More Troops to the Middle East

[Psyber]

I agree with what you say there

all i want is them not to come to Australia with these problems.
Let them sort them out in there own countries.
why should we put up with there crap??

I could imagine Bennelong standing at Sydney Cove and having a chat with his mates saying the exact same things back in 1788.

Beat me to it!

Bennelong would have been right then, too - we should learn from that.

[Psyber]

just as there was a lesson about Vietnam that should have been obvious when the French gave up and bailed out.

Yeah, but that was the French...

Very pragmatic, and not into heroics about lost causes, the French - prepared to live to fight another day...

Not in 1940 they weren't.

I'm not sure about that - had events turned out as seemed predictable then the Vichy may have made the wise choice.
We have to wonder what may have happened if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia, and had concentrated in invading Britain before the USA had motivation to get involved.

[Dutchy]

Some strong views in here and we are watching it closely. Like anything please respect other people views, challenge them certainly, but in a respectful manner please.

Thanks

[Squawk]

Just on that point, it's only our differing values to those help by people in the middle east that says they can't rule themselves.

The current occupation is creating a generation in each country that will grow up resenting the west and will most likely actively look at ways of getting revenge.

Imagine how pissed we would all be if a huge army of say muslim crusaders invaded us, booted out our government (well perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing given what's going at present, but that's a whole other discussion), then implemented their own style of government because they decided that was better than what we had previously.

Re bold bits highlighted above - this is the crux of issues not only in Afghanisatan, but also Iraq and other places throughout history. Its democracy vs alternative govt, whether communist, socialist, Sharia or whatever. It's one thing to try and weed out those who are hiding in these places and organising hit and run attacks on Western targets, its another thing to install a new govt. It seems the assessment was made that the incumbent rulers in Iraq and Afghanistan were sympathetic to Islamist extremism and therefore had to go. But it's also difficult to turn up on foreign soil, kill those who have attacked you, and walk out, without offending the incumbent rulers!

Re the italics - it's not just those in the directly affected countries. The mantra of Bin laden is all about a clash of ideology - his extremist interpretation of Islam (sold only as being the defender off all Muslims) and the ideals of the West. We're not fighting another country, we're fighting a movement that is invoking 800 years of battles going back to the crusades; a movement that wants to establish a caliphate; and it doesn't help that the West is not prepared to take a hardline approach with Israel over its handling of Palestine. Israel is basically an established state, a Jewish caliphate. Ironically, as far as I know Hamas is a democratically elected government and yet no one really pays attention to it. By definition, acts committed by both Israel and Hamas are terrorist acts because they are intended to destabalise their opposite's government. But you're right DA - Al Qaeda is relying on disaffected people to adopt extreme attitudes and fight a jihad wherever the fight may need to be, regardless of geographic boundaries.

[devilsadvocate]

You're right there Squawk. The resentment is not limited purely to those growing up in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are lots of Iranians, Saudi's, Omani's, Palestinians, Syrian, Yemeni and probably many others that will grow up resenting the west.

And you're spot on, the treatment being dished out to the Palestinians at present, particularly in Gaza is disgraceful. It's effectively the largest prison in the world, with worse conditions than any of us could ever imagine.

IMO - Poverty and suffering breeds hate.

[Squawk]

And then you read things like this:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/taliban-executes-boy-7-for-spying/story-e6frea6u-1225877880275

TALIBAN militants in Afghanistan executed a seven-year-old boy on suspicion of spying for the US-allied government, according to local reports today.

The execution, which has not been confirmed by the extremist organisation, was carried out in the southern Helmand province, government spokesman Daoud Ahmadi told The Times of India.

The boy’s relatives brought the incident to the government’s attention, the newspaper said.

Mr Ahmadi told Iranian news agency Press TV the act was “horrendous”.

It was not immediately clear what information the boy was suspected of leaking. The area is mostly controlled by militants, The Times said.

Taliban fighters in the same province shot down a NATO helicopter overnight as it tried to evacuate a British casualty. Four US soldiers were killed.

There are currently 142,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, by the Pentagon's count, including 94,000 US troops, according to AFP.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said earlier this week that 17,000 to 18,000 troops ordered to Afghanistan by President Barack Obama as part of a 30,000 troop surge have arrived in the country.

[Squawk]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/10/2923407.htm

Aussies could be in Afghanistan 'until 2040'
Updated 1 hour 40 minutes ago


No end in sight: Wounded Afghans in hospital in Kandahar after at least 39 people died in an attack on a wedding overnight (AFP: Nosrait Shoaib)

A former high-ranking United States defence official says Australian troops could be in Afghanistan for the next 30 years.

Australia's strategy in the country has been thrust back into the spotlight this week with the deaths of two Australian Army engineers in Uruzgan province.

Defence Minister John Faulkner says Australian troops are likely to be in Afghanistan for the next three to five years as part of the US-led effort against a resurgent Taliban.

But former US strategic analyst Daniel Ellsberg has warned that the war is not even half-way through.

Mr Ellsberg exposed how four successive US adminstrations lied to the public about the Vietnam War when he leaked the top-secret 'Pentagon Papers' to the New York Times in 1971.

"For Australian troops I think that three to five years is not just a conservative estimate, it's totally foolish," he told Radio National this morning.

