As previously noted, finding out what’s going on with the Australian deployment in Afghanistan is almost impossible.
Therefore, this piece by the ABC’s Hungry Beast is a fairly rare data point, and a fascinating one:
…Eventually, we found one currently-serving soldier who has served in Afghanistan, who was willing to talk. He offers a rare insight into the mind of someone who, quite literally, puts his life on the line in the name of this conflict. His reasons for speaking out are telling:
“It appalls me that whinging frauds are able to gain the bulk of the media access and press their bogus claims… I can’t change the course of a cultural tsunami of myth making and superficial story telling, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it.”
Hungry Beast spoke to ‘Tom*’ at length. In this recreation, we have edited and restructured that interview for the sake of length and comprehensibility, but all the words you hear are entirely his own. To protect his identity, ‘Tom’ has been played by actors Aden Young, Dan Wyllie, Lewis Fitz-Gerald and Rodger Corser.
Tom, whomever he is, has quite a lot to say, notably including a fair bit of criticism of “left-wing critics” of the war. I personally think his “left wing critic” is often something of a straw man; furthermore, while the viciousness and odious goals of the Taliban are beyond doubt, it doesn’t necessarily follow that sending Australian soldiers to get shot at by them is a worthwhile thing to do, particularly given the odiousness of the alternative “legitimate” government we’re there to prop up.
His take on civilian casualties is also rather provocative – in a nutshell, he doesn’t buy the “no front line” excuse for civilian deaths; he believes that the blame lies with soldiers themselves.
In any case, have a look.
Yeah. I’m a fan of this program which I think is the best of the ABC at the moment. Their piece on the history of James Hardie and asbestos was genius.
As a former soldier myself (admittedly only a pogo), I found it extremely interesting. While the left-wing straw man was midly irritating, you need to remember that soldiers are no more immune to propaganda than the rest of us.
I was slightly uneasy about the inconsistent tone (and vocabulary), but that may be merely an artifact of using several actors and having abridged the interview. I might watch the whole thing on their website and see if I still have the same feeling.
I fail to see why he was under the cloak of anonymity, given he seemed not to say one single thing that the ADF could find controversial, as far as I could tell. Perhaps it was the presentation, but I thought it was tugging at the heart strings of the ANZAC myth, what with the “blood and mud in the desert” meme he had going. His level of discourse was extremely well developed, his use of language revealed some quite finely wrought apologetics with an intellectual bent to them and his arguments addressed every possible criticism levelled at Australia’s participation in the war in Afghanistan. It even tried to appeal to the Left’s natural sympathies towards women and gays.
I can’t help but think – does it not leave open the question of whether this is an ADF authorised anonymous “Tom” speaking?
Yes, it’s probably the best on offer on the ABC at the moment, and has some great segments. Pity it’s followed by the profoundly disappointing latest offering from John Safran. If ever someone needed a good editor it’s him. You could probably edit the worthwhile parts of the whole series down to 20 minutes, athough his interview with David Irving (no relation to no relation) was perversely interesting.
Casey, there were a number of things he said that the Defence Dept wouldn’t want publicised (including the bit about civilian casualties).
In any case, even more than public servants, soldiers are not permitted to talk to the media without explicit permission (and thorough vetting of what will be said), which is why it was anonymous.
I avoided Safran, adrian (despite my namesake) – I’ve found the current offering just irritating.
I doubt the ADF would appreciate being associated with Tom’s opinion of the DUTCH (Don’t Understand The Concept Here).
Nevertheless, Tom does appear to have drunk deep of the ADF Kool-Aid in some aspects while displaying scepticism in other aspects.
I’m willing to concede that Tom isn’t an ADF plant.
Tom appears to be at a point where he realises that his appreciation of the small picture will never mesh with his government-supplied big picture.
There are all sorts of reasons why persons in Tom’s position choose not to take the next logical step, however.
Fair enough David, parts of it seemed rather contrived though.
I agree, Casey. I’ve already expressed some reservations about its authenticity, but when you consider that it’s abridged, and switches between several voices, that may be explainable.
The characterisation of the Dutch was pure digger, though. (I know nothing about the capabilities of the Dutch army, btw, but the expression was perfect. Ineffective soldiers used to be called slugs, for “slack, lazy, undisciplined grunt”.)
The soldier gave a good description of the nitty-gritty aspects of military life. But his political rationalisation was crusading liberal internationalism eg “Islamofascism”.
