Led by the infamous Murdoch Media Empire the term "black hole" seems to have become an accepted area without cogent explanation.  Hockey and Robb for example had a huge "black hole" in their so-called costing about which they lied their heads off - and then the media forgot it.

The reasons for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on lies with the convenient "black hole" of proper evaluation in terms of time and costs of lives and money etc.  Just plenty of false accusations and ruthless massacres of mainly civilians.  Hatred and lies reached the inevitable "missing link black hole" bypassed it and carried on so far that the criminal NATO forces, of which we are a part, continue to lengthen the time needed to.......good heavens - another Black Hole!

As I have said before so many times, our military involved in wars overseas, were NOT FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY at all Julia - they are fighting for your government's policies as they did for "The Old Dart" in the Boer War; WW's I and II (until New Guinea).  Government policy authorised these actions. IMHO none of them were honoured or dignified by an election or referenda.  Howard didn’t even tell us until he had sent our SAS into southern Iraq to – as he put it – kill Iraqis. And that was before the actual invasion. Fair dinkum.

Then there came the American Wars of Choice like the African States; Korea; Vietnam; Kosovo; Afghanistan; Iraq and now the Zionists want us to help invade Iran.  None of the forgoing were classified as fighting for Australia or - defending our homeland - nor were they militarily forced upon us - they were conveniently agreed to by the incumbent federal government (of both persuasions) because of a Treaty which doesn't even demand that servitude at all.  Struth.

Pakistan and India both have nuclear capability which was given to them ostensibly to temper the chance of nuclear war between the two religions.

On the other hand we are not allowed to have nuclear capability because, it is said, America will protect us that is provided……….good heavens – another Black Hole!

“The only land a nation is entitled to is that which it can defend”.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

 

As an ordinary citizen, given that in Australia that means that I am among those who are classified as "need to know only" [and not even then] it is always difficult to make sense out of the military mindsets of our respective federal government representatives.

As a returned serviceman I understand the youthful attitude that inspires in young men the feeling of invincibility and pride in the medals they receive for......serving their Federal government.  It always sounds better to say my country but in truth that can change with the politics of any "democracy".

As a sailor I definitely feel for the Troopers who have to take part in the eye to eye cruelty of ground combat. Nevertheless, I have faith in our form of Military Justice and as such I believe that our soldiers in the latest squabble will be exonerated and under the circumstances acted in accordance with their rules of engagement.

Just imagine, the first young Australian trooper to enter the area from which the firing came, was immediately shot dead.  All nations hate the practice of civilian shields but, until hostile action stops, one must surely protect themselves?  But that is for the Military to decide whether or not the extreme circumstances justified what was apparently defensive fire.

The absolute stupidity of sovereign nations allowing multi-national passports in a world that accepts war and all of its destructive horrors as a daily occurrence is hard to come to terms with.

One must come to the conclusion that the only explanation could be that our government of the day has either little or no control over the desires of foreign “friendly” governments unless the US/Zionist alliance is satisfied.

I dare to say that even our trade was captive of the US alliance when the Howard government sold out our industries especially the Sugar industry.

Now we have the unique situation where Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have agreed on something that is obviously not a chosen path for the Labor Party.  War is normally the answer to Conservatives since they believe in “might is right” and have proven it over many tours of duty.

Such stupidity is mentioned by Albert Einstein in that the description of insanity is the act of doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting different results. NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

 

I call the obvious omission of key propaganda issues as - the black Holes.  They are secret; inexplicable; indefensible; and most likely would interfere with the intended misinformation being enforced without debate.

IMHO there must be a huge black hole which exists now and has done so since WW II, that ties Australia to the US, apparently under all circumstances. Surely it must have a more fearful basis than the crap of "we need them to protect us" when they have for themselves the private or joint use of 36 bases on our mainland. 

As Malcolm Fraser said, we should not have to be totally subservient in a dog like manner to maintain the US as an ally. [My words but with the intent of the ex PM's open criticism of John Howard].

As far as I am concerned, the Labor party member who suggested that 9/11 may have been a conspiracy is as close as the three Zionist journalists who were so excited while watching and photographing the Twin Towers collapse replied to their questioners that they were only there to film the event. How perspicacious of them.

Too many questions remain unanswered but I remind myself that the once peaceful American people always required a damn good reason to go to war. And the hierarchy always supplied it with planned and false accusations of pre-emptive acts of war from the nation/s to be targeted.

Check history including the 9/11 attack that was known to almost all of the many “security” agencies – and they took photos but did nothing.  This planned and carefully carried out tragedy was the beginning of the so-called “war against terrorism” a broad and dishonest euphemism if there ever there was one.

While the Saudi Arabians were the claimed main terrorists in this attack on sacred American soil, why were their Royal Family members allowed to be the only flights from America back to their country?  Some black hole?

NE OUBLIE.  Never forget. 

 

 

 

My memory of the "Afghanistan" experience was wetted by the Taliban offer to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial on the accusation that he planned and carried out the attack on the Twin Towers.  I also remember that, when Osama denied involvement to the Taliban, they modified their offer with the proviso that he would be tried by an independent international Court.

