Abbott delivered a more effective case on Afghanistan
|
What’s the purpose of the parliamentary debate on Afghanistan? Perhaps, from the government’s point of view, its only purpose derives from it being forced on it by the Greens courtesy of a hung parliament. After all, neither Labor nor the Coalition saw fit to have a debate on the conflict throughout the nine years since we joined the first attack on the Taliban regime, despite the great cost in lives, health and money. For supporters of our continuing involvement in the conflict, it should be an opportunity to try to start reversing a deep-seated community unease with, or outright opposition to, our role in that country. Yesterday’s offerings from the prime minister and leader of the opposition won’t reverse anything. It was Tony Abbott who came closer to providing a convincing justification for our continuing involvement. His was a much better speech. He seems to understand, or at least understand better than the prime minister, that people can’t just be given an intellectual understanding of what we’re doing there and how it aligns with our strategic priorities. That Afghanistan can’t become a haven for terrorists again, and that we need to stand by the United States, are intellectual arguments, and have been repeated ad nauseum over the years. In a conflict in which “victory” is defined by outcomes like a trained Afghan army, or a reasonably stable governing coalition of crooks and warlords, voters need something concrete to focus on if their support is going to be gotten back. Both leaders correctly connected the conflict and Australians killed in Bali, and on 11 September 2001, and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, but neither emphasised the point. Abbott actually worded it much better in his address to the joint party room yesterday than he did in his speech, noting that terrorists who had killed Australians had trained in Afghanistan. That’s an important way to connect this conflict with what’s important to voters, to put some substance on the argument that Afghanistan can’t be allowed to become, in Abbott’s silly phrase, “Terrorism Central”. Abbott also turned the criticism of neo-imperialism and imposition of western values on its head, saying the Taliban and al-Qaeda were the ones seeking to impose their values, and were the ones engaged in imperialism. He rightly didn’t stray into justifying the war based on the Taliban’s human rights record, but tried to put a more vivid face on the enemy we’re fighting. He also sought to row back from previous attempts at politicisation. The Coalition’s muddled position on force levels, Senator Johnston’s denigration of the Chief of the Defence Force and his and Abbott’s gleeful joining-in of criticism of the charging of ADF personnel all suddenly became “questions for the government” rather than opportunistic attempts to score points on one of the most important issues facing Australia. It was a shameless rewriting of recent history by Abbott. Neither Ms Gillard nor Mr Abbott succeeded in offering a compelling case, or anything particular new, except to affirm that we would be involved in one form or another in Afghanistan for many years to come, even if our current force level “transitions” to a lower level. One word doesn’t make or break a speech, but the prime minister’s use of words like “transition” was of a piece with the dry, cerebral nature of the argument she mounted. That’s not to say she delivered it in a dry or cerebral way by any means, but the content itself lacked anything that would engage voters, particularly that half, or more, of voters who think we should get out now. And neither she nor Abbott engaged with the key issues that will surely be raised by critics of the war like Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt: why so many Afghans regard the allies’ presence as the real problem, rather than the insurgency, and how the conflict can be ended and stable, if not democratic or non-corrupt, government achieved without engaging the monstrous (and by Abbott’s lights, imperialistic) Taliban. The government and the opposition’s only offer on the future was a guarantee of a long, costly involvement by Australia, no matter how quickly any victory, or anything that can be spun as a victory, comes. If the government is serious about trying to turn around voter sentiment on the conflict, a Parliamentary debate isn’t enough — indeed it’s virtually irrelevant except to the press gallery. The prime minister and Stephen Smith and Kevin Rudd should be out in the community talking about the conflict a lot more, in a concerted effort to explain why we are over there and the conditions under which we expect to come home. If Rooty Hill RSL and the Broncos Leagues Club were good enough for community engagement during the election, they should be good enough now for the government to put its case. Instead, there’ll be a succession of politicians inside the bubble in Canberra, offering a succession of worthy, and doubtless heartfelt, speeches, ignored by 99% of voters. There’s a very great disconnection between our political class and voters over the war in Afghanistan, and this debate isn’t going to do anything to fix that. |
|
|
|
23 Comments
You can see what Abbott and Johnston are doing with the ADF, playing “Opportunity Knocks” politics - so why can’t the “political correspondents trained in journalism” working as salesmen and check-out chicks at the “Limited News Co-op” selling their party to the electorate?
