Defence Business: What was the point of the Parliamentary debate on Afghanistan? | ADM DEC2010/JAN201120

The Parliamentary debate on Afghanistan offered no fresh insights into political stances on the conflict or ideas on how to settle it, with participants sticking closely to party lines in what was generally a worthy but pedestrian occasion.

Julian Kerr | Sydney

Some changes in nuance became apparent, at least one substantial backflip was noted, but anyone expecting eloquence or the cut and thrust of a major parliamentary event would have been disappointed.

This was not surprising, given that both sides of the House were in general agreement on the presence of Australian troops in Afghanistan and their continued deployment there for some time into the future.

More surprising was the fact that the debate was the first on the subject since Australian forces were first involved in Afghanistan nine years ago, and took place only after the Greens applied newly-won pressure derived from a hung parliament.

While many speakers were comfortable in relating the history of the conflict to date, there was a distinct lack of engagement in dealing with current issues such as the dislike by many Afghans of the allies’ presence, corruption in the Karzai government, concerns over the competence of the Afghan national army and police force, and what manner of political settlement with the Taliban, if any, might prove acceptable.

Similarly, there was little attempt to recognise the elephant in the room: has fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan lessened the danger from Muslim terrorists worldwide?

For Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Australia’s interests in Afghanistan were to ensure that nation never again became a safe haven for terrorists and to stand by the US alliance – interests which could see Australian troops remaining in Afghanistan after completion of their training role with the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan province, probably in 2014.

“There will still be a role for Australia in a supporting role…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,” she said.

Likewise, opposition leader Tony Abbott argued against a premature withdrawal. This would send a signal to the UK and the US that Australia was an “unreliable ally and fair weather friend and “tell the Afghan people that our commitment to human rights is more rhetorical than real”.

While conceding that the Afghan government was hardly a “model of incorruptible efficiency,” Abbott envisaged greater disorder in Afghanistan or a restored Taliban government causing further unrest in Pakistan, with the prospect of a “renewed military autocracy or an Islamist takeover”.

For him, the objective was to allow the Afghan people to “choose what they think is right for them” even if their choice was unpalatable to coalition powers. At the same time, he took the opportunity to back away from earlier opposition calls for additional Australian troops and firepower to be sent to the conflict.

“Our forces are now stretched but not, it seems, beyond their capacities. The coalition accepts senior commanders’ assessment that the current force strength is sufficient for current tasks,” he commented.

For his part, Defence Minister Stephen Smith described opposition claims that Australian troops in Afghanistan were under-resourced as misguided and ill-informed. In a clear rebuttal of media reports quoting frontline soldiers calling for more firepower, Smith said tanks were not required “for our current mission” and capabilities such as artillery, mortars and attack helicopters were available when necessary, through coalition partners.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd warned that Australians were unaware of what he described as many near-misses from terrorist attack.

Pointing out that the success of an effective counter-terrorism strategy was much harder to recognise than its failure, Rudd disclosed that about 18,000 attacks by Islamic extremists had been reported around the world post September 11 – many by people trained in Afghanistan.

Premature international withdrawal would weaken the Kabul government and heighten the risk of Afghanistan reverting to a terrorist location. While the Karzai government had a number of failings, the Taliban was “infinitely worse”.

A passionate speech by Independent Andrew Wilkie, a former Regular Army officer and senior intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments, saw him break down while reading the names of the 21 Australian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since 2001.

Accusing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of perpetuating “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,” Wilkie called for Australian combat troops to be withdrawn as soon as possible.

“Afghanistan is no longer relevant to Australia’s security in the way it was in 2001 and the continued government and Coalition insistence that we must stay in Afghanistan to protect Australia from terrorists is deliberately misleading,” he stated.

“The reality is that the best plan the Australian government can come up with so far is simply to support whatever the US government comes up with. And that alone is no plan – it’s just reinforcing failure”.

Blaming the “strategic stuff-ups” of John Howard, George Bush and Tony Blair for the protracted conflict in Afghanistan, Greens leader Bob Brown attacked the Prime Minister for flagging a continuing role there for Australian troops.

The Netherlands and Canada were taking their forces home, and Australia should follow suit, he said.