The US refused and achieved a UN resolution to invade Afghanistan with NATO forces ostensibly to wipe out the "viper's nest" of Al Qaeda and the terrorists that they were accused of training. Nevertheless, any attempt at permitting Osama to prove his innocence could not be allowed since the entire "Terrorist" plan depended on the black hole excuse for pre-emptive war.

Afghanistan – a land of unforgiving desert and mountains – what could the invaders possibly gain by repeating the folly of the Soviet Union?  That damned illusive black hole?

Who in the US considered that they and they alone could succeed in controlling Afghanistan when other Empires had failed to do so over centuries?  These indigenous and hardy people may have their time honoured tribes and warlords but, why does anyone want to disturb them by pre-emptive war?

The NATO forces have been there since 2001 and have tried most ideas including training the citizens to serve their invaders.  Not working is it?

Our forces have been there since 2001 and have tried to train locals to be soldiers or policemen over those nine years.  I even have the thought that our Diggers could have been under much more direct attack had it not been for the considerate behaviour of our troops and the Taliban knowledge that the war is not popular in Australia.

So, we must now add to the nine years of frustration, another four years which our leaders have decided is needed to train the Afghanistan soldiers.  Our military are combat ready after one year aren’t they? You can lead an Afghanistan horse to water.  Fair dinkum.

Logic clearly demonstrates that the “Vietnam” type defeat of the invaders is more likely than the reverse.  “Afghanistan will not ever be used as a training ground for terrorists”!  What utter crap. Move over the Pakistanis and their hatred of the US abuse of their standing as allies.

So – what a huge Black Hole must be hiding behind the unlikely bi-partisan attitude to Afghanistan by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott?

NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

America's exit from Afghanistan is around the corner. Anyone with his ear to the ground and an eye cocked on the horizon can tell as much. As American military philosophers will be averse to identify the causes of the rout for some time yet, this scribe helps them in advance.For any foreign venture to be successful, be it military or otherwise, one must have a national purpose that has a policy from which flows a mission with an aim. One then draws up an action plan which is implemented to achieve the aim. That's how it works.Perhaps by far the biggest single mistake that the Americans made in Afghanistan can be summed up in what Ralph Peters recently said. He noted, "why did we go to Afghanistan in 2001? Because of al-Qaeda. To punish them, to smash them, and to punish those who harbored them. Afghanistan was a low-budget terrorist motel. So the feds raid the motel, kill some of the bad guys, capture some, and others escape. And instead of going after the ones who escaped, we decided to renovate the motel."Now as the empire slinks back, perhaps its soldiers will take along some snapshots of the ruins in their duffel bags as mementos of their stay in Motel Kandahar.Afghanistan: The Principles of Defeatjust to put things in context .....Prime Minister Julia Gillard, yesterday:"Australia will not abandon Afghanistan. We must be very realistic about the future. Transition will take some years. We will be engaged through this decade, at least."Opposition leader Tony Abbott, yesterday:"To abandon the conflict before the objective had been secured would mean we had never really been serious or that we had been defeated on the field of battle..."The New York Times, breaking news alert, this morning:Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive, face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the highest levels of the group's leadership, who are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO troops, officials here say.The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that oversees the Taliban war effort inside Afghanistan. Afghan leaders have also held discussions with leaders of the Haqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line guerrilla factions fighting here; and members of the Peshawar shura, whose fighters are based in eastern Afghanistan.

Independent MP Rob Oakeshott has slammed the Prime Minister's 10-year timeline for Australia's continued involvement in Afghanistan, calling for a quicker exit strategy to be formulated.

Debate on the Afghanistan war opened in Parliament on Monday with a warning from Julia Gillard that Australia was likely to remain in the war-torn country until 2020.

But Mr Oakeshott said work should be happening "in earnest" to end Australia's involvement.

"The surprise argument that we are in Afghanistan in a military capacity for another 10 years is wrong. We should not be. The US is not even saying that and nor should we," he said.

"We must admit to the Australian people our true strategy of the moment and that is that we are talking to elements of the Taliban and we are hoping they will form a part of a lasting relationship in the nation state of Afghanistan.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/21/3044379.htm?section=justin

"The Government of a people is what they deserve".

Over many years I have tried to completely trust one Political Party - or even one Political identity that clearly represents my domestic expectations as to the use of the tax I have paid all of my working life.  I even remember as a 14 year old paying a small tax for my retirement which was absorbed into unidentifiable General Revenue.  Of course, this allowed "Ming" to create a new tax on income - retirement tax? What retirement tax?

I have worked or served under many different Prime Ministers which, from the time of "Ming" forming the Coalition and introducing preferential voting - to give his new LIBERAL party a better chance of defeating Labor - seemed to make the Corporations more powerful in the federal elections.

My recollection of the news media in those days was one of general belief in what was printed – the Herald was the premium paper of trust and was nevertheless the Corporation’s major organ but, believable.

