|
The Australian government’s resolve to stay in the war in Afghanistan has again been called into question following the grim news yesterday that another three Australian soldiers have been killed. Embarking on an early morning raid against the Taliban, three commandos died and seven were injured after a helicopter crashed at around 3:00am Afghan time.
In the last fortnight there have been five Australian casualties, bringing the total Australian causalities in Afghanistan to 16. Yesterday’s tragedy arrived on the same day as a new Essential Report poll revealing 61% of Australians believe our troops should be sent back home.
Possum Comitatus writes:
61% of respondents think Australia should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, 24% think we should keep the same number and 7% think we should increase numbers.
Support for withdrawal of troops has increased by 11% since this question was asked in March last year.
There was majority support for withdrawal of troops across all demographic groups and voter types. 55% of Liberal/National voters, 61% of Labor voters and 75% of Greens voters support withdrawal of Australia’s troops.
With the Dutch pulling their troops out later this year and the Canadians planning a 2011 exit, pressure is mounting for the Rudd government to make some noise about possible withdrawal strategies.
Is it time to count our losses and send the troops home?
Here’s what the pundits say:
The Age
Michelle Grattan: Poll shows most want our troops withdrawn
This is an unpopular war in Australia but one that is remarkably uncontentious politically. Both sides support the commitment - indeed, Tony Abbott would like to see more Australian troops there in a higher profile role - but neither wants to make the war a focus of domestic political attention.
Daniel Flitton: Price to pay for staying on course
But with five Australians killed in a fortnight, persuading people that the war is advancing in the right direction becomes all the more difficult.
Sydney Morning Herald
Hamish McDonald: ‘One of the worst examples of wartime leadership’
The wider US strategy of grabbing territory, establishing security for the people and bringing in the civil administration is faltering. There are not enough foreign soldiers or trained Afghans to hold the ground and no administration to bring in.
The Australian
Greg Sheridan: Long road ahead to win the war
If we want to win in Afghanistan, we are going to be there for many years to come, in substantial numbers.
Herald Sun
John Hamilton: What are we doing here?
Now is the time to ask - how long will this deadly war continue, and how long are we prepared to risk more young Australian lives in its prosecution? Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has repeatedly said that there is no “blank cheque” for our troop involvement in Afghanistan. The time might now be right to write a figure for a withdrawal date on the cheque form and cross it “not negotiable” when presenting it to America and our other allies.
| 
12 Comments
I’m sad about our losses. But we must keep fighting. We are fighting the good fight, against a terrible enemy, and now is not the time to run away.
Well Troy c, join up and fight the ” good fight” ? When is the time to leave ? USA are there for the next 40 years ! This is another Super Base for America to protect THEIR OIL and GAS supplies in Pipe-a- stan. We have not learnt from Vietnam , the French, Poms and Russia have wasted years and lives in this country and it will send USA broke (MORE BROKE).
The problem, friends, is that there is no obvious exit plan that doesn’t ultimately hand victory to the Taliban and recreate a rogue state strategically located smack bang between Iran, Pakistan Russia and China (with of course India a hardly disinterested bystander). Just think about the implications for global stability if they were left to sort it out amongst themselves…..
Lets just get out quickly. Veit Nam showed that these type of wars are unwinnable.
We are in there only so Howard could play the Maggie Thatcher card to win an election.
A very small man with much blood on his hands.
Mack the Knife, so true.
Troy, who are we fighting against?
What the rest of Michelle Grattan’s column said, which is not quoted here, is that we are there because of the US alliance. Its turning into Vietnam all over again. We shouldn’t have been involved in this or the Iraq war in the first place, so its time to withdraw everybody and that includes ‘trainers’ and other ‘support’ staff.
The reasons why the war was not - as is often asserted - legally endorsed by the UN Security Council in late 2001 - and the even more shocking deconstruction of the entire, so-called ‘moral’ justification for invading Afghanistan back in 2001 - is well explained by Professor David RayGriffin in this presentation:
Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?
at
http://edwardrynearson.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/is-the-war-in-afghanistan-justified-by-911/
However, Australia’s involvement required yet one more stretch. This was the unwarranted and wholly inappropriate invocation of the ANZUS Treaty, announced a few days after 9-11, at a time when almost any nonsense was swallowed by reporters, Opposition politicians and all and sundry, without question:
Application of ANZUS Treaty to terrorist attacks on the United States, Media Release John Howard, Prime Minister, 14 September 2001
“The terrorist attacks on the United States were discussed today at a special Cabinet meeting that I convened on my return from the United States. The Government has decided, in consultation with the United States, that Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty applies to the terrorist attacks on the United States. The decision is based on our belief that the attacks have been initiated and coordinated from outside the United States.”