The ADF is in Afghanistan because Howard activated the ANZUS treaty straight after 911. We will be in Afghanistan so long as the US needs us there.
I think its good that we are there. The conflict is generally low-intensity, apart from the special forces. So its a realistic way to keep the military organization natch fit and the sharp end blooded.
I really thought that segment on hungry beast was a breath of fresh air. I think he did raise many valid points.
I was against the Iraq war, but I must admit to being relieved when I heard that finally somebody was going to take on the Taliban. I think everyone forgets that in the years before 2001 terrible atrocities were happening every day in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was once a modern country, but after invasion by the Soviets and the rise of the Taliban it was reduced to a mediaeval level. Why couldn’t the rest of the world do something about it?
You might think that ‘Tom’ was deliberately tugging on the heartstrings of the left by talking about atrocities against women and homosexuals. This isn’t just a point in an argument these events were everyday occurrences in Afghanistan. Should we sit by and watch a country consume itself? The cancer of the Taliban is also spreading to neighbouring countries. As with any cancer the treatment is painful. Delaying treatment could end up making the problem a lot worse.
I don’t happen to think violence is a very good method of solving a problem, but in Afghanistan what is the alternative? Sitting back and doing nothing seems like a much harder decision to me.
Hungry Beast has opened a window into what is going on in Afghanistan. I don’t think ignorance ever helps anybody.
As David said, I can’t imagine that his take on the Dutch would have been terribly popular with the Australian authorities.
And, frankly, the interview didn’t address the more substantive critique of what we’re doing in Afghanistan – in a nutshell, we can’t win, and we’re only making things worse by our continued presence. Those who advocate a continued military presence in Afghanistan need to make a case against that, not just note that the Taliban aren’t very nice.
It was actually Katz who pointed out the Dutch-dissing, Robert. I’d forgotten it until he reminded me.
“Afghanistan was once a modern country, but after invasion by the Soviets and the rise of the Taliban it was reduced to a mediaeval level. Why couldn’t the rest of the world do something about it?”
Given that the publicly stated rationale for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was couched in terms of defeating terrorism, liberating women and dragging the country into the 20th Century, why would those who support the current Western intervention oppose (in retrospect!) the Soviet intervention?
Not to mention that one reason for the violent reaction to the Soviet intervention from the populace was the perception that they were going to far and too fast with their attempts to ‘liberate’ women and modernise the country…
I call bull on the main premise of this post. It would be extremely easy to find a number of diggers willing to speak (if their IDs were concealed). All it would take is an enterprising journo willing to spend a few bob at the local watering hole near bases with the inclination to build a decent rapport with the blokes talking.
I was always amused at the same “they wont talk to anyone…they arent allowed” bull being peddled at Immigration detention a few years back (And currently). There are plenty of people able and willing to talk, just journos a bit to lazy to go out and seek them.
And exactly why would a person in a “righty” occupation trust the ABC anyway? They have a track record of being advocates for certain points of view rather than impartial reporters.
Kudos to Beast for apparently doing that.
“And exactly why would a person in a “righty” occupation trust the ABC anyway? They have a track record of being advocates for certain points of view rather than impartial reporters.”
Mole, my observations of ABC news lead me to believe they wholeheartedly support the Western intervention into Afghanistan and Australia’s role in it.
“And exactly why would a person in a “righty” occupation trust the ABC anyway? They have a track record of being advocates for certain points of view rather than impartial reporters.”
As contrasted with which rival broadcaster?
Sorry, Monica.
Mole, if it’s so easy why hasn’t it been done?
Robert, it hasn’t been done (much) because most soldiers are actually security-conscious. There are signs up all over most military establishments about loose lips sinking ships and so forth. Also they tend to be slightly distrustful of outsiders, and won’t as a rule discuss sensitive matters with them even when pissed. We used to get a security brief, reminding us of our obligations, every year or so.
Robert Merkel/ Pass the port, Monto
Thas a question for a journo. In general (from my detention time here) if a story is multi-faceted and has no clear “good/bad” guys the journos are confused as to their “angle”.
For example I spoke to a handful regaurding various aspects of detention and could see the angle they wanted (for the West Australian newspaper it was refugees=bad, for the ABC it was immigration= evil), for both groups once it became clear it wasnt clear cut and simple it just got to difficult for them. Media hates, loathes and detests moral ambiguity.