The limited media outlets were apparently in competition but mainly on issues which affected the “ordinary people”.  We in Australia were largely isolated in the dying days of WW II and welcomed the mainly truthful reports on the expected victory of the “good guys”.

This introduced to the Australian people the “power of the press” in that what we had been conditioned to believe was now uncensored and the Barons had the already established trust and belief of the people.

This “democratic” disease fostered the Murdoch predators of today that there is no honour in business, only deception and profit. When we in Australia talk about politics we rely on the MSM to inform us. The “honor” system introduced by a subservient John Howard has been abused beyond belief – our information is what Murdoch decides what it will be.

War is profitable to the US and must be continued until, “the powers that be” find another way of causing and indulging in wars of choice - while using their trade sanctions to try to subjugate the nations whose armies are formidable and whose natural assets are negative.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

The history of the invasion of Afghanistan, irrespective of the fact that it was a "sovereign nation" and was governed, however non-American, by the Taliban, who were accepted as a  valid government at least in the Middle East - is one of democratic disgrace.

The facts are that the Taliban was cooperating in the so-called US war on terror, which was blaming Osama bin Laden (US ally against the Russians) without investigation or even conciliation.  The Taliban did the right thing in offering to turn over Osama with the proviso that he would be charged on the 9/11 offence and would be before a completely independent International Criminal Court.  At this time, like now, there is no proof that Osama had anything to do with the Saudi Arabian attacks.

As examples of the swill that we are expected to swallow….

When the British Empire took control of the original India they trained their Indian servants extremely well by giving them pride and the belief that their country would one day be theirs again.  The key was that all Indian military personnel were kept below the standard of Commissioned Officers.  In effect, all Non-coms. It worked.

Why then do we accept the argument that we need even more than [nine] plus four years to train a soldier who, in Australia in WW II we allowed six months for combat ready? In the Eighth Division for example to re-enforce the British in Malaya and Singapore, our troops were reportedly given six weeks!

What an enormous Black Hole?

So, the NATO military has been in Afghanistan since 2001? We are told that our NATO forces are searching and destroying the "insurgents". Who are they? What do they look like? Our troopers are exposed every day to the small but effective resistance to the invasion of their country. 

So in Australian terms - we have been there for nine years and have failed in our efforts to teach these people to DEFEND themselves! But here is the rub - defend themselves against who?

Julia and Tony - the excuse of "training these people to defend themselves against us is - theoretically - trained suicide.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

On Wednesday, October 20th, Andrew Wilkie, the newly-elected independent member of Parliament from Tasmania & Adam Bandt, the new Greens member of Parliament from Melbourne, both had the opportunity of challenging the lies told in the Parliament by the Prime Minister & the Leaders of the Opposition the previous day, as to the reasons why Australia continues to pursue its military presence in Afghanistan.

Whilst both speeches are long, they both comprehensively abolish the substance of the Prime Minister's & the Leader of the Opposition's arguments in support of Australia's continuing involvement in that war.

In my view, the failure of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, along with the overwhelming majority of their party's Parliamentary members, to attend the speeches by Mr Wilkie & Mr Brandt, are testimony to the shallow falsehood perpetrated by them in claiming that the Parliament was holding a debate on this country's involvement in Afghanistan, as well as a clear demonstration that neither speaks on behalf of the Australian people; nor with the slightest moral, ethical or legal authority.

Julia Gillard & Tony Abbott have turned the Australian Parliament into a shameful 'coward's castle'.

--------------

Andrew Wilkie: Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I am a Duntroon graduate and a former Army lieutenant colonel. For a time, as you would know, I served as a senior intelligence analyst. I believe in just war and I supported the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds that al-Qaeda was involved in the 9-11 terror attacks and so significantly intertwined with the Taliban that any effective US response warranted regime change in Kabul. Unsurprisingly then I am a strong supporter of the Australian Defence Force and have been as saddened as anyone that it is my old battalion, the 6th, based in Brisbane, which has lately borne the brunt of casualties in Afghanistan. I was a platoon commander, the adjutant and then a company commander in 6RAR and understand well the difficulty of the job our soldiers are doing in our name.

On balance, I am also pro US. The United States and Australia are natural allies on account of our common histories, cultures, values and strategic security interests. The US-Australia bilateral relationship is understandably one of Australia's most important, and I can understand Prime Minister John Howard's decision to invoke the ANZUS treaty after 9-11. When the US is in strife it is right that we should come to its aid, as in fact we should try to help any country so long as doing so is genuinely within our means and genuinely consistent with our national interests.

But despite all of this I am a vocal critic of the war in Afghanistan and I believe we must bring our combat troops home as soon as possible. When I say 'as soon as possible', I envisage a withdrawal timeline carefully planned by military professionals, not by politicians, a timeline which speedily hands military responsibility over to Afghan security forces in a matter of months.

Yesterday the Prime Minister was talking about us still waging war in Afghanistan in 10 years time. That was an extraordinary admission of the difficulties we have gone and got ourselves into, and entirely inconsistent with our national interest. If it were up to me, I would be very concerned with any military plan that still had us fighting in Afghanistan in 10 months time, let alone in 10 years time.

