don't believe the press can be that incompetent. Editorial decisions have obviously been swayed for political reasons, threats or bribery. Where is the post 911 profit investigation (who made billions)? Why the FAA investigation irregularities? Why all "evidence" for war evaporated? Afghanistan is clearly all about the pipeline. Apart from Jon J's idea of realistic war training (Hey, we need jungle training...any oil in PNG? No...OK, Gold it is!) I'd say it is continuation of Howard's back-room deals with the US. Definitely *not* in our interest to be there! Nor is it really in the US interests, but the forces involved have already destroyed the US economy and world standing so I guess that is not relevant to them! Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 10:21:02 AM
| |
What would be the ramifications of withdrawel. Not to mention the soldiers themselves.
These soldiers are there to do a job, they are well aware of the consequences of war. There are some among us that can't get oil off their mind. That was the same in iraq. The pakis; are advancing, against these take over merchants. There is always going to be casualties. Don't you believe they are doing something for our own longevity. If this type of human got their hands on WMD they will use it. Nth Korea must be stopped and iran must be stopped. The days are getting closer. The two one man govt; in this world will close. Posted by Desmond, Saturday, 17 October 2009 7:21:15 PM
| |
Good article Bruce.
Having just returned from the war averse, low defence budget Kiwi land, it is interesting to look at the US which apparently treats large-scale war as a trusty method of achieving peace. Addressing your questions/issues: "Policy makers in Australia need to ask, what is it that they hope to achieve from the Australian military presence in Afghanistan?" Answer: Demonstrably support the US noting this is in line with ANZUS. Most people are unaware that that Australia used the ANZUS Treaty as the legal trigger to send troops to Afghanistan in support of the US shortly after 9/11. That ANZUS trigger is not a mere pretext for Australia wanting to become embroiled in wars on the other side of world. It is all about how we can support America, with priorities set by America prorities. As you say it is up to America as to how long we stay. Australia does most of its serious and maybe more effective fighting against international terrorism through all modes of intelligence - including that conducted by military intelligence people, ASIO, AFP, DSD etc. Most of the detail of sources and methods and international relationships is confidential - which explains why its rarely explained. Given the restrictions of our stringent version of the Westminster system we the Australian public are forced to look at other organisations sharing the effort with Australia. Most countries in Afghanistan probably publish more information than Australia about their counter terrorism intelligence effort in Afghanistan. Given this disparity it may be useful to look at the direct Canadian equivalent "CSE" of our own DSD. This website is very useful http://luxexumbra.blogspot.com/search?q=afghanistan concerning Canadian sigint collection and analysis on Afghanistan - if one extrapolates to Oz... In my humble opinion all your other questions, while valid, are outside of the effort to support the US - and so are probably and sadly irrelevant to Australian government policy priorities. Our soldiers dying for this alliance affirming cause is probably a tragedy remembered more by their next of kin and less by our decision makers currently in government. Regards Pete Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 25 October 2009 4:09:08 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All