2 examples.
Officer bashing detainee who assaulted another officer, and triggered a riot.
Detainee who harrassed 3 female officers to the extent they could no longer work safely in the compound (2 were lesbians in a long term relationship, which he found out), same detainee stood over other detainees regaurding money, but was a “source” to the ABC of many allegations. (99% bull, but it fitted the ABCs agenda at the time)
Neither of those are clearly black/white, both could be spun either way if reported to suit an agenda. Neither was a story because I insisted it be reported “straight”. In abstract both would make good stories, in reality both were to complicated.
David Irving (no relation)
Ill bow to your greater experience in the military, but I am talking of a trust relationship not just pissed outpourings. How many diggers do you know whove ever been asked even informaly by a media agency about operations?
Id be guessing its very few.
A journo only has to find that 1 in 100 diggers who will talk and they have a story, I think many of them are just a bit slack and prefer copying and pasting offical blurb, much easier.
I think the game changer may be happening in Pakistan. When the Taliban starts blowing up ISI offices and generally attacking the army it is running the risk of hardening the attitudes of organizations that have lacked enthusiasm for doing anything about the Taliban or even covertly supporting them. It may also start changing the attitudes of the people whose lives have been disrupted by Taliban activity in Pakistan.
Where’s Razor? No doubt he would have much to say about this that would be quite interesting given his experience.
The current western approved government is among the few most corrupt governments in the world. The election was rigged. It is occupied from top to bottom with drug dealers, cut-throats, and war criminals. The Northern Alliance – which we support, and has been integrated into the current Kazai government – is every bit as bad as the Taliban.
As for women’s rights under the current government, Kazai has made it almost legal for a man to starve his wife if she refuses sex.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8204207.stm
You have to look past the propaganda. We are there to instal and maintain a ruling group with which that the west can do deals. Thats why we are there.
Most American soldiers believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Even as late as 2006 I remember reading the vast majority in Iraq still believed that.
Think about that while listen to Tom’s opines.
I like hungry beast – easily the best thing on the abc, maybe even television. (I have a bit of a soft spot for John Safran too, tho last night had its boring moments. His show could definitely be stronger with a bit of effort, it seems like its missing something.)
I thought the interview was good, but it had some obvious holes. Like the recent election and drugs. I appreciated the frankness of his comment to the effect that only psychos shoot civillians.
I wonder how he’d respond to this
interview withmyth making and superficial story telling by Malalai Joya. Is she another whinging fraud? She makes some interesting claims, how bogus are they?Just a couple of titbits:
“The policy of supporting warlords and fundamentalists did not originate in 2001 but was adopted since the 1980s, during the Cold War. The United States has invested billions of dollars in nourishing Islamic fundamentalism in the region. The U.S. government knows that these warlords are ready to serve U.S. interests very well if money is poured into their pockets. Meanwhile, no democratic-minded and progressive group will betray Afghans by supporting the devastating U.S. policies in Afghanistan. The United States has found by experience that these warlords are the best group to support because they are head-to-toe lackeys who agree to every command of their foreign masters.”
“The opium industry of Afghanistan is solely designed by the United States. The drug business started long before in the 1980s during the Cold War, and the CIA worked hard to promote it in the areas under the control of the mujahideen. It is a joke when they are talking about counter-narcotics efforts while everyone knows that the production level goes up every year.
If they had been serious about fighting the drug business, they would not have installed the biggest drug-traffickers like Ahmad Wali Karzai, Qasim Fahim, Rashid Dostum, Atta Muhammad, Daud Daud, Burhanuddin Rabbani, and many others in the key positions of the puppet government.
….
No one in their right mind can believe that a superpower supported by over 40 counties is really unable to stop opium production in Afghanistan, while a small, ignorant, and backward force like the Taliban could easily ban it in 2001 and were able to reduce the production level to only 185 metric tons. But under the United States and its allies Afghanistan now produces over 8,500 tons of opium every year.”
Parrdon the c & p but hopefully its enough to inspire you to read the rest.
I call it a “slam dunk”
It costs $1,000,000 to send one pair of U.S. boots per year “over there”.
$26,000,000,000 could be saved by withdrawal. But if President – I mean ‘General’ – McChrystal’s recommendation is followed, we will be “investing” $734,000,000,000 in Chaosistan. Is that more than the military budget of the Bush administration? That can’t be!