"The war will no more be over in three to five years than it is right now.

"If Australians are committed to supporting this strategy they can figure on 10, 20 and 30 years."

Mr Ellsberg says the recent deployment of 30,000 US troops is unlikely to be the last such deployment.

"[President Barack Obama] has claimed that he proposes to remove troops in 18 to 22 months, but I think the impression that the troops deployed there represent a glass ceiling is totally false, just like it was during the Vietnam War," he said.

There was more bloodshed in Afghanistan overnight, with at least 39 people reported dead in a suicide bomb attack on a wedding near Kandahar, and four US soldiers killed when their helicopter was shot down by insurgents in the south of the country.

[Choccies]

I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on the intracacies of politics, religion, war or all 3 bundled into one, but one thing I do know is that I feel so sorry for one specific group of people directly involved in the war. The partners and children of people serving overseas.... Whether people involved in the armed forces want to go on active duty or not I guess is an answer each person could only individually answer but I'd be pretty confident that deep down, the partners of these people wouldn't want them to go. But I guess you accept that when you enlist.

Do I think we should send more ?? I still don't know. But war has no winners in my eyes...

[devilsadvocate]

I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on the intracacies of politics, religion, war or all 3 bundled into one, but one thing I do know is that I feel so sorry for one specific group of people directly involved in the war. The partners and children of people serving overseas.... Whether people involved in the armed forces want to go on active duty or not I guess is an answer each person could only individually answer but I'd be pretty confident that deep down, the partners of these people wouldn't want them to go. But I guess you accept that when you enlist.

Do I think we should send more ?? I still don't know. But war has no winners in my eyes...

Yeah, great post there mate. Must be bloody hard to for the wives and kids to see their husband/dad go off knowing they may never see him again.

Unfortunately though, war does have a winner. In the US, Haliburton, DynCorp and probably many others are making hugely excessive profits from government contracts as a direct result of the war. War is profitable for some. And generally those with the most cash have the most power. So watch the wars roll on without an end in sight.

[Pseudo]

Unfortunately though, war does have a winner. In the US, Haliburton, DynCorp and probably many others are making hugely excessive profits from government contracts as a direct result of the war. War is profitable for some. And generally those with the most cash have the most power. So watch the wars roll on without an end in sight.

The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.

(Orwell again)

[SteveW]

I am a member in the Defence Force
I spent 6 months in Afghanistan.
The people here who are saying we should withdraw troops, do you know what great work we are doing over there ?
Have you talked to troops who are currently serving and have been to Afghanistan ?
We want to be over there doing our job.

[Alaska]

I am even more ignorant than you guys.
I went over in 98 to try to help on the “technical’ side” the people are fantastic and all the options should be available to them. We are defeating ourselves with our no-win approach (I am about win-win) and we need it as a Nation to think beyond the back yard!

[Psyber]

It is the half-hearted war that really bothers me, as it did back in the Vietnam days when I was at risk of being drafted.
If they think there is real justification for involvement the "invaders" or the "peace keepers" [choose your own term] should go all out - or get all out - not just dabble on for years.

[SteveW]

you clearly do not know what the troops are doing over there

[Q.]

you clearly do not know what the troops are doing over there

Counter-insurgency.

[Interceptor]

The next scuffle in Afghanistan might be over it's rich mineral deposits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

So it could completely transform the country in coming decades.

[JAS]

I'd be surprised if any Government withdraws their troops any time soon...way to many potential untapped natural resources that governments would be desperate to get their claws into...oil, minerals etc etc etc etc. The country has never had it's resources exploited due to decades of conflict...quite literally a potential goldmine and almost no Gov would give up a chance for a slice of that pie.

Afterall you don't honestly think Maggie sent my boys to the Falklands in '82 to help 3500 inbreds do you... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10100769.stm ...it's only ever been about the oil.

Regards
JAS

The next scuffle in Afghanistan might be over it's rich mineral deposits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

So it could completely transform the country in coming decades.

ooooh do I get to have a tiny 'I told you so moment'.

Regards
JAS

[hottie]

Not that i understand alot about what is going on in Aftghanistan,but if Russia was there for 7 years and couldnt win,just dont understand what the chances are now.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Not that i understand alot about what is going on in Aftghanistan,but if Russia was there for 7 years and couldnt win,just dont understand what the chances are now.

from my brief knowledge - when the russians were there, they were effectively fighting america as america were supplying armed forces etc

[Q.]

Afghanistan: another 30 years?

"Consider Clive Williams on the ABC’s Drum website (in an article backing the Afghanistan mission, mind you, not denouncing it): “Australia’s stated reason for being in Afghanistan is countering terrorism. The real reason is maintaining the close alliance with the US. In fact, our military presence in Afghanistan is more likely to lead to acts of terrorism in Australia than prevent them.”

In other words, the public rationale for the deployment  — the Cameron line about terrorist camps – might serve to fool the rubes (that’s you, dear readers). But experts such as Williams know that Australia’s really there to, as he approvingly puts it, “to score points with the US”."

...

"Let’s recap, then. The young men killing and dying for Australia have been told they’re fighting terrorism. Our pundits know that’s not true, that the public and the soldiers have been lied to from the get-go, and that the “probably unwinnable” mission really constitutes a down payment on a strategic insurance policy."