It’s not as though “Defence” is as trivial as “insulation” and those opportune allegations of Garrett’s being culpable of “industrial manslaughter”, under that scheme, is it? That got such a good unimpeded run, there too?
What is the case for war again? Not found in this article, nor in the speeches of our killer political warriors.
Just to make my voting “sentiments” clear.
The war learning block
===
Twenty one soldiers dead are not enough,
for the sacrifice needed by the US good.
Many more are required by Tony the Tough,
his idea of history is bathings in blood.
Speaks the Australian Prime Minister,
with war lies, the people are fed,
might is right, while left is pure sinister,
war is wealth taken from the dead.
Not enough natives have been slaughtered.
Never counting for them, not even bulk flesh.
Would the war stop if the Taliban were dead,
when the US terror cause is always kept fresh?
Politicians hawk old terror around as new.
War is always felt as terror, with no choice.
Its the assassin that rips family life apart.
alien invader that steals the peoples voice.
New terror is multiplied by war,
from the wars the US created so pure.
Extremists are made by serial abuse,
so the war industry always has a future.
Peace brings plenty, plenty breeds with power,
power leads to conflict, conflict lies in war.
Victory and defeat are both appalling,
the means and costs are losses soaring.
After the land is ruined, survivors maimed,
a hollow peace is from horrific shock.
Survivors did not earn their peace.
War is ignorant of its learning block.
What a most gutless performance from Gillard.
We all expected it from that Lover of War, Abbott… so that’s no shock, but somehow we thought there might be just a glimmer of hope that Gillard would stand up and deliver something contrary to this disgraceful pill-box of War mongering bipartisanship.
But it looks like ” Jezebel “Gillard has got no guts at all and is content to go on parroting the international agenda of genocide by stealth against the Pashtuns and all Afghan people.
My God!!! bring on a referendum on this calamity and expose the sham known as Australian politics and show it for what it really is….both houses are just an extension of US Foreign Policy.
How can Jezebel and Abbott ever escape the Fires of Hell?
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are engaged in imperialism? Not by any definition of imperialism I’ve ever heard. Merely trying to impose values on others does not make one imperialist, and the Taliban for one are virulently nationalistic and have stated over and over that they have no interest in international affairs.
As for me, I trust the collective wisdom of ACBAR, who have been in Afghanistan since 1988 and may know a thing or two:
” it may be that the sooner the troops withdraw, the better it will be for the people of Afghanistan”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/20/3043118.htm
Bernard,
You said it yourself - the government doesn’t see any political mileage in this, either for them or the opposition. It’s not a burning political issue, and given (as Crikey’s editorial noted) that the almost certain outcome of everything is that the (in your words) monstrous Taliban will be integrated into whatever government is formed, there is no soaring narrative possible. This is not an issue to try to inspire the public on. Once upon a time, when something positive might have been possible with respect to Afghanistan, before the Iraq invasion, you might have had a point if it came to mobilizing Australian public opinion to prevent a Vietnam style demoralization. Any such time is past, there are only ‘dry cerebral’ reasons for staying the course now. If the public turns against our mission in Afghanistan, we’ll pull out. The situation in Afghanistan will not be markedly changed regardless of what we do.
I was one who thought that Afghanistan was a justifiable war. I had reservations that there was any possibility of a successful outcome from the beginning. Whatever chance we had is gone. All that remains are bad and worse scenarios. I, personally, think we should stick it out in the hope of extracting a slightly better government/army for Afghanistan, but there is so little left to hope for I fail to see how any politician can legitimately gee-up the Australian public, without resorting to lies or exaggeration.
