Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion of condolence on the death in action in Afghanistan of Army Lieutenant Michael Fussell which was moved today by the Prime Minister, supported by the Leader of the Opposition and so eloquently spoken to just now and prior to that by the Minister for Defence. I join with all other members who have spoken on this motion in expressing my condolence to Lieutenant Fussell’s parents, brother and sisters on their loss. I note that his brother is also a serviceman, a lieutenant, as the defence minister pointed out.

We ask a lot of our service personnel and even more of their families. Lieutenant Fussell was the seventh Australian to die in action in Afghanistan, and we as a nation owe their families a great debt. I am sure that Lieutenant Fussell’s family and other families who have lost sons, husbands and brothers in Afghanistan would not want to think that these brave young men had died in vain. It is my strong belief that they did not. I could not support sending our soldiers into harm’s way if I did not believe very strongly that the mission of which they were a part was both just and attainable, and I am sure that this is the view of honourable members.

Why do I think our cause in Afghanistan is a just one? In 1996, Afghanistan, which had already suffered 20 years of civil war, invasion and oppression, was taken over by the Taliban—an army ruled by Islamic extremists of the most extreme type. This regime not only cruelly oppressed the Afghan people; it also harboured the headquarters of the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. It was from Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden planned and launched the September 11 attacks in which 11 Australians, whom we should not forget, were killed in New York. When the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, the US and its allies launched Operation Enduring Freedom, designed to remove the Taliban from power and establish a democratic government in Afghanistan.

We should be very proud of Australia’s armed forces, along with those of our allies and the Afghan people themselves, because of what they have achieved in the seven years since 2001. The Taliban regime has been removed, 30 million people have been delivered from tyranny and, for the first time in Afghanistan, we have a freely elected president and a multiparty parliament. The rule of law and civil rights have been established, although far from perfectly enforced. My apologies to the ambassador for saying that. Between friends, we can factually evaluate things. I think all the members of this parliament appreciate the respect the ambassador is showing Australia and Lieutenant Fussell by being here today. Millions of girls are attending school in Afghanistan. Those of us who have seen very moving films about Afghanistan like Kabul and The Kite Runner understand just how meaningful and important that particular aspect of a democratic pluralist country, which Afghanistan now is, is. That is surely a very important part of it. Fifty per cent of Afghans enjoy some rights under the government that now exists in Afghanistan with Australian support and the sacrifices of people like Lieutenant Fussell.

The war in Afghanistan is by any reasonable definition a just war, and one that deserves the support of all Australians. That is why my party gave bipartisan support, when we were in opposition, to the previous government’s commitment to Afghanistan and why we have continued that commitment in office. But the sacrifice of the lives of our soldiers, even in a just cause, can only be justified if that cause has a reasonable expectation of success. It is true that over the last few years things have not been going well in Afghanistan. I thank the ambassador, General Molan, Professor William Maley and various other people who have testified before this parliament, including before my foreign affairs committee recently, for trying to outline solutions and make suggestions that we can all look at to improve the performance of the Afghan army, the Afghan government and the allied forces who are there supporting them.

The first thing that I think we need to agree is that there has not been a strong, unified or coherent leadership of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, as the Minister for Defence has pointed out so many times and very strongly too, with a great deal of support from people in this parliament. Such leadership is necessary for success, and such leadership must come from the United States. The sad fact is—and I say this with regret—that, under President Bush, the US has not exercised that leadership over the past four years to the extent that it should have. The Bush administration has obviously been bogged down in Iraq, militarily and politically. It has taken its eye off the main game where terror central is based, where Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, is still free and where OBL probably wanders the hills of Waziristan.

The second point flows from the first. In the absence of strong and respected leadership from the United States, the other countries which have forces in Afghanistan have not worked together. They have pursued their own strategies, some better than others, in different parts of the country. I think we are all very proud of the work of our fellows in Oruzgan province but I am not sure that this is being pursued as efficiently and effectively by other members of ISAF in the rest of Afghanistan. We saw in Bosnia-Herzegovina that this approach does not work, yet we have made the same mistake. Unless the coalition forces in Afghanistan work to a common objective, under strong and accepted leadership, they will not succeed.

The third reason we are having difficulties is that the coalition forces in Afghanistan are simply not strong enough. I do not argue that the war in Afghanistan can be won by force alone, but without adequate forces it certainly will not be won. The rule of thumb is that successful counter-insurgency warfare requires a ratio of 20 combat reliable troops per 1,000 of population. In Iraq, with 27 million people, there were, at the height of the surge, 175,000 coalition forces. In Afghanistan, with 30 million people, there are 60,000 coalition forces. The Minister for Defence has pointed out that the United States and the new US administration of President-elect Obama have promised a further five brigade forces, and that should take the coalition forces to 90,000.

However, the real problem in Afghanistan is that unlike in Iraq there are simply insufficient members of the Afghan army. Currently there are only 64,000. The ambassador has advised me and the foreign affairs committee that there is a proposal to take that to 134,000, which I think is very good. But, as General Molan suggested to the foreign affairs committee yesterday, we need to take the struggle further. So, with 90,000 coalition troops and 134,000 Afghan troops, I still think that with 30 million people there are simply not enough boots on the ground. The fourth reason is the role that Pakistan has played in the Afghan conflict from the beginning.

See this speech in context