In 2001 Afghanistan was a launching pad for Islamic extremism. But now the country is irrelevant in that regard because Islamic extremism has morphed into a global network not dependent on any one country. Yes, countries like Pakistan are incubators for terrorists, but so are countries like Australia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and the United States, which now grow their own terrorists. This is a much more worrying situation because it enlarges the threat and buries it deep within us, where it is even harder for the security services to detect.

In 2001 Osama bin Laden was thought to be in Afghanistan. But now no-one knows where he is or even if he is alive or dead - not that it matters anymore, because his ideas have taken hold and grown strong globally.

In 2001 al-Qaeda was the world's most dangerous Islamic terrorist organisation, but now al-Qaeda, like bin Laden, is much less important because it has spawned offshoots directly and inspired other terror groups to crystallise.

The misguided response to 9-11, not the least of which was the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when we had the chance in 2002, followed by the outrageous invasion of Iraq in 2003, has resulted in a significant baseline number of would-be Islamic terrorists and a global network of small terrorist clusters. In other words, Afghanistan is no longer relevant to Australia's security in the way it was way back in 2001, and the continued government and coalition insistence that we must stay in Afghanistan to protect Australia from terrorists is deliberately misleading: a great lie which, in recent Australian history, is second only to the gross government dishonesty over Australia's decision to join in the invasion of Iraq.

Mind you, yesterday and today there have been no shortage of misleading statements in this place regarding our military commitment in Afghanistan. Both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader laid it on thick with 9-11, the Bali bombings and the attacks on our embassy in Jakarta. Yes, a token effort was made by both of them to distance these shocking events from our current role in Afghanistan, but the way they were recounted achieved the speaker's aim of forming associations in people's minds and steering listeners towards the conclusion that the terrorist attacks of years ago are as relevant today to our mission in Afghanistan as they were then. If there is in fact any relevance of Afghanistan to terrorism and Australian security nowadays then it is the way in which the ongoing war continues to enrage disaffected Muslims right around the world.

Just last week the Victorian Supreme Court heard that one of the men allegedly plotting to stage an attack at Holsworthy army barracks in Sydney was angry at Australia's ongoing presence in Afghanistan. According to media reports, one Wissam Fattal discussed a trip by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Germany to hold discussions about the war and was overheard to say, 'It was shameful that Australian troops killed innocent people.'

If the government and the coalition are going to continue to argue for years more fighting in Afghanistan and deaths then you need to start being honest with the Australian community. Ditch the dishonest terrorism rhetoric and try to sell the real reasons for our seemingly open-ended involvement in a war that has gone from bad to worse over nine years, making it one of the longest wars in Australian history. Only the 13 years of the Malayan Emergency and the 10-year service of the Australian Army Training Team in Vietnam surpass it.

The reality is that the main reason we are in Afghanistan is to support the United States and, by that support, to enhance the likelihood of the US coming to our aid in the event Australia's security is one day threatened. Such a reason for staying in Afghanistan has appeal to a not insignificant number of Australians.

The problem is it is a misplaced appeal because the reality of foreign policy remains that alliances last only so long as interests overlap. So US support for Australia at some point in the future will depend on our usefulness to Washington at that exact point in time. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other supposed downpayments on our American insurance policy will not in themselves necessarily amount to anything. Turning this point around is the reality that Australia is and will remain as important to United States strategic interests as the US is to ours. Our location, political and social stability and inherent security, in part because of our air-sea gap and inhospitable frontiers, combine to ensure Australia is one piece of real estate the US will continue to be prepared to shed blood over.

Some commentators see in the case of New Zealand a demonstration of the perils of saying no to America. But the reality is that Prime Minister David Lange's decision in 1984 to deny US nuclear ships the right to visit New Zealand did not unplug Wellington from US security arrangements for the simple reason that America had a continuing need to access the material collected by the Waihopai signals intelligence ground station on the North Island. In other words, the bilateral New Zealand-United States security arrangement did continue, albeit in another form, because the security needs of the two countries continued to overlap. All the theatre about New Zealand having been completely cut adrift by the US was just that - political theatre for public consumption, mainly in America. Australia could also continue to rely on United States security guarantees if we pulled out of Afghanistan because we are simply too important to the US's own security for it to be otherwise. In fact, we would almost certainly be at less risk of being taken for granted in Washington if sometimes we simply said no.

All of this leaves ordinary Afghans as pawns in the strategic game we continue to play out with the United States. Yes, the Afghans in our area of operations have often benefited from the good work of our soldiers, and the Prime Minister's speech on the war yesterday was a fitting reminder of the local achievements of our soldiers.

But let us not kid ourselves: after nine years of war and billions of dollars in foreign aid, a third of a million Afghans are still displaced within that country's borders while 10 times that number -three million - eke out an existence as refugees, mainly in Iran and Pakistan. Moreover, the central government still fails to exert much control outside Kabul, and the Taliban's strength is put in the tens of thousands and growing, even though foreign force numbers have now maxed out at well over 100,000 troops. I remember well my visit some years ago to north-east Iran, where I met with some of the Afghan refugees accommodated at one of the camps on the border there. There were thousands in the camp and, even though the conditions were relatively tolerable thanks to Iranian government efforts, the looks on the faces of many of the refugees, including the children, was the stuff of nightmares.