I don’t know if anyone else heard Wilkie’s speech today.
I happened to catch it… to a seemingly empty Reps, he delivered something much more statesmanlike than the Julia or Tony, and of course a much better credentialled view.
There ARE some benefits of a hung parliament. I just hope more people hear his contribution. It deserves much more recognition.
“Afghanistan” might have been a “justifiable war” - it was what happened, after, politically, (splitting off resources to “Iraq”, on those “famous” grounds for starters) that creamed it - now we’re stuck in this tar-pit of hubris.
To pull out leaves the people we ostensibly went in to help, at the hands of a force we can’t seem to beat, and we know what they’re capable of. Let alone the memory of those of ours that have suffered for “the cause”!
Much of the “terrorist” mob we went in, to clean up, has decamped to a “friendly” country, so we can’t touch them there?
We work with “war-lords” and their “funny ways”, because they’re ours and they’re willing to be bought, for as long as we want to buy.
We can use drones to kill individuals, but they can’t see a lucrative poppy field for the trees.
We know “Karzai” is bent, but “he does it for us”?
Was it always “just politics”?
America will be in Afghanistan until it finds another country to hoist up old glory in. Since the second world war, Uncle Sam has had troops fighting somewhere under both political persuasions Republican and Democrat. It needs a war, its economy needs a war, its armed forces need a war, the Generals need a war, the macho public need a war to show the world who is the strongestr nation on earth. You don’t mess with these here United States. So until some other country asks or doesn’t ask, invitation not always necessary (Iraq). Afghanistan will remain where the troops are. Whose turn will it be next to hear the rumble of the American war machine as it spends the trillions of dollars required to feed the insatiable hunger of the military.
Beernard missed the point. Speeches by Gillard and Abbott were in the realm of fiction. How long Australian troops stay in Afghanistan won’t be decided in Canberra but in Washington and Kabul. If (when) Karzai does a deal with the Taliban a condition of agreement will be foreign troops must leave. If the pressures on Washington get too intense then US gets out and so does Australia. So why this farce about the Australian government having any say in the issue? We’re there because the Americans want us there and we leave when they leave. No Australian government would have the guts to make an independent decision. End of story. Good night kids.
What a tragedy that the Australian govt and opposition both seem so blindly committed to doing whatever the US wants of us. Iraq and Afghanitan both. Surely diplomatic friendship allows for differences of opinions at time.
Canada is not in either war. Are they not still trading with the US? Are they not still friends?
We can do a lot better than we are. True national friends survive occasional differences of opinion and policy. We should try it some day: be the friend of the US.
Servants and slaves do as they are told. Friends can disagree. It is pretty clear what we are in the eyes of the US and in the eyes of both our govt and opposition.
On the issue of Afghanistan the cosy consensus between the two major parties leaves the Australian public with nowhere to go. Remember that a large majority oppose this war. That’s why we are having such an insipid debate, and why Gillard can get away with nonsense like committing our troops for there the next decade.
Thank goodness for the Greens and Wilkie but they are voices in the parliamentary wilderness.
It is also fast becoming evident that neither party is led by someone who is suitable to be prime minister. No communication skills, no vision, no gravitas. It’s an embarassment. No wonder the election was a dead heat
If more Australians knew of what the Taliban really are, there wouldn’t be much debate. Maybe a few film clips of Afghans, disemboweled, still breathing, strung up from a post in the street to intimidate the village would change a few minds.
It won’t make the nightly news, but it should.
And just for the record, I was against this war, and Iraq, vehemently. But we are there now, and our actions will have consequences for millions who don’t have the luxury of not seeing reality.
Vincent Matthews, I concur. And does Gillard or any of the cabinet heavies have an accurate overview of the wheelings and dealings taking place in Afghanistan?
It beggars belief that the clear majority of the Oz electorate is against the war but, somehow, this attitude is not reflected or represented in our parliament. Apart from the independents only one Liberal MP has had the integrity to speak frankly about his objections. We have elected an expensive herd of sheep.
