Archive for the 'Afghanistan' Category

Unsurprised schadenfreude

Published
by
tigtog
2 weeks, 6 days ago
in Afghanistan, Ethics, Imperialism, Law, Nationalism, Terrorism and USA
. 112 Comments

Remember all that McCain campaign rhetoric about how Obama’s August 2007 statement on the need for sporadic pursuits of Al Qaeda into Pakistan without prior diplomatic notice showed that he was an irresponsible loon who should never be commander-in-chief? (and a few Democrats sounded off as well before Obama won the primaries)

Well just look at what’s been happening on the Bush-Rumsfeld watch for the last four years, Continue reading ‘Unsurprised schadenfreude’

Meanwhile

Published
by
Robert Merkel
2 months ago
in Afghanistan, International, Iran, Middle East, USA and War
. 16 Comments

George W. Bush - or whomever is actually running the shop - is a rather busy lame duck. As well as the credit crunch, there’s there are all manner of foreign policy challenges which at any other time would be making headlines.

Number 1 cab off the rank is North Korea, who seem to be planning to fire up their nuclear infrastructure again. The Arms Control Wonk seems to think it’s because they’re peeved they haven’t been taken off the list of states that sponsor terrorism. Meanwhile, the US-led, NATO-labelled occupation of Afghanistan is sailing into rather interesting times. The pursuit of militants near - and possibly over - the Afghanistan-Pakistan border isn’t exactly thrilling the Pakistani government or the army. So much so, in fact, that they’ve started firing on NATO (which I assume means American) helicopters.

Whomever wins the US Presidency in November is going to have a pretty full slate.

UPDATE: I can has good grammar when I wantz… :)

Defence quickies

Published
by
Robert Merkel
2 months, 3 weeks ago
in Afghanistan, China, Foreign policy, Imperialism, International, Security and War
. 34 Comments

You might remember an LP thread some time ago about the details of our Afghanistan deployment - in essence, only our special forces have been involved in “offensive maneuvers”. It seems that may change, in part because our special forces have been deployed for a “long, long time now”. Worrying. Special forces are, by definition, our best infantry soldiers. While our regularly infantry are undoubtedly far better trained and better equipped than those they are fighting against - and still with the massive advantage of air support - as a layperson I’m concerned that the regular infantry will take even more casualties than special forces doing the same job.

Meanwhile, in the world of defence procurement, apparently Kevin Rudd seems to think we need more “high-end capabilities”, notably naval and air capabilities, to deal with the military risks posed by the buildup of arms throughout Asia. Paul Dibb agrees, and gets a plug in for the good old defence of Australia doctrine. How much this is going to cost is of course left open…

Finally, Liberal backbencher, former defence scientist, and noted global warming denialist Dennis Jensen has heard on the grapevine that a “highly classified” computer simulation of combat between the F-35 fighter - Australia’s likely new combat jet sometime in the next decade - and Russian-built Sukhois was conducted last month in Hawaii. According to Jensen, the (simulated) F-35’s got “clubbed like seals”. For what it’s worth, while I remain concerned about whether the F-35 is up to the job, without details of how the simulation was conducted this information is all but useless.

How serious are our troop deployments?

Published
by
Robert Merkel
6 months ago
in Afghanistan, International, Iraq, Security and War
. 30 Comments

One thing that’s puzzled me for a long time is how Australia has been able to continue to deploy soldiers to all manner of risky spots without significant casualties. Did our diggers have some kind of movie-style good-guy bullet repulsion field?

Apparently not, according to a pair of army officers writing in the Army Journal. Two separate articles reveal that in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomons, that any actual “offensive manoeuvers” - that is, actual warfighting, has been virtually the exclusive province of the tiny number of SAS troops - that is, the super-elite “Special Forces”. This is in contrast to our American, British, and Canadian partners, where regular infantry troops have done much of the offensive fighting(there simply aren’t enough special forces to do everything). They’ve been effective, but have suffered far more casualties as a consequence.