Matt Hoh’s description of Valley-istan is confirmed. But we can’t mention falling morale, can we?
“I doubt the ADF would appreciate being associated with Tom’s opinion of the DUTCH”
The Dutch approach things quite differently in Afghanistan to the Americans. Their model is not likely to be favoured by the more gung-ho members of the ADF being as it is much more devoted to winning the hearts and minds of the locals than an all out battle with the Taliban.
Kind of like the vision of things senior military figures would prefer us to have, of our boys, so that the pressure to bring them home does not get any stronger.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Bush’s idiotic
crusadeCoalition of the Willing has transformed a powerful Islamist impulse into an unstoppable tsunami throughout the Middle East.“Staying the course” will exhaust western participants financially and morally.
Exiting will be a tremendous fillip for the Taliban.
There is no winning course in the region now. Obama cannot afford to leave, at least not until after the next presidential election.
Only Nixon could recognise China. Only McCain could have withdrawn the Coalition from Afghanistan. He wouldn’t have, of course.
“Tom” half perceives the hopelessness of the Western cause in Afghanistan. Is he disappointed that the Australian commitment to Afghanistan has hardly caused a ripple in Australian politics? Does he wish that Afghanistan becomes another Vietnam?
He is uncertain and he is open to suggestion.
Might be worth watching again:
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/dust-mud-shit-extended-interview
Some statements worth thinking about:
“We need more soldiers…we need a commitment”
“Journalists will not invest the time…”
“The Dutch will run away…But the Australians are different…will continue a fight until it’s finished” (sounds like The Untouchables…different than Singapore).
“I like working with the Americans. They’re very brave and they’ll do anything for ya. They absolutely despise the Dutch…they love Australians…they have a different approach to things, they’re a bit more gung-ho than we are. But yea, they’re good to work with.”
“I don’t care if they create a base for the Third Reich…”
“Islamo-fascism”
“Two-thirds of the citizens…are killed by the Taliban…ya know?, cutting people’s heads off…things like that”.
Also mentioned that most people stopped in street couldn’t name a soldier killed in Afghanistan but could particpants in Big Brother, Oz Idol (good point…but interesting focus…when one thinks of McDonald comment too…appeal to Corporate/celebrity wannabe critics?…how much are we commited as armchair imperialists?).
N’
BTW, I turned off my monitor and just listened to the interview. No visual manipulation.
N’
I was talking to a soldier, just yesterday, who is about to be deployed to Afghanistan. He says they are going to save the women and children of that (poor benighted) country.
Is my recollection right that much of the rhetoric / propaganda of why men had to sign up for that “Great” war – the “War to end all wars” – by fighing the “Huns” was because they raped women and killed children?
This fella is obviously very torn about going – he walked away with his young wife and new-born baby – but full of the jingoistic babble.
Do I answer his statement that he supports “free speech” here in Oz – and my right to be totally opposed to this genocide (that he’s brave and manly enough to risk his life for my freedom of speech), by telling him he goes without any good wishes on my part. That I would happily see him again torn from his wife and children to stand trial on war crimes, if at a later date, evidence of such makes this a possibility?
Or do I shake his hand and say “Good luck to ya” – ?
Best to say nothing.
If you tell him that the war in Afghanistan is a genocide you’ll just be showing him that you are an idiot.
If you said “Good luck to ya” you’d be insincere.
Definitely best to say nothing and keep up the illusion for him that you are not an idiot.
“That I would happily see him again torn from his wife and children to stand trial on war crimes..”
Res ipsa loquitur.
Lets not forget everyone that “Tom”has been to Afghanistan, we have not.
What makes us think we are better informed than him?
@ # 34: Never thought I’d hear myself saying “Yeah yeah, that ere leftist is spot-on!”
…and yet, there ya go. The world is endlessly surprising. Good observation, p-d.l.
“What makes us think we are better informed than him?”
That’s a really good question. To some of us, it’s always felt like maybe it’s the *only* question. (Hamlet notwithstanding; let’s do Hamlet on another day. I know *I’m* game for it, and I have a totally great theory!!)
“What makes us think [X]?” ….As I (almost inexplicably) found myself telling somebody recently, the task of epistemology is really the task of the human race writ large.
Now back to our worries about a barren useless land mass in south central asia, filled with peculiar critters.
