Good article - so clearly written.

Its fortunate, in a distressing way, that Australia does not need to worry about wider issues in the Afg-Pak war outside Australia's patrol area of Oruzgan Province http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/global/opslipper/index.cfm.

The only reason we are there is to lend support to the US, be a loyal ally, simple. If the war unbalances al Qaida, preventing it to re-order itself and retrain, all the better.

Therefore it is the old but totally valid concept that we are paying a premium to the US for wider US defence/ANZUS protection of Australia in peacetimes and ultimately US nuclear protection in war.

NZ has troops in Afghanistan for the same US protection reason, although NZ is loathe to admit it.

Our presence in Afghanistan also means the US is providing much more intelligence (mainly military, in all modes) to Australia than the merely reciprocal level the US would provide if Australia were not in Afghanistan.

So we don't need to do the thinking on Afghanistan we just need to support the US with "troops and treasure" no matter what and for as long as Obama and perhaps his successor (in years to come) wants us to stay there.

This may sound cynical and simplistic but there is a way out: Australia building sufficient conventional and nuclear military forces for an independent defence and by extension foreign policy. But that route is currently too expensive for the Australian electorate to stomach and talk of nuclear defence is taboo in all but the most secure planning groups in Defence HQ (Russell Offices) Canberra.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2007/06/australia-to-go-nuclear.html

Great article full of insightful thoughtful comments and links.
I am an expatriated ozzie and am acutely aware of the resistance to g bush policy in the USA which is large and obviously pro democrat.
The solution is going to prove a least Obama’s commitment to the Middle East problem which is both difficult and probably full of incongruous policy decisions.

For may years I also supported the war in Afghanistan, whilst opposing the invasion of Iraq, for the same reasons that Gary Brown has stated.

However, as regular OLO visitors may be aware, I now reject the premise that the invasion was necessary to both bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice and to prevent them from using Afghanistan to launch further attacks.

The simple fact that, after 8 years of military occupation of what was supposed to be the territory from which 9/11, the London Tube bombings (aka 7/7), the Madrid train bombings, etc were launched, not a single person with proven link to any one of these atrocities has been captured, should surely cause even the staunchest proponent of the Official US Government explanation of 9/11 to rethink his/her views.

I urge Gary Brown to do so. A good place to start would be the web site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at http://ae911truth.org

Also an extensive discussion has occurred at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83

A more recent discussion can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9500&page=0

Even if Gary Brown is not immediately convinced of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement, it should be very easy for him to see that there has been a cover-up and that a new enquiry is desperately needed.

---

Whilst I am now opposed to the Afghan war, I am not convinced that the rorting of the ballots by Karzai and that government's corruption is, in itself, a compelling argument against the war, given that the alternative of the Taliban appears comparably unpalatable.

Nevertheless, we can be confident that Governments such as Australia's which, as a matter of course, ignore popular will on almost every critical issue, most notably privatisation and immigration, to suit the corporate donors, who so generously bankroll the governing parties, are not there to fight for democracy or for the benefit of the Afghans.

Whatever outcome may ensue from a withdrawal of Australia, the US, the US, etc could not be as bad as the continued death and destruction and undoubted plans to pillage the natural resources of the region.

Yes, excellent article and excellent comments.

However I don’t actually agree with them.

Plantagent has the issue in a nutshell. We are there to support the US in exchange for protection. But that does not excuse us from thinking, as Plantagenet suggests; nor from being ethically implicated in our actions. The US is doing atrocious destruction and injustice with these wars; and perhaps we need to rethink the risk/ethics/costs relation.

If an enemy is planning to attack or invade us, I don’t think we need to wait until it happens. But it’s more complex than that. The war against Iraq was clearly based on lies and … what interests? And the war in Afghanistan just smacks too much of imperial adventurism in the middle of Central Asia, and a misguided sense of social engineering, to make sense in terms of defence; quite apart from the fact that it is unconstitutional.

As for the “extreme Islamist terrorist movement”, perhaps if the USA didn’t have troops in 130 countries, and stopped bombing Afghan goatherds, shopkeepers, and bridal parties, they might not be as pissed off as they are?

As for “…huge fraud in the recent Afghan presidential ‘election’ - an exercise our taxpayers helped fund, by the way - conclusively demonstrates that the regime of Hamid Karzai, which we are supporting, has no credibility. None.”

True. But according to the logic of majority rule, aka democracy, if no such irregularities affected the Afghan elections, they would be as justified in launching pre-emptive wars against other countries on the other side of the world as the US is with a minority of the population having voted for Obama. If a majority voted for the Taliban, would that justify them in attacking the US, which has been far more invasive of Afghanistan, than the Taliban have of the US? So formal democracy by no means answers the issues.