Christopher: while you offer a tragic story about the horror of the Taliban, we could equally invade about 20 other nations with outrageous and cruel dictatorships… and throw them out and cause chaos in so doing, for the same reasons. But we dont invade those other nations.
And we wont… because most of them either have nothing in it for us, or we dont have a beef against them. In fact, some of our biggest companies often work nicely in those very countries (Burma springs to mind as one immediate example).
I sympathise with the plight of people under a govt like the Taliban, but I am also very aware of the mess that the country is still in with all us armies in there doing what we are doing. Why do so many people there supposedly want us all out? Why would they prefer the Taliban to the chaos of the war? Haven’t they heard your story? Could the current situation be just as bad, or (heaven forbid) even worse?
And just maybe the people of the nation wont let the Taliban rule them again. Maybe they will find another way… (and maybe that is unlikely and the Taliban will come back to power).
What I understand it was Americans who created Taliban. Now, we are worried about women in Afganistan.
Now? How many women have been killed to justify ‘rights’ of women to access education. What utter rubbish.
So the Soviets were baddies in Afganistan and we are gooddies. And we do not even know how long we are going to spread the goodies in that country.
Lenin once said that the road to the Middle East leads through Afghanistan.
And this is probably Julia’s argument, too.
We blame Gallipolli tragedy on the Brits.
Jim, the point is, we are there now. Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the real thoughts of the Afghan people by reading the 2009 Asia Foundation Survey of over 6,000 people. In it, you will find that most Afghans want democracy, want rights for women, and think life is better than under the Taliban.
Or, you could just ignore them, and pretend that our sudden leaving will not send millions of people into a hell you couldn’t imagine in your worst nightmares.
Christopher: I am not denying the crap that the Taliban dish up… and if that survey is a genuine representation of the nation then youor point has to be weighed. (Sometimes surveys are not fair and representative: sometimes they are “created” to justify a position - you know… ask the people who are most likely to tell us what we want to hear; ask people who are receiving something from us around the time we are asking them… you know how these things can be done I am sure).
It is certainly a mess and there is no easy solution. But to get bogged down in another Vietnam is madness too. Which insane and costly course of action should we take? The rock or the hard place? I am not confident I can say with certainty which pathway will cause the most horror for the most civilians… Both options seem horrible.
So where are Wilkie and others getting their stats that say the majority of Afghans want the allied armies out?
I didn’t hear Wilkie’s speech, but I’d say that reference is to Australians, who by and large are opposed to our being in Afghanistan.
The Asia Foundations Survey was the biggest, most thorough, and independent study of the nation, and is well worth a read. It’s just a google away.
And let’s not forget the context here: the US is transitioning itself out, and we’ll follow. It’s not like we are ramping up our troops, we have a limited operation in one province. Dangerous? Yes, our volunteer soldiers have chosen a dangerous profession, but their casualty rates are not high by comparison with most wars. Each death is a tragedy for their family and loved ones, no one denies that, but it’s not a reason not to be there.
And finally, there’s the broader regional question. Pull out of Afghanistan and the whole Pakistan equation is changed, and for the worse. No need to elaborate on the various scenarios here, but just think ‘really bad’.
I thought this was a pretty shallow take on the Afghan war ‘debate’. Whatever the strategic rights & wrongs of our engagement it is more about the American alliance, pure & simple. If you expected a clear annunciation of geo-political and military strategy from either side of the political divide you were delusional. There is bipartisan support for the alliance and neither party will muster the backbone to challenge US hegemony. So we listen endlessly to that Killcullen chappy telling us about the inner logic of ‘counter-insurgency’ and, basically, talk amongst ourselves.
