Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Australian PM Warns of 10-Year Afghan Engagement
SYDNEY — Australia will be involved in war-torn Afghanistan for the next decade, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Tuesday as she warned of "hard days ahead" for forces battling a Taliban insurgency.
Australia will be involved in war-torn Afghanistan for the next decade, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Tuesday as she warned of "hard days ahead" for forces battling a Taliban insurgency. Gillard
said Afghanistan should never again become a safe haven for extremists
and her government was committed to standing by the nation's most
important ally, the United States, in the long-running conflict.
"This means more fighting, more violence, it risks more casualties. There will be many hard days ahead," Gillard said in her first address to national parliament on the war.
The prime minister said while Australia's key mission in Afghanistan, to train an Afghan National Army brigade in restive Uruzgan, was expected to take between two and four years, Canberra's involvement would extend beyond this.
While the Afghan government was expected to take over responsibility for security by 2014, the international community, including Australia, would remain engaged beyond that date, she said.
"There will still be a need for Australians in a supporting role. There will still be a role for training and other defence co-operation. The civilian-led aid and development effort will continue," Gillard said.
"We expect this support, training and development task to continue in some form through this decade at least."
The war in Afghanistan has bipartisan political support in Australia, which has some 1,550 troops in the country, but the government is facing increasing public pressure as the war stretches on amid mounting casualties.
Gillard, who was briefly heckled by people in the public gallery during her speech, said her commitment to Afghanistan was not open-ended, and Canberra wanted to bring its troops home as soon as possible, but success was critical.
"Australia will not abandon Afghanistan, we must be very realistic about the future," she said. "Transition will take some years, we will be engaged through this decade at least."
Australia joined the US-led war effort in Afghanistan in the months following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, but withdrew its soldiers in December 2002 as the situation stabilised.
Canberra sent special forces troops back in September 2005 to target key insurgents and ramped up its efforts from October 2008 as it took on a growing role in training and mentoring Afghan soldiers in the country's south.
Conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott said leaving Afghanistan now would be an insult to the families of the 21 Australian soldiers who have died in the conflict.
"A premature end to our involvement would tell the Americans and the British that Australia is an unreliable ally and fair-weather friend," he told parliament.
"It would tell the Afghan people that our commitment to human rights is more rhetorical than real and certainly doesn't extend to protecting them where we can."
The debate, agreed as part of a deal with the Greens which ensured Gillard's centre-left Labor Party could form a government after deadlocked August polls, will continue Wednesday when dozens of MPs are expected to voice their views.
Greens lawmaker Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Wilkie, both of whom support Gillard's fragile coalition government, are expected to urge the withdrawal of troops.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllThis is another example of the "Anglo-Saxon Sickness". It is an obsession with going to places far away and killing the people who live there. The US, UK, Australia, Canada, and sometimes New Zealand form a tight little knot of nations that have similar attractions to foreign wars. We think it is "normal" to be doing this. We Anglo-Saxons are a danger to humanity, unless we can cure ourselves of this affliction.
" . . . unless we can cure ourselves of this affliction."
Not a chance.
Nope not a chance. Just as I thought. The whole world's rich people are in on this scam. Bildenburg?
Perhaps Australia will replace the UK as the USA's most reliable and homicidal lap dog.
Could well be. Aussie soldiers have excelled themselves in warfare, being widely regarded as far, far better soldiers than their "soft" American counterparts, and perhaps more successful then their the British equivalents who are much more engaged in risk management. It was Aussie brigades that took and held many key installations in Iraq (including the key prize, Saddam International Airport) in the first 48 hours of Gulf II, before handing them to the US on a platter who promptly claimed them as their own.
Generally speaking, Aussie units usually decimate US units in war games (especially blue-water games), one of the reasons why the US likes to play with Aussies. Until the US can get over their obsession with technology and zero-friendly losses, the US will always be a second-rate military on a per-unit basis.
Has all this benefited Australia in any way at all? Is the country hoping for a bit of fossil fuel from Pipelinestan?
"Poor fellow my country"
Clearly, the answer to your question is "no". Alas, when the US beckons, all its christo-facist lap-dogs come running.
I do believe that a competent military force in a peace posture is necessary for a nation's security, independence and morale. The more effective that force, the smaller, and less costly, it can be. In this regard, the Aussies have done well (except the lap-dog thing).