I’d go along with that option, it keeps your head on your shoulders.
The threat of lethal violence is, of course, a definitive argument.
Oh, wait … I thought the Coalition of the Willing is in Afghanistan to save the poor suffering people there from having their heads removed from their shoulders by people who didn’t agree with their opinions.
Because some of us are.
As I suggested upthread, “Tom” made some particularly acute comments about the situation he encountered on the ground in his local area of operations. I have little reason to doubt the picture he paints.
“Tom’s” problem, as he half acknowledges, arises when he attempts to plug his accurate local picture into the broader picture that has been thoughtfully supplied to him by his ADF indoctrinators. “Tom” assumes that his little data point is somehow not representative of data points from all over Afghanistan and from all over the Coalition of the Willing.
Just one of those data points: virtually all of the Coalition of the Willing are looking desperately for the exit door. Their will to make a serious fist of the Afghan challenge is close to zero. Everyone in Afghanistan knows this, including the Taliban and all the folks who will have to live again under a regime heavily influenced by the Taliban.
That is where educated folk can help Tom, if he is willing to accept it.
Being an x digger myself during the Vietnam conflict, I can tell you nothing has changed, only the names of the enemy have changed from “Gooks to Sand Niggers”. The propaganda was laid on with a trowel during the Vietnam period, and it was as contraversial then as Afghanistan is now.
I am part of a family that had two brothers serving at the time of the Vietnam conflict, both with similar experiences, but with different opinions on the aftermath.He believes we should have stayed in Vietnam as he does Afghanistan.He served in Vietnam I didn’t.
We have lost our relationship over this latest mess, he is a conservative, and this is what is going on with Tom,I have heard this propganda before just change the time line, same ol same ol.
“I’d go along with that option, it keeps your head on your shoulders.”
Does that reflect the Australian military culture’s attitude to freedom of speech?
No. It reflects SATP’s personal opinion. No intelligent person would think otherwise.
Katz: “Oh, wait … I thought the Coalition of the Willing is in Afghanistan to save the poor suffering people there from having their heads removed…”
And you would be, uh, wrong. See the 9/11 thread for further details.
“Because some of us are [better informed].”
See above.
Your next assignment is to Google “Alanis Morissette” and “ironic.”
9/11 thread? … Better informed?
Japerz explodes the vestiges of his credibility with invisible thermite.
Unless, of course Japerz is attempting a witticism, in which case I take it all back.
Personal disclaimer: I haven’t logged in to that thread since about #800. I may have mischaracterised the last 700 comments, in which case I apologise unreservedly.
“in which case I take it all back.”
Does “all”, as used here, include your world-view?
No.
btw, for someone who “[hasn't] logged in to that thread since about #800″, you’re awfully quick and on point with the jokes about ‘invisible thermite’ — jokes which I (and AFAIK, only I) started making at around #1400.
Or is it a case of “great minds…”? (*shudders*, let’s hope not — between the pair of us mooks, we’d probably wreck half the planet…)
So… how’s that raison for fighting in Afghanistan coming along?
You’re right Japerz. The term I was thinking of was “nano thermite” which turned up first at comment # 193.
I apologise again if I have breached any property rights that you may have over the term “invisible thermite”.
As for raisons. The Imbecile gave one reason for going to Afghanistan and a series of others for staying.
Which one(s) now represent(s) the efficient cause(s)? Perhaps your guess is better than mine. I bow to your more intimate acquaintance with the product(s) of such minds.
Oh, c’mon ol’ chum… so what, you got caught with your hand in the rhetorical cookie jar, over a totally minor issue. Any idiot can see that (what? you confused “nano” with “invisible”?! Really?!? Do you even know where jokes come from??), and yet you’re still trying to cover your tracks. “So whaaat. Beeeeg deeel.” as a certain Lectroid used to say. It ain’t the end of the world… just fess up and you’ll feel better. (Zappa: “He told me nonono. I told him yesyesyes. I said, I do it all the time. Ain’t this boogie a mess.”)
Meantime I can agree wif you over the larger premise, that the continuing war in Afghanistan is a very bad rather than a slightly good idea, insofar as its basis is at this point cloudy and unsound. But don’t misrepresent the thing: you have more of a stake in the defense of United States territorial security than you may realize. I suspect we have very different reasons for arriving at a similar conclusion, but as they used to say in the old Abbey Theatre, “Nevertheless —”
But things would be helped by trying to clarify goals, and acknowledging the validity of sound ones and the stupidity of unsound ones, rather than by scoring silly points over rhetoric. This is a rare case where I think Obama may actually have a good structural sense to his decision-making apparatus; one hopes he doesn’t fumble it in a cloud of nonsense.
