Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nine years ago this month, Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan began. Behind the Vietnam War, it is the second-longest conflict in which Australians have been involved. Thankfully, to date, we have not suffered through the domestic social upheaval or the heavy loss of life of the Vietnam conflict, which saw more than 500 killed in action or lost through other causes. But the tragic deaths of 21 soldiers, the wounding in action of another 152 and the nature of the warfare in Afghanistan and our ongoing role mean that a debate such as this before the parliament is timely and appropriate. There are many views about this war within the community, and it is only reasonable that those views are freely and responsibly aired.

This debate brings back to me memories of another debate in 1991, when parliament was called back for a special sitting to discuss our nation’s involvement in war. As a first term parliamentarian I vividly recall the opportunity provided in January 1991 to debate what was to be the first Iraq war. It was an intense debate. The galleries were full. There were protesters and supporters outside the building. There was deeply felt emotion on both sides, but especially for many Labor members who had fresh memories of their own opposition to the Vietnam War just a few years earlier but who were in a government making a decision to send troops to war. As I said in that debate:

There is no greater exercise of government power than to send the nation’s armed forces to war. There can, therefore, be no more difficult decision for a government or a parliament to make than to participate in or to wage war. In peace-loving civilised countries like Australia, such decisions are only rarely made …

I recall that I was stopped dead in my speech by a number of female protesters in the public gallery who removed their clothes to display the word ‘Peace’ written across their breasts. Perhaps it is the only time any speech I have ever made has evoked such a passionate response. But it was a serious matter then and it is a serious matter now. As I said also in that speech:

There is nothing glamorous about war. It is not like the Hollywood epics. The real war is a horrible thing full of suffering, anxiety and despair. There are no victors, just some who are hurt less than others. War destroys not just enemies and cities and countries, but also lives and families, hopes and ambitions and the plans of a generation