The complaints of Australian troops about being left out and leaving the burdens to their allies are understandable. But, particularly when it comes to Iraq, I’d prefer them to feel cowardly and come home in one piece, rather than die or be maimed in glorious battle. But - assuming that these army officers (and my understanding of their articles) are basically accurate - it does raise some questions about our diplomatic posturing, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan. Our posturing about Europeans not putting their troops in harm’s way looks a bit hypocritical, given that only the SAS, who make up a very small fraction of our total deployment, appear to be really doing so. Force protection (as I understand it and very much in a nutshell, standing guard while people do stuff) is of course hardly risk-free, but much, much safer than offensive roles. And does the fact that we’re not prepared to actually risk our infantry in combat suggest that our generals think that they’re not up to the job?

The response of the Chief of the Army can be read in this ABC article; notice that he doesn’t disagree with the basic assertions of the officers.

The world post-Bush

Published
by
Kim
8 months, 1 week ago
in Afghanistan, International, Iraq, Middle East, Palestine, Politics, Terrorism, USA and War
. 18 Comments

… is already taking shape. 298 days to go.

The Pakistani election is a significant milestone, with a changed approach being signalled to the US envoys who visited there this week and to Bush himself:

Yesterday the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said he warned President George Bush in a phone conversation that he would prioritise talking as well as shooting in the battle against Islamist extremism. “He said that a comprehensive approach is required in this regard, specially combining a political approach with development,” a statement said.

Although his remarks about Pakistan itself weren’t helpful, Barack Obama actually signalled something with his “talk to your foes” thing (bluntly rejected by Hillary in her tough pose). Tony Blair’s former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, who was a strong supporter of the Iraq war back in the day, has drawn parallels between the back channel Blair sought to create with the IRA Army Council and the necessity of eventually engaging even Al-Qaeda itself. Not everyone would go that far, by any means, but there’s an increasing recognition that there should be a recognition that not all Islamists are the same, and that the running sore which has fundamentally distorted both foreign policy and exacerbated the mess in the Middle East is the lack of a Palestinian state. Our own Gareth Evans in an op/ed yesterday suggests engaging Hamas.

Of course, opportunities could be lost, and former Israeli official Daniel Levy of the New America Foundation, in an astute piece of analysis, warns that even a Democratic presidency could slide into neo-conservatism with a liberal veneer. Levy has some suggestions, which would have appeared radical only a few years ago, but now appear feasible:

Continue reading ‘The world post-Bush’

Contrast

Published
by
Mark
8 months, 4 weeks ago
in Afghanistan, Developing world, Foreign policy, Industrial Relations, Iraq, Politics and Religion
. 81 Comments

Compare and contrast, as they say, Kevin Rudd in PNG building bridges and restoring relationships and John Howard in Washington ranting about “Islamic fascism” and dwelling on the past.

It’s the exact same dynamic as in the election - Rudd accentuating the positive and looking to the future, and Howard mired in negativity and defending his “achievements”. Still, I thought it was neat that both were overseas at the same time - it really does shine an interesting light on their differences.

Harry and the media

Published
by
suz
9 months ago
in Afghanistan, International, Media and War
. 65 Comments

Poor Prince Harry has been withdrawn from Afghanistan. New Idea has been flooded with angry website messages complaining that by breaking the embargo, they put Harry and other British troops in danger. What nonsense. Firstly, the troops are in danger there anyway - two critically injured soldiers were flown home on the same flight as Harry (who gave them that all-purpose accolade of “heroes”. Funny how civilians - especially women and children - who are blown up in these wars aren’t automatically “heroes”.)

Secondly, the anglo media, even the non-tabloid wing, eg. The Guardian, already had their Harry-combat stories on ice, waiting for the embargo to be broken or come to an end. They’d done a deal with the British Ministry of Defence, who’d flown journalists in to film and interview Harry weeks ago. If they were really concerned that his presence not be known about, why did they let him speak to the media (in fact, organise for him to speak to the media), revealing his approximate location and his role? They could have let him fight there in secret, only putting out a press release after he’d returned home. No, they wanted the publicity, both for the military and for the monarchy. They engineered the PR and then discovered that they can’t control the media, especially in the Internet age.

But they’ve done a pretty good job of setting the terms of reference, so that Harry is lauded as a hero and seen as admirable because he wants to be in the war (any war will do, really), the media are seen as spoilsports, the royals continue to be seen as somehow more valuable human beings than anyone else and virtually no discussion is had about what the army is actually doing in Afghanistan.