Such experiences help explain my compassion for asylum seekers to this day.

Australia's achievements in Afghanistan are eerily similar to the way in which Australia achieved tremendous results in Phuoc Tuy province in South Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 only to see those achievements eventually steamrolled by the broader Vietnam War debacle. In other words, it does not matter how well we do in Oruzgan Province, because ultimately Afghanistan's fate is being decided elsewhere.

Another alarming similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is how these wars were or are propping up deeply corrupt regimes - and this matters. There have now been two elections in Afghanistan in the space of 14 months, and both have been widely ridiculed for intimidation and fraud on a scale completely discrediting the outcomes. At the end of the day, this is the government our soldiers are propping up and dying for. I find that totally unacceptable and something the government still needs to properly explain. No wonder Australian public support for the war and our involvement in it are at such low levels, as evidenced by a poll in June by Essential Media Communications which showed that nearly two-thirds of people wanted the government to withdraw troops from Afghanistan while only seven per cent thought that the number of troops should be increased. Also this year, research by the esteemed Lowy Institute put at 54 per cent the number of people polled who felt that Australia should not continue to be involved militarily in Afghanistan.

Very few members may be unambiguously speaking out against the war, but standing behind those of us who do are the millions of Australians who are concerned about the ongoing war in Afghanistan and feel strongly that it is time to bring the troops home. Every member here needs to understand that, while the number of members speaking against the war in this place is small, the number of people out there concerned about the war is huge. In other words, numerous members are prepared to sit there behind their party's policy at the expense of genuinely representing the views of their constituents, and that is a shocking breakdown of democracy. Some things should be above party discipline, and this is one of them. Whatever happened to some of you that you are now so ready to sacrifice your soul for your party's political self-interest?

I also acknowledge those of you who have travelled to Afghanistan to visit our soldiers. But please understand that you have had an intoxicating experience more likely to entertain than to deeply inform the sort of strategic-level analysis and decision making now needed more than ever.

The views of our enthusiastic diggers and operational-level commanders are obviously important, but they are only one perspective when it comes to understanding Australia's strategic interests and the most sensible way to achieve them.

That most of our soldiers are keen to stay in Afghanistan does not necessarily make staying there the right thing to do.

One argument for staying in Afghanistan is the need to stabilise Pakistan. But this notion is baseless, because one of the main reasons Pakistan has become increasingly unstable since 2001 is Islamabad's support for the war. Moreover, one of the reasons the northwest frontier has become so much more problematic is the flow of militants across the border. On balance, pulling out of Afghanistan will help rather than hinder Pakistan. This is something I saw firsthand in 2002, when I visited the Protestant church in the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad which had been attacked by terrorists only days before. The grenade attack, which killed five including the wife of an American diplomat, is a sobering reminder of the dangers faced by our own diplomats overseas, especially in the many countries with heightened levels of Islamic extremism.

The difficulties we face in Afghanistan, especially since they come so soon after the Iraq debacle, throw into question how the decision to wage war is made in Australia. That currently such decisions can be and are made by the Prime Minister acting virtually alone is patently inadequate and potentially disastrous. Decisions are hostage to the competence of an individual with all his or her strengths and weaknesses, ideology and prejudices. There is no mandatory gross error check either at the outset or later on.

This parliamentary debate is a case in point. It is good that we are having it, but we are only having it because of the extraordinary 2010 federal election result and the pressure brought to bear on the new government by a small number of agitators experiencing extra-ordinary political influence. There is a real need for a public and political discussion about this matter because the current war powers arrangement is indefensible.

Perhaps, for example, section 51 of the Constitution, which outlines the legislative powers of the parliament, could be amended to include the line 'to declare war on or make treaties of peace with foreign powers.' One option I favour is that the decision to go to war should be made by a conscience vote in a joint sitting of the parliament.

The international community, including Australia, confronts a dreadful dilemma in Afghanistan. On the one hand, it could walk away from the seemingly inevitable disaster that would unfold or, on the other hand, it could stay and fight as it plans to in the hope of somehow avoiding a different but equally inevitable disaster. Success will not be measured by capturing the capital - we did that nine years ago and, in any case, civil wars are rarely won that way. No, success will be measured by some sort of consensus among the Afghan community, and that will not be possible until there is a political solution underpinned by an agreement between all the major political groups. In other words, there can be no enduring relative peace in Afghanistan without first negotiating with the Taliban.

The Prime Minister said yesterday she believes Australia has the right strategy in Afghanistan. She is wrong - dangerously wrong. The reality is that the best plan the Australian government can come up with is simply to continue to support whatever the US government comes up with. And that alone is no plan - it is just reinforcing failure. The only way to turn Afghanistan around now is to hastily rebuild the governance, infrastructure, services and jobs which give people hope and which underpin long-term peace. But this appears increasingly unachievable because the foreign troops which anchor such a solution are now seen by many Afghans as the problem. They are prompting a nationalist backlash which is sometimes coalescing around Taliban elements.