See http://www.globalcollab.org/Nautilus/australia/afghanistan/australian-government-policy/#2001
At a 14th September 2001 Press Conference, John Howard said:
“PRIME MINISTER: Well ladies and gentlemen the federal cabinet had a special meeting today primarily to consider the consequences of the awful events that have occurred in the United States in recent days. We came very quickly to the view that the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty should be invoked in relation to the attack upon the United States. Quite clearly these are circumstances to which Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty applies.”
Asked what type of military support, ther Prime Minister responded:
“Well I don’t think that’s the sort of thing I should speculate about in advance. I’ve said that we would be willing to participate to the limit of our capability…”
So that was the justification for Australia fighting a war in central Asia! A similar case was made for a NATO invasion of Afghanstan - even though Afghanistan is almost as far from the North Atlantic as it is from the South Pacific.
This is what Article 4 of the ANZUS Tteaty actually says (emphasis added):
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 4 clearly applies to “an armed attack in the Pacific Area”. It cannot be legitimately be extended to the 9-11 attacks, which took place in the eastern USA.
For a multitude of reasons (shortage of space precludes repeating them all here - but do check out Professor Griffin’s presentation, reference cited above), Australia’s invasion of Afghanistan has been illegal - as well as immoral and midguided - from the outset.
Those responsible for putting Australian trroops in harms way in Afghanistan have been either misinformed to an extent that amounts to criminal negligence, or they have been consciously and deliberately prosecuting an agressive war based on falsehoods, which is a war crime.
There is a simple reason why both Rudd and Abbott support this troop commitment by Australia. That is that since 1945, Australia has been able to grow its economy over the odds by spending a much smaller percentage of GDP on defence than would have otherwise been necessary without the US protective military umbrella around us.
Imagine today’s Australia without any guarantee of American military support and I think we would be eyeing the rise of China, Indonesia and even India with a lot more concern rather than seeing just the massive economic opportunity that obviously exists. We would be living an existence more precarious than the carefree extravagance we currently enjoy.
So the cold reality is that losing a few professional soldiers to ensure the US continues to care about Australia’s future is regarded as a small price to pay. The obsessional faux public handwringing by politicians whenever a soldier is killed is merely the elaborate window dressing to obscure this fact. It was easier in Iraq when Howard was happy to let the Americans and British die on a daily basis whilst the Australians were hiding in a no-combat zone. Afghanistan is much more dangerous and our troops actually have to fight, which as professional soldiers they will do without qualm.
So if you want to pay more tax and have a reduced standard of living to fund a massive increase in defence spending, not to mention an even more rapid growth in population to sustain a bigger ADF, then vote for people who want to damage the US alliance and bring this about.
All this said, it would be good if politicians told us the truth about why we fight these wars, but I guess most of us don’t really want to know and they know it.
Syd Walker, of course! Thanks for reminding us of Howard’s ridiculous invocation of the ANZUS treaty, a cold war relic if ever there was one. I’ve often wondered how much Howard actually being in Washington on 9/11 influenced decision making in the days and weeks after, leaving aside his continuous fawning over Bush and Cheney.
Bela, you are probably right, but sadly, Australia’s history is full of the horror of our young men and women giving their lives in what could be considered ‘other people’s wars’ - when does it end? As for the China, well, they practically own us anyway!
I’m sure Troy’s being sarcastic. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Get them out now and stop fighting a politically correct war, they are barbarians, it’s a war that can never be won.
Either turn the joint into a car park or get the hell outta there!
Bela.
If blatant ‘might-is-right’ cynicism was quite as normal as you suggest within our culture, Howard might simply have said “We’re sending troops to Afghanistan for as long as we want to pay off political favours”.
But he didn’t. He used a chain of reasoning, since reiterated by his successors.
The fact that this chain of reasoning is utterly eroneous does matter.
Those responsible for perpetrating the lies on which basis this illegal war has been prosecuted should be brought to justice.
Their actions have given rise to immense unnecessary suffering.
The question of Australia’s defense policy is a different topic.
I happen to believe the Swiss have a much better policy, which has been effective for hundreds of years.
The Swiss spend some 0.8% of their GDP on ‘defense’ - under half the percentage spent by Australia. What’s more, there are no American bases on Swiss soil.
You suggest the US is our ally that helps ‘defend’ Australia. That presupposes an Australian Government could, at the time of its own choosing, get rid of the occupier on request.
Experience elsewhere has been rather different.
And of course the blatant hypocrisy of locking up Afghan refugees here on the pretext that Afghanistan has become magically safer.