This is true, but I contend "Bring it on". Like Britain, Oz is an island nation. Unlike Britain, there are few spots to land an invasionary force. If you think the US has problems with maintaining stores in AfPak, the cost to Indonesia to maintain an invasion force in drought-ridden Australia will be 10 times higher. The Indian Ocean and unfriendly NW Australia are effective deterrents. Furthermore, Indonesia does not have the military force to take on Australia. The Indonesian Govt is no threat.
However, millions of "boat people" do represent a problem, or at least a quandary. If indeed Indonesians started the boat trip en-masse, Australia would be presented with a profound question of morality; sink 'em or let 'em in. We'll see then if Australia is a true Christian nation, or filled with extremist bigots like the fanatical Christo-Facist US.
South African Springboks were also renowned for their toughness. Even now, the hardest "soldiers of fortune" to be found in global hotspots are SADF veterans. No wonder, Israel and Apartheid South Africa got along famously in their joint struggle against a "predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples."
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/militant-islam-and-the-extreme-right
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons
There are many countries around the world that have excellent units; the Nepalese Ghurkas, Indian Sikh units, Pakistan's Air Force, British SAS, Rhodesian C Squadron 22, US Navy SEALS, etc. Generally speaking, though, quality elite units do not turn the tide of a conflict, instead winning battles and not the war. An effective military is holistic.
it is time to cease using the name of a country when discussing the policies emanating from a given piece of land...
when the name of the country is used to describe those governing, or their policies, there is a tendency to believe that such policies reflect the will of the populace, and are, therefore, nationally legitimate...
the United States is not the only country led by forces that have no connection to, nor regard for, the general populace...
'those in control of the land known as ' would be more accurate...
the first sentence would be rewritten: "Those in control of the land known as Australia will be involved in war-torn Afghanistan for the next decade..."
the second: "...standing by the nation's most important allies, those in control of the land known as the United States..."
I agree, except I would write the first sentence: "Those in control of the land know as Australia will be sending the children of the poor and underprivileged to war-torn Afghanistan for the next decade to fight for causes that only benefit the wealthy..."
good post
"said leaving Afghanistan now would be an insult to the families of the 21 Australian soldiers who have died in the conflict."
But what will he say when this conflict makes 21 MORE families?
Is he really willing to sacrifice the living to pay homage to the dead?
Will he send HIS children?
"She".
"Gillard, who was briefly heckled by people in the public gallery during her speech, said her commitment to Afghanistan was not open-ended, and Canberra wanted to bring its troops home as soon as possible, but success was critical."
Believe me, this current government we have here in Australia is as clueless but as malevolent as every other since John Howard (Bush's esteemed 'man of steel') threw us into this pile of crap even despite a huge public outcry and demonstrations against going to war at all but Howard stated that he had to make tough decisions on his own despite public opinions....or some such claptrap.
Since then every Australian government has fallen in step with the propaganda we've all seen over the decade and holds it up to be holy dogma...the usual crap.
This utter myth that nobody can leave the supposed theatre of war until we have 'success' is completely ludicrous and a lie. Everyone knows it can't be 'won'. If it could it would've been done long ago by the worlds only remaining superpower using the biggest military force that makes Australia's commitment seem like two boy scouts having to share one worn out woggle between them.
Long ago, when Australia was in the era between being the colonial outpost of England and later on a lickspittle of the USA, we had a growing reputation of grudging respect as peacekeepers/peacemakers and aid givers in disasters but that's all long gone now.
Now we've had the absolute pantomime of each sides of our political parties showing up to farewell the military off to fight (kill) overseas people under much backslapping and supposed bipartisan support, together with the usual mad secret dashes to theatres of war in Afghanistan & Iraq to seem to try to say they have their finger on the pulse of things (dream on), and it's all the same old crap paraded out month after month, year after year, with piles of crocodile tears and beat up jingoistic angst over every soldier who winds up dead one way or another in order to keep the nationalistic fervour beating madly and keep banging away the mantra that we have to be there no matter what.
The reason there's a discussion about this happening at all in the Australian parliament was it was a deal between the Greens and the Labor party who crawled on hands and knees to get their vote preferences in the recent election we had. But it's all very much a hollow discussion. The results are always clear as has been stated by the politician on the two major parties despite the objections of anyone else. - Australia is doing whatever the USA wants us to do.
The current zombie Australian government is only hanging by a thread and it only needs a small upset to cause another election. You'd think something as powerful as having our troops stationed and killing people overseas could be voted on in a referendum but that's never going to happen.