That is our dilemma: on one hand, there is an argument for keeping our combat troops in Afghanistan but, on the other hand, we must pull them out. There is no good solution. Whatever we do from here there will be violence and people will die. There is no avoiding that.

The only certainty is that Afghanistan will never face the possibility of enduring peace unless it is allowed to find its natural political level. That cannot happen while the Afghans regard themselves as being occupied by foreign powers that are propping up an illegitimate central government.

In closing, I reiterate my support for our soldiers on active service, especially in Afghanistan. Vale Andrew Russell, David Pearce, Matthew Locke, Luke Worsley, Jason Marks, Sean McCarthy, Michael Fussell, Gregory Michael Sher, Mathew Hopkins, Brett Till, Benjamin Ranaudo, Jacob Moerland, Darren Smith, Scott Palmer, Timothy Aplin, Benjamin Chuck, Nathan Bewes, Jason Brown, Grant Kirby, Tomas Dale and Jared MacKinney. You died serving your country and I salute you. May you rest in peace, and may my new colleagues in this place see the sense in ending this conflict now before too many more young Australians are sent to their deaths.

and then the new Greens MP from Melbourne, Adam Bandt .....

Adam Bandt: Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, towards the end of last year, the Karzai government passed a law which applies to the country's minority Shi'ite population, and in particular its women. The law allows police to enforce language that sets out a wife's sexual duties and restricts a woman's right leave her own home. According to US reports, child custody rights still go to fathers and grandfathers, women have to ask before they get married for permission to work and a husband is still able to deny his wife food and shelter if she does not meet his sexual needs. And the government that passed this law last year, Mr Speaker, is a government we are told that our soldiers should kill and die for.

It is now clear that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won, however you measure victory.

It is now clear that the reasons successive governments have given to be in Afghanistan no longer stand up to scrutiny.

It is also now clear that the main reason we are there is not to defend democracy or human rights but simply because the United States asked us to go and want us to remain.

And it is now clear that although our alliance with the United States is important, a simple request is not a good enough reason for our troops to fight and die in an un-winnable and unjustifiable war.

This is a decision we must make for ourselves as a country.

Mr Speaker, it is time to bring the troops home.

It is time to bring the troops home safely and for Australia to shoulder the burden of Afghanistan's problems in a new way.

And it is time to bring the troops home so they can be honoured for their service and no longer be asked to carry out this unjustified task.

The Greens do not oppose the deployment in Afghanistan based on any absolute opposition to the use of military force or from any lack of commitment to our troops.

We led the call for military intervention in Timor Leste and are proud of the role our men and women played in the struggle for freedom and independence in that country.

Unlike in many other countries, our Defence forces thankfully follow the lead of our political leaders and have little choice in the tasks they are set.

So they are doing the job they have been asked to do in Afghanistan. 

Already 21 young Australians soldiers have lost their lives, ten since June this year.

That is all the more reason why we should be having this debate and all the more reason why the government should bring the troops home.

Mr Speaker, the decision to go to war is probably the most important decision we can make.

It is a decision fraught with danger and uncertainty and great consequence, for both the country and soldiers going to war and the people and country with which a war is being fought or invaded. And it is a decision that can easily lead to unintended outcomes, peril and blowback for the people of the country whose leaders choose to go to war. And it is for those reasons that such a momentous decision should not be left in the hands of the executive alone.

This is why the Greens asked for and secured this debate on Australia's Afghanistan commitment as part of our agreement to support the Gillard government.

And this is why my colleague Senator Ludlum has put before the Senate a bill to require a decision of Parliament as well as the Government to underpin any deployment of troops overseas.

Mr Speaker, I can announce today that I will soon introduce the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill into this house.

The United States understood the importance of a check on democracy and ensures that Congress needs to back a President's decision to go to war. Many other countries do something similar, including Germany, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. We should join them. 

The Greens' Bill will require a resolution agreed to by both the Senate and the House of Representatives before members of the Defence Force may serve beyond the territorial limits of Australia, except where emergencies require immediate deployment.

The Greens hope that this debate can be a step towards the passage of our Bill which will mean once and for all that in the future the Australian people through their representatives will have a say in going to war.

Mr Speaker, no one knows exactly how many people have died and been injured in the war in Afghanistan, because in those infamous words of the US military "we don't do body counts". But we do know it is in the tens of thousands.

According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, in the first 6 months of this year casualties increased by 31% compared to 2009.

And nearly every other week there is another story of a massacre or "accidental" killing of civilians. More "collateral damage" in a war in which, like Vietnam, our troops find it hard to tell the difference between insurgents and non-insurgents.

Mr Speaker, the Afghan war has now been going for over 9 years, almost longer than World Wars I and II combined.

We must remember that in the eyes of many of the people now fighting the Coalition forces in Afghanistan, this is a continuation of their fight to remove foreign forces from the country, a fight begun with the Soviet invasion in 1979.