To which you are contributing with your poorly-informed rhetorical swagger…
GregM @ 32: “If you tell him that the war in Afghanistan is a genocide you’ll just be showing him that you are an idiot.”
Mate, I can’t see that I am an idiot at all.
Wikipedia says: “Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.”
However you justify your opinions to yourself – to make yourself feel better about supporting such foreign campaigns – is up to you.
Call me an “idiot” by all means. But you’re wrong – dead wrong.
Whether or not you see this particular foreign escapade as retaliation for the 9/11 atrocity; to protect western access to oil; to show the US’ paymaster (China) that the US will stop at nothing to keep its’ so-called “way of life”; to wipe out that violent, maniacal militia that the US created, trained, armed and financed (the Taliban) as it is no longer ‘useful’ to western ‘interests’ – whatever your current justification for this unjustifiable genocide may be, I cannot see that I am the “idiot”.
I am absolutely positive, that I’ll live to see the day when some of these decision makers, and implementors of these atrocities (the grunters, like this fella), are in front of another Nuremberg trial, answering questions as to why they caused and took part in this wanton destruction of other peoples, their homelands, their culture and their future – in a word: genocide.
“If you said “Good luck to ya” you’d be insincere.”
Sorry mate, I can’t see that your opinion on this is any more accurate than on the other.
Lest we forget – what fools we are.
pre-dawn leftist, satp anyone else.
If Malalai Joya was elected in Afghanistan, she has a pretty good record as far standing up for everything we in the west claim this fight is all about. Why aren’t we listening to her? She has as much cred as Tom. And lets face it Toms probably in his element. He’s doing what he devoted his life to. I’ll bet its a buzz few of us would understand, cos few of live life at that intensity, where everything is literally on the line, not just for you, but others too.
He’d have to be fully committed to it body and soul, and his opinions would reflect that. Whatever we think of his opinions we can’t think he doesn’t actually really believe them do we? Thats he is unthinkingly spouting some ADF line?
Really we shouldn’t expect anything less of him should we?
Regardless of whether we agree with him or not. He”s in the military, he signed on to be committed to follow orders dictated by the policies our democracies develop. Thats worthy of respect imo. Tho what he does there thats up to him of course.
But imo thats all the more reason to bring him home. If someone’s prepared to put themselves on the line like that, and put their faith in us as a society to decide the policies that determine what happens to him, then its up to us to treat that with the respect it deserves, and not use him for something that dishonours what or who we are as a culture, and his committment.
To me Afghanistan doesn’t stack up, its a debasement of whatevers good about us a society. And that isn’t to meant to reflect on the Australian performance there either. but on what happened at home.
Like the time the Australians refused to join a battle because of the risk to civillians. (One I think the dutch were involved in actually, not sure tho.)
Anyone remember that?
If not, why the fuck not?
Thats something to be proud about re our performance in Afghanistan whatever your view on us being there.
Thats whats sposed to happen isn’t it? Thats how its sposed to work, especially in a COIN situation.
That should have been a huge issue here, with us behind the army’s decision every step of the way. And we should have been asking hard questions of our allies about it too.
I’d be a lot less upset about Afghanistan if the policy decisions we made at home were actually done to support the military that are actually risking their lives at our request. Because then I could at least trust the people that were making the decisions actually had a clue what they were doing.
Mervyn, thanks for your reply.
Having read it closely I realise that I have been wrong in describing you as an idiot.
You have now informed me that you are a complete and utter idiot.
The allied campaign in Afghanistan in which Australia participates can be characterised in many ways (folly, misconcieved, incoherent, whatever) but not as a genocide. Only a complete and utter idiot would say that.
However what the allied campaign has put an end to, by the very criteria you cite for genocide, is the genocide of the Hazara people, an ethnic and religious minority in Afghanistan, by the Taliban.
Implicitly you support this by opposing the allied campaign which has brought an end to this war crime. Therefore as a supporter of war crimes you are a war criminal as well as being a complete and utter idiot.