But perhaps the biggest problem with all the formulations in the article and comments is that they seem in effect to confound the public interest with the will of the executive.

Interesting article on point: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/10/06/us-foreign-policy-rudyard-kipling/

Bloody hell. Wouldnt it have just been so much easier to give Bin Ladin what he asked for 10 years ago? US troops out of Saudi and a resolution to the Palestinians.

The only way to stop terrorists is to stop them wanting to be terrorists. Good lives, freedom, less of the rest of us telling them what to do and maybe a sharing of some of our wealth and knowledge and I doubt anyone could be convinced to blow themselves up for some superfriend in the sky.

Afghanistan was always going to be a disaster and unwinnable. The seppos are so far up themselves they think history dosnt apply to them and that they can top the Russians for pointless viciousness and subjugation of the Afghan people. Stupid fools.

Such a shame AlJazeera is not in Oz. Or are they on cable? Don't know. Spend to little time in Oz currently. The reason I say this is because they cover a lot of areas of the world that receive little if any attention in Aust otherwise. Not to mention the quality interviews with the decision makers. Top brass, top pollies you name it .. atlength interviews where they are encouraged to answer questions with full global interactivity from the community. Most excellent relative to Oz standards. Of course they carry a bit of bias but don't they all - absorb what is useful as B.Lee said.

Point being, an interesting doco on Afghanistan was recently aired. Before the alleged fraudulent elections, *Karzai* invited back an exiled WarLord who carries with him an estimated 2.000.000 loyal votes.

The same WarLord has been accused of serious attrocities and there was alleged high level interference with the mass grave sites and "brick walls" erected to confound the investigators.

..

It is in my view a problem when the media is not allowed to do its job where ever that may occur.

..

Suffice to say, that whilst it may have been a tactic to use the WarLords to put the Taliban down, a lot of testimonials on the ground in the doco reckon that they'd far prefer the Taliban to the WarLords.

Alas, readers, we do get the conspiracy theorists don't we? The 9/11 theories are up there with the fake moon landings, Area 51 and the "Face" on Mars. Does Dagget also believe that Swine Flu & HIV are bioweapons gone wrong? The only inquiry that might be needed is one that should be conducted by Dagget's shrink... glad I don't have that job!

Clueless, I happen to agree with you that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is "up there with the fake moon landings, Area 51 and the 'Face' on Mars." As for the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think you will find that is vastly more substantiated with solid physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

As for allegations that Swine Flu is a bioweapon, I am still trying to make up mind up on that one. Perhaps you could start up a forum in order to tell us why you think it is not.

---

DreamOn,

Didn't you know that Al Jazeera was simply the reconstituted BBC Arab Language service?

For all the BBC's pretence of being being touchy-feely, bleeding-heart left/liberal, it is really no better than a propaganda arm of the British Government, and Al Jazeera seems little better.

---

It seems as if both Pete Hume and mikk, whilst expressing sympathy for the people of Afghanistan, nevertheless accept the Big Lie (as I myself once did) that Islamist extremists operating from sanctuaries in Afghanistan, launched 9/11, the London Tube bombings (aka 7/7), the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombings, etc.

mikk, you wrote, "Wouldn't it have just been so much easier to give Bin Laden what he asked for 10 years ago? ..."

mikk, don't you think it would have been much easier for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran if 9/11 had not occurred?

Can't you see how the effect of 9/11 has been completely contrary to the interests that 'Al Qaeda' claims to serve and, conversely, has served very well the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) cabal that seized control of the US in 2000?

That is why critical-minded people, who genuinely oppose US military adventures, have taken a long, hard ,sceptical look at the official US Government account of 9/11 and have come to the conclusion that it cannot possibly be true.

Again, I suggest you look at material from the 9/11 Truth Movement, and other online forum discussions on that topic, as I suggested above.

Well Godless,I'm afraid Daggett is right.Not a single person on this planet can answer a single question in regards to 911.All 3 buildings came down at the free fall speeds due to gravity.The Official theory is that the planes weakened the steel structure and the heat from the jet fuel made them collapse.The floors above the planes acted like pile drivers crushing in a pancake fashion the lower floors.If the energy due to gravity is being used to crush the lower floors,then how is it possible for these building to collapse at freefall speeds?

Building 7 186 m tall of which no plane impacted came down in 6.5 sec or an average speed of 103 km per hr.The towers were 415 m high and came down in 10 sec or 149 km per hr.

God or Godless on this fateful day must have suspended the laws of physics.