The Russians learnt, to their great cost, that more than 100,000 troops backed by an Afghan government could not win against "Mujahideen".

The Leader of the Opposition is right that despite the history, we must deal with this world as it is. But we can't close our eyes to the lessons of the past and be doomed to repeat them. Wilful blindness is no better than wishful thinking. 

Mr Speaker, I know many Australians ask the legitimate question: what will happen to the population if we pull out? But there's an alternative question: is us being there making the problem worse? 

Major-General Alan Stretton, who served as Australian Chief of Staff in Vietnam and fought in World War II, Korea and Malaya, thinks so. 

He says the Afghan "population now sees the war as a foreign invasion of its country."

"In fact," the Major-General says "the occupation is providing a reason for terrorist attacks and instead of reducing the risk to Australians is actually increasing it."

The Prime Minister said this war may be the work of a generation. Well, if coalition troops are there for another decade, a whole generation of boys and girls will have grown up under occupation and we must expect all the consequences that may flow from that.

On this I think we should listen to Malalai Joya. In 2005, she was the youngest woman elected to the Afghani parliament. She condemned the warlords that overwhelmingly comprised the assembly. Now she says: 

"We are in between two evils: the warlords and Taliban on one side, and the occupation on the other. ... The first step is to fight against the occupation - those who can liberate themselves will be free, even if it costs our lives."  

Mr Speaker, respected defence analysts have said the process of training the army and police in Afghanistan is far less successful than the government has made out and may never be achievable.

The desertion of personnel, infiltration by Taliban supporters and quality of the troops and police all mean that very few are able to operate without Coalition forces in support.

And according to some reports the attrition rate far exceeds the number of new recruits.

None of these problems were explicitly acknowledged in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, apart from a confident declaration noting the "Afghan Government's determination that the Afghan National Security Forces should lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014."

Mr Speaker it is important to note the careful language that is being used here. Afghan troops will "lead" but not takeover the full security task and they hope to "operate" in all provinces, but will not to be able to take on a full role in all provinces.

In short, even by 2014 there will be no self-sufficient Afghan military or police, suggesting we may be there for much much longer.

The leader of the Coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, summed up his thinking on the length of deployment in this way:

"You have to recognise also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting ... You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives."

But while we talk here of decades and generations, President Obama is reported to have responded to Pentagon requests for more troops by saying "I'm not doing ten years. I'm not doing long-term nation building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."

If the US is increasingly asking how much it will cost in lives and money to be successful, and indicating it will not make that kind of commitment, why aren't we doing the same?

And what would count as success anyway?

Many have said - and it was repeated yesterday - that we need to be in Afghanistan because of Al Qadea. But most experts agree that Al Qadea is now operating from other countries and not Afghanistan.

General Peter Gration commanded the ADF from 1987 to 1993. He has reportedly described as "overblown" the Prime Minister's claims that there are direct links between the security of Afghanistan and terrorist threats to Australians.

We now know that Al Qadea is operating in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, but we don't invade there.

But very few if any such terrorists are in Afghanistan.

In General Gration's words, "To say that what we are doing in Afghanistan is defending Australians is drawing a very long bow."

Mr Speaker, another key justification and strategy of the United States and in turn the strategy of the Australian government has been to hold up the Karzai government and make it democratic.

Yet this same government is accused of widespread corruption and criminality. In fact US General David Petraeus reportedly describes the Karzai Government as a "criminal syndicate", and Vice President Joe Biden has asked, "If the Government's a criminal syndicate a year from now, how will the troops make a difference?"

Successive elections in Afghanistan have been marked by fraud and recently came an announcement that the latest election results have been delayed because of widespread fraud with estimates that up to 25% of the ballots are likely to be thrown out. 

Mr Speaker, when on Monday I asked a question of the Minister for Defence about the alleged criminality of the Karzai government he dodged the point and again yesterday and today the government has failed to respond directly to General Petraeus' assessment. 

It is a crucial point the Government must squarely address.

The ostensible reason that is most often given for why we are in Afghanistan is to fight the Taliban. 

Some have said that we should stay the course to ensure the Taliban does not become the government. 

But now we know there are extensive talks between the Karzai government and Taliban leader Mullah Omar and others, aimed at reconciliation and dealing them squarely into government.

While pursuing peace and reconciliation is to be commended and one hopes the process may ease or end the conflict, it somewhat undermines the claim that Taliban is the enemy that must be opposed at all costs, including the cost of taking and sacrificing lives.

And what now of the rights of the Hazaras, many of whom have sought refugee in Australia, and whose persecution under the Taliban has continued and may now become entrenched if the power sharing arrangements holds?

Mr Speaker, according to Australian defence analyst Hugh White, the real reason the Australian government has troops in Afghanistan is because the US has asked us.

This is why The Greens believe we need a relationship with the United States based on autonomy and independence.

In the words of Major-General Stretton, "Although it is important to remain an ally of the United States, this does not mean that we have to be involved in all American military excursions."

The experience of the British, in standing up to American pressure to take part in the Vietnam War did not undermine the British-American relationship. Australia could still retain the support of the United States even if we pursue a more independent foreign policy.