Nasty piece of work though you are I cannot say that I would happily see you torn from your wife and children (although I cannot imagine that any woman would want to have sexually congress with you, yet alone leading to children) to stand trial for war crimes as you have despicably proposed for a decent Australian citizen who has joined our armed forces and who is obeying the lawful directions of our government and who will be participating in the suppression of the war crimes of the Taliban.
Instead I hope that under the Mental Health Act of whatever State you live in you will be compulsorily detained in a secure unit for the mentally incompetent who can’t look after themselves and who are a menace to others.
Could whoever is moderating this thread delete the above offensive piece of crap. Thank you.
What’s offensive about it adrian?
And what of anything it says is more offensve than this:
You don’t like free speech. I do.
I find that people who don’t like free speech to be an “offensive piece of crap.” to use your words. And so as they are your words so I find you. Welcome to the Enlightenment.
Get over it and live in the real world.
Moderators I note that my comment that causes adrian offence is now put in
moderation and does not appear on LP.
I have saved it elsewhere.
I note that the slander of some unnamed Australian soldier as a war criminal by Mervyn Langford does not get moderated.
Can you comment on your adherence to the values of free speech or otherwise have a quiet word with adrian who does not have a clue about what they are.
Would you care to be more specific?
pftnhtrthsif
In my enthusiam to join this converation, I hit the keyboard randomly, laughing maniacally, as one does, and in that string of stochastically (?sp) generated letters something was revealed…Da Trooff. But what does it mean, and who holds the code?
I find that comment extremely offensive, and I demand that the moderator delete it immediately!
Yuk, I love you Laujus
‘…Afghanistan [to date] so far has just been another regime change, unlike Iraq.’
Obama has left in place the General who managed the end stage of Iraq to deal with Afghanistan. Can leftists now discuss what is really required to make democratic revolution in this part of the world?
Obviously progressives would want an outcome similar to Iraq rather than any outcome that would see Al Qaeda and the Taliban remain on the face of this planet. That is not something that the peoples ought to tolerate any more than leaving Axis power political forces in power after their defeat.
Even most Trotskyites accepted that the occupations of Germany Italy and Japan produced real demonstrable progress. Why would any progressive or leftist think unity with Al Qaeda and the Taliban policies and demands would serve the masses?
Many people who consider themselves leftists (as this thread demonstrates) do not know why western bourgeois governments have deployed troops to the war in Afghanistan that really was started from the 9/11 attacks and simply bleat about how dreadful war is, and it seems to me that Obama is their leader!
But while the loonier element can rave on about oil pipelines across Afghanistan etc., Obama the President, must actually work out what to do about the real war aims.
Biden and Clinton have one view and the top generals in the field (‘David Petraeus, commander of US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, says he endorses Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan’) have another.
Petraeus having designed and led the successful surge in Iraq is someone to be taken very seriously. Obama at that time campaigned against the surge,
(unlike McCain)Clinton and Biden are reverting to realist policies. (The very rotten to the core U.S. policies that led to the blow-back of 9/11 in the first instance)
One has to put forward demands that make some sort of sense and that could not be troops out now. I bet, (though who can tell what an opportunist Harvard Lawyer might do) Obama will continue to smash up the collapsing anti-war movement and back the Generals.
“Can leftists now discuss what is really required to make democratic revolution in this part of the world?”
We can, which means discussing how the US and its proxies have spent the better part of last century smashing democratic, secular national liberation struggles in the Middle East.
“Obviously progressives would want an outcome similar to Iraq rather than any outcome that would see Al Qaeda and the Taliban remain on the face of this planet.”
Well, I’d prefer to first tackle the main problem here, which is US imperialism.
“Many people who consider themselves leftists (as this thread demonstrates) do not know why western bourgeois governments have deployed troops to the war in Afghanistan that really was started from the 9/11 attacks and simply bleat about how dreadful war is, and it seems to me that Obama is their leader!
But while the loonier element can rave on about oil pipelines across Afghanistan etc., Obama the President, must actually work out what to do about the real war aims.”
We do know, you just don’t agree with our analysis. I’m not sure how you can argue that the main reason the US not only invaded but has occupied Afghanistan for almost 9 years was to wipe out Al Qaeda when Osama has not even been found and his network intact.
Oh, oh, another outbreak of popular frontism!
Folks unfamiliar with this tendency need read no further than this:
OK progressives, who agrees? Hands up! Anyone … anyone?