The Abbott nonsense about civilisation conflict reprises the twaddle peddled by the neocons justifying the ‘war on terror’. Like the ‘war on drugs’ this war will fail miserably, leaving the situation worse. As one commentator put it recently, you do not buy into the ‘messianic’ philosophy of Al Qaeda and its off-shoots as a counter measure. You counter the message with the rule of law, good governance and community development. You emphasise democracy and human rights - you do not actively undermine the very things you purport to stand for if you don’t want to be seen as hypocritical occupiers.
Only a political solution will work in Afghanistan. We are currently supporting a regime that is so corrupt I am reminded of US support for a series of corrupt leaders in South Vietnam as a precursor to defeat in that disastrous war. They ran the country as a personal fiefdom to be plundered by themselves and their client cronies. The Karzai family are doing the same thing. The only way to counter the taliban is through genuine democracy, good governance across all areas of public administration, support for civil society and a fair & equitable distribution of resources. This is not rocket science. The current disproportional division of military and civil assistance of 9:1 needs to be reversed. And we need to stop playing footsie with corruption.
Legitimacy is everything in the struggle for hearts and minds. Can anyone honestly say that Karzai has earnt legitimacy? The taliban support the violent overthrow of his corrupt and thoroughly compromised regime. Meanwhile, he steals elections and is at the peak of a regime that tolerates systematic looting and pilfering of public monies.
When visiting Kenya in 2006, Obama said the following: “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society…It divides neighbour from neighbour”.
This insight could be applied to Afghanistan. If you can address these issues you have the best hope of counter-insurgency!
Where does nowhere to go come into it, theres always somewhere to go the people are just used to doing what they are told. Once they secure world government there wont be anywhere to go.
Why are these two parties still there ? Why is it that after these people have lied so many times about so many things people are still willing to listen to them? There are plenty of people to run the country. Please dont say that this pathetic bunch of boot kissers add up to a government. The reason why the 2pp do what they like regardless of what the people say is that the people are mushrooms. They either believe anything they are told, dont believe anything they are told or dont care, either way they are ineffective. The only way to access the truth is on the net ,not because it isnt available anywhere else but because it takes years & years of research to get a piece of the puzzle. The Australian media Corporations discounting this mag, tell you what the pollys want you to hear. On the net you can ask a question & find the answers,it may be mixed with all kinds of other crap but at least it is there,you just have to isolate it. When will the people
stand up & do something about these fools ? Kick them out of the parliament . That is not dissent that is authority & common sense. How long are you going to let them get away with it ? Vote the
Labour & LNP out of the parliament. Use the power you posess at the next local election,state election & federal election to vote these pin heads out, all the way for all time.Vote for rights ! Your rights! The rights for all & your descendants. Put them in their place ! Dont forget the next election exercise your power ! If you never do they wont listen to you because you never say anything !
Here is another one for ya ! Why is it that people will back a war without any proof whatsoever that it is the right thing to do & then when they get told they have been lied to they demand proof ? A bit late isnt it! The greens got the info from australian journalists that have spent the last 14 years over in the middle of it & have supporting evidence from the italians,germans & there are plenty of supporting reports from the UN & AFP. What more do you want there DNA ? Wake up ,you have been conned by your love twin political party. It` is all about being controlled by the US & not having the backbone to tell them no ! Even that little tiny country called New Zealand had the guts to tell the US to F##k Off. Our politicians only have the guts to stand over the Australian people.A democracy is where the people tell the government what to do,why is that so hard for you to understand ? When the elected representatives stand up there & say no to the people the people count it as having a strong leader, when they should be counting it as a dictatorship & do something about it. If they dont do what they are supposed to all it takes is a petition of disolutionment of the constitution & a declaration of The Republic of Australia & deregister the labour party & LNP. Bann
all members from politics permenantly.
Try having a look at the footage of what the Karzai Government get up to it is no different so no you are mistaken. The Karzai were the problem before the soviet union went there. You are only seeing out of one eye !
Was there ever a contest which one so devoutly wished both ‘sides’ could lose? I refer not to the war in Afghanistan but the phoney war in Parliament. The MM could at least be accused of believing what he said but it is far worse that the PM was betraying her every former belief & instinct.