Australia is nowhere near as bad as the USA or even Canada, but we have our own dynamics at play. The government used to be always scared witless about a military invasion by Indonesia but that's now apparently forgotten. (we actually placate Indonesia by giving them weapons and promising them all sorts of things not the least is constantly being their whipping boy should they choose)
We also were positioning ourselves as being part of Oceania which includes Asia regions rather than forever clinging to colonialism of tied to England or America. But that's all by the wayside now as well except for our rampant trade with China which is the only thing that's kept Australia from feeling the full affect of the GFC...global financial crisis (aka the greedy bastards swindles). -- And each of our governments keeps taking 'credit' for "dodging the bullet" of the GFC rather than telling the truth that we're only doing okay in just one single aspect of our economy and that's mining which is of course supplying China.......right up until she says she's got enough now thank you very much.
The dying USA dollar is falling through the floor which seems to make our Australian dollar look good because we've reached almost parity, and the media makes it out jokingly as if it's some sort of trivial country race meeting.
In Australia we have two major parties, Labor (think weasel Democrats), and Liberals (think mad as snakes Republicans), but they've long since morphed into being almost the same as each other just that the Liberals are far more overt at being mad, vindictive, selfish bean counters, and always mindlessly right-wing with no social conscience at all.
The Greens got a leg-up at the last election from many disaffected voters but they hold no real power and the Greens vote preferences went to Labor which is how Labor only just made it to pace the Liberals, (three Independents were the final balance changer), but it also shows you just how malignant selfishness and unthinking the Australian voting population can be by almost bringing into power the Liberals and the rampant 'Mad Monk' Tony Abbott who'd fit in perfectly in the USA as a arrogant clueless Republican.
Australia was once out there in the world as being independent, no longer a colony of Britain, a country forging it's own way and making headway with social progress, a place of innovation, a laid-back lifestyle and willing to give a helping hand to countries at need.
Now we're just a poodle of the USA, humping whatever leg the leash is pulled at to but maintaining the illusion that we're an independent country despite our constant alliance with everything USA including warfare involvement & climate change maneuvering to keep the world just how the USA wants it.
We're not getting out of any theatres of war the USA has us in and should any other open then you can be sure our politicians will be all the way with LBJ.....did I mention we also ran hand-in-hand with the USA in the Vietnam war?
I can remember LBJ flying into Darwin on his way to attend Harold Holt's funeral. Despite the crowd of beaming Aussies there to greet him (the first time a US President ever visited Oz), LBJ did not even show his face at the door. I should have known then that Oz was being groomed as the next wannabe-state in the Union.
Oz used to be a nice place. Fiercely independent with a unique Aussie style and humor. Alas, Oz has discovered free-market capitalism with all its attendant sins, and is adopting US "kulcha" as its own faster than any country on Earth.
I'll agree with a previous commenter that Australia is the US' new lap-silky-terrier.
Your post is better than the article! Pretty much sums up Australian politics. Gillard does not seem much better than Howard, and Abbot seems worse. We need another post like yours on the ownership and orientation of our media, which is a good part of the underlying reasons.
Australia: A free and independent nation that always obeys the wishes of its masters in the USA.
"Conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott said leaving Afghanistan now would be an insult to the families of the 21 Australian soldiers who have died in the conflict."
_______________________________
Warfare is as close as manunkind is going to get to creating a device with "perpetual motion".
To pseudo-civilized warmongering barbarians, blood always cries out for more blood.
Which cries out for still more blood. Which cries out for still more blood. Which cries out for still more blood. Which cries out for still more blood. Which cries out for still more blood. Which cries out for still more blood. ...
"leaving Afghanistan now would be an insult to the families of the 21 Australian soldiers who have died in the conflict."
So if Iraqis or Afghanis permit us to win, that would be an insult to the millions of them we have killed.
Another slave of the US-centric imperialists.
Leave it to Australians: descended from criminals.
Never mind Tony and Julia.
Unless someone cuts their strings,
they are just US puppets,
jerked by fame that war brings.
Little celebrities, not so bright,
The very last to get out of the fight.
Hoping to get a pat on the head,
for help making so many dead.
As long as they can speak their lines,
and wear conservative war blinkers,
they will stay as prime mouth pieces,
and do not need to be great thinkers.
"Australia will not abandon Afghanistan, we must be very realistic about the future," she said. "Transition will take some years, we will be engaged through this decade at least."
Response: Australia won't abandon Afghanistan like Iraq?
Australia contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, contributed to the demolition of Iraqi's infrastructure, stood by as neighborhoods were ethnicly cleansed, and left with Iraqi 4.5 million displaced refugees, a lack of power, and a disfunctional government.
Now will Australian M$M print that in response to Minister Gillard's political speech?