Mr Speaker, like most people, I shudder when I hear that the Taliban and now the Karzai government are prepared to legislate for the sexual subjugation of women.

But if we are looking for a tool to spread human rights and democracy, it is folly to think that invading and occupying a country is the answer.

Withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan does not mean we must disengage from the country or stop trying to help the Afghan people. We do not advocate leaving without helping those left behind.

In fact, there are good reasons to be separating our aid efforts from military activities.

The Australian Council for International Development have called for military and development activities to be decoupled. They say increased funds linked to political and military objectives makes it less likely we'll see lasting and comprehensive community based development outcomes that will meet real needs.

At the moment, the government has its priorities wrong.

The Greens believe a withdrawal of Australian military forces from Afghanistan could enable additional aid to be directed to the country, targeted in particular to civil society institutions that foster democracy, sustainable development and human rights.

It is time to look at countries like Oman. Unlike its neighbouring conflict-racked terrorist base of Yemen, it has transformed itself. It was a society where only a few decades ago not one girl in Oman was attending school. Now all children are expected to finish high school and the place of women has been transformed, with 3 of the country's Cabinet Ministers being women. 

The Prime Minister yesterday noted the rise in Afghani girls getting an education. Well in Oman, girls attend school, read books and surf the internet, without the need for an expensive, unsustainable foreign occupying military force and without the life-shattering effects war can have on children, their education and upbringing.

In the words of New York Times journalist Thomas Kristof:

"one of the lessons of Oman is that one of the best and most cost effective ways to tame extremism is to promote education for all."

Malalia Joya, the former Afghan MP, knows this. She called for all of our assistance in strengthening civil society in Afghanistan, not the occupation or the corrupt government, saying said that "Education gives us hope and courage .... open the eyes and minds of the justice loving."

While others in the world are discussing exit strategies, Australia is writing blank cheques. 

More and more countries are removing their troops and we should join them.

Earlier in the year the Netherlands withdrew their troops from the province in which Australia operates and Canada will leave next year. No one has doubted their integrity or their commitment to democracy.

And even the US and NATO have talked about a time for withdrawal, yet it seems that our Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are unwilling to set a date. Instead the Prime Minister has just committed us for another decade or more of war.

The Greens have a different view.

The Greens believe it is now time to bring our troops safely home.

The Greens believe the Australian people and our defence forces should not be asked to continue this war for another decade. 

And The Greens believe many people in Australia agree with us, with recent polls showing most Australians want our defence forces personnel brought safely home.

If we really want to ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for terrorists, we must encourage education and help strengthen the institutions of civil society. 

We must foster democracy from below, not imagine we can impose it from above down the barrel of a gun.

No matter how much the contemporary trend might be to dress it up in the garb of human rights, an invasion is an invasion, a war is a war.

It is a mistake we have made before but not yet learned from. 

We owe it to our troops, the Australian people and the people of Afghanistan to adopt a different path.

How convincing is the speech from that person of compassion and honesty?

As a Labor voter, I have nevertheless opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, not only because it was not warranted but, because by history it was obviously a pointless exercise.

I have witnessed the servitude of the Howard "New Order" in support of this war of choice - and the absolute support of Kevin Rudd - and the now absolute support of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott!!!  And my mind boggles.

Andrew makes a very telling and compelling argument - one which in my opinion makes a contrary opinion an unbelievable political exercise in futility.

The recent statements of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have at once appeared as a bi-partisan belief in the distant fight against a people who do not want our interference.

I may deviate somewhat from the gist of Andrew's speech however, the war to subjugate the people of Afghanistan (forget democracy crap) has no possibility of achieving the eternal servitude of the indigenous citizens of a society that has overcome all difficulties in the past.  Even if you attempt to wipe out the entire race - and you check all corners and crevices - you will never be sure that you have won by the extinction of a society that by sufferance has proven its ability to survive while we worry about mortgages.

I believe that our military is subservient to the will of the US, the NATO and various other binding Treaties.

I also believe that there is nothing in our Treaties with the US that requires us to support NATO or Coalition forces in the so-called “War on Terror” concerning Afghanistan – Iraq – Iran – Nth. Korea or any other nation that doesn’t conform to the US/Zionist formula?

Well said Andrew Wilkie – your courage is inspiring. NE OUBLIE.

 

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has slammed Parliament's current debate on Afghanistan as 'unfortunate' and says it should only have been held when defence chiefs recommended it take place.

Senator Joyce told Fairfax Media the problem with politicians arguing about the nine-year war is they could arrive at the wrong answer.

Barnaby Joyce slams Afghanistan debate

There's no doubt about the foot-in-mouth capabilities of the Minister for Cubbie ....

Whilst the nation's politicians engage in their faux debate about our continuing presence in Afghanistan, more than 60 percent of Australians want to see Australia withdraw.

Obviously it would be unreasonable in the muddled mind of Senator Joyce for our political leaders to be swayed by public opinion or 'the wrong answer' as he puts it. This would be way too democratic for the bushranger from QLD.

Ignorant twit!!