The Maoists are as tiresome in their use of the postwar reconstruction of Germany and Japan as a parallel for the ME as neocons are in their constant reference to Munich to explain EVERY diplomatic confrontation ever since. Maoists and Neocons are boring birds of a feather.
How do Popular Frontists explain why virtually none of the almost 5,000,000 Iraqi refugees who fled to neighbouring countries since the US invasion and occupation of Iraq have refuse to go home to enjoy the alleged benefits of reconstruction?
OK, let’s get into a bit of post WWII parallelism.
How many Germans and Japanese fled their countries during western allied occupation?
Millions, of course, fled the Soviets.
Just like Iraq!
Coincidence? You decide.
Err, that should read that virtually ALL Iraqi refugees have refused to return to their native country.
Note to self …
Proofread!
As others have pointed out, Katz, often one turns into the other almost overnight. It’s hardly surprising that they should say similarly stupid things.
The political spectrum is less of a straight line than it is a horseshoe. They could close to each other at the ends.
It’s not a horshoe, HC. (I think that political theory has been thoroughly debunked anyway.)
It has far more to do with a rigidity of mind, coupled with an ability to let ideology trump inconvenient facts.
And talking to people that way is really going to make them more open minded. Really.
HC, I doubt if you could open their minds with a shotgun, so I’m not bothered.
I’m not about to try.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/11/is-obama-about-to-become-just-another-war-criminal.html#more
“………….The one woman in Afghanistan’s parliament of gangsters, Malalai Joya, who fled because the gangsters thought she was too uppity, says she doesn’t want the US in Afganistan:
“Over the past eight years the U.S. has helped turn my country into the drug capital of the world through its support of drug lords … Many members of Parliament and high ranking officials openly benefit from the drug trade. President Karzai’s own brother is a well known drug trafficker. Meanwhile, ordinary Afghans are living in destitution. The latest United Nations Human Development Index ranked Afghanistan 181 out of 182 countries. Eighteen million Afghans live on less than $2 a day. Mothers in many parts of Afghanistan are ready to sell their children because they cannot feed them. Afghanistan has received $36 billion of aid in the past eight years, and the U.S. alone spends $165 million a day on its war. Yet my country remains in the grip of criminals … We are sandwiched between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces of the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban and the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai. Now President Obama is considering increasing troops to Afghanistan and simply extending former President Bush’s wrong policies. In fact, the worst massacres since 9/11 were during Obama’s tenure. My native province of Farah was bombed by the U.S. this past May. A hundred and fifty people were killed, most of them women and children. On Sept. 9, the U.S. bombed Kunduz Province, killing 200 civilians. My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation.”
So WTF are we doing in Afghanistan?
………….”
The more pointed question is why Rudd hasn’t withdrawn Australian troops from Afghanistan.
Laughably, Rudd has simply adopted Howardite rhetoric on this question as his own.
Rudd appears to be incapable of formulating a public rhetoric that he is confident will credibly counter customary Australian rhetoric about Australia’s appropriate role in the American alliance:
1. that in return for vague promises of protection from the United States in the future, Australia will make symbolic and minimal military commitments in any number of misconceived US military misadventures.
2. that Australian decision makers will not seek to have any say in the diplomatic or military strategic aspects of these commitments. Australia will play the role of the dumb, loyal deputy sheriff in the region.
Rudd has transformed himself into Zombie Howard.
Katz, we have to stop agreeing. It could render the beginning of the apocalypse, and I don’t want that to happen until after I get married. No more agreement for at least another eleven days.
I was flabbergasted by Rudd on Remembrance Day in Afghanistan, with his rhetoric. Isn’t he supposed to be the thoughtful policy wonk? He sounded like a firebrand partisan, and that Afghanistan was a simple “wit us or agin us” issue.
I, for one, would like to see a world leader (I understand Obama is thinking long and hard about this, and not rushing a decision) articulate what victory in Afghanistan could possibly look like.
In lieu of this, may all of the Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan return safely.
HC, I trust I am not being presumptuous in offering you congratulations and your fiancee best wishes for your forthcoming connubials.
If she is as fair-minded as you are, I am confident that your marriage will be a happy one.
She agrees with the sentiments on this blog a lot more than I would, but she has assured me if I ever run for elected office, she would vote for me.
I’m sure she’s not faking it.