There are now mountains of evidence demonstrating that the official conspiracy theory has serious flaws.

*Dagget*

" ... Didn't you know that Al Jazeera was simply the reconstituted BBC Arab Language service? ... "

I didn't actually, however, relative to the absolute <snip> we generally see on australian and n.american news media it is definateley a quality service in my view. I had noticed the majority were pommie accented though.

..

If you wanted to see for arguments sake what has happening on the ground from within Gaza during the recent conflict then I could watch AlJazeera who had people inside broadcasting live.

..

So to say it is simply this or that is an extremely shallow appraisal in my view.

..

How much have you seen about the WarLord's policy on australian tv? In fact, seriously, due to the distinct lack of quality information in the last 8 odd years regarding the Afghanistan, how much does the average person in Oz really know about what has been going on and why? Very little I would suggest, and that has nothing to do with the people's inability to grasp the issue, but rather the propensity of slimy politicians to hide their behaviour.

General McCrystal has got the right idea and should be encouraged to speak openly in public as part of the key to resolving the issue is to be had by engaging the collective, as has begun to occur in Indonesia to a limited extent.

Still, now they have de-fanged their anti-corruption department one wonders how much farther if at all they will progress?

mikk
Well said: every word true.

Now if you can just turn that same insight, that governmental aggression against the people of other countries cannot produce a just or successful result, to realising that governmental aggression against its own citizens cannot produce a just or successful result, you will truly be in favour of human liberation.

I'm amazed by those who say we shd just give bin Laden & co what they want, and then they will go away and be nice to us in future. At least two things wrong with that: 1. When you give a blackmailer what he wants, he then demands more. 2. BL wants to impose his perversion of Islam - a perfectly respectable faith in its mainstream versions, even if I don't personally believe it - on everybody. I for one do not want to see billions living under the kind of "law" he wants. When the Taliban were running all of Afghanistan, they converted the goals in a UN-funded soccer stadium into gallows for public hangings. Women were forbidden schooling. Thieves had hands chopped off. Sorry, bin Laden can't have what he wants; he and his ilk have to be fought.

DreamOn,

In many ways the quality of reporting on the BBC and Al Jazeera seems to be better than the mainstream western corporate newsmedia. I exepct this would have been even more true of Aljazeera during Israel's invasion of Gaza as you write. On the other hand, as brutal and criminal as that invasion was, that was obviously not going to be a watershed as, for example the invasion of Iraq or 9/11 were.

In any case, Aljazeera's participation in the cover-up of 9/11, alongside all the Western newsmedia, has caused a vast amount of more harm to Arab speaking people than what good would have come from its reporting of Gaza.

It should be obvious by now that merely 'better' reporting is just not good enough. I believe that if the BBC, in particular, had told the whole truth about the Iraq war in 2003 they would have made it impossible for the British Government to participate in the invasion. And I believe that the same applies to Australia's ABC.

The ABC's lame pretence at being critical of the Iraq war is exmplified by Kerry O'Brien's lightweight interview of John Howard on 31 March 2003 at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s821040.htm

Note, how Kerry O'Brien called the war an 'ethical war':

"At some point in the ethical war the coalition leaders may have to decide between two high-cost actions - and I don't say the phrase 'ethical war' in a sarcastic fashion ..."

O'Brien could have easily torn John Howard's case for war to shreds simply by putting to him the known facts, for example, about the WMD inspections that had been aborted not long before then and the plea by WMD inspectors to the coalition not to invade, but he chose not to, and so hundreds of thousands died.

The BBC's effort appeared little better from this distance and however much, if at all, Al Jazeera was an improvement upon the BBC, it is obvious that, as I mentioned above, by failing to report on the controversy over 9/11 Al Jazeera gave a free kick to the Coalition forces.

The gas pipeline is what the US is there for.
Its the elephant in the room folks, and like oil in Iraq it will eventually be officially admitted (quietly) to be the reason.
We went because Howard was stupid and bowed to threatening US officials, believing the war 40 years ago is still paramount today and that truth can be suspended while the war drums beat. Idiot. The US used our previously good world reputation to help justify their illegal war. If Howard had said no then maybe even Britain would have re-thought and thousands would still be alive today. (Saddam could be taken out without killing the country and empowering thousands of armed criminals and mercenaries)
LNG reserves in region and coastal factors make it the target, nothing to do with Bin Laden. Another CIA trained US agent who went bad. No conspiracy theory there, just history.
Godless, not all conspiracy theories are incorrect. As others have pointed out, the "official" set of events around that time have many inconsistencies and the press went out of it's way to ignore truth. Anyone who still believes the stories coming out of the Bush administration is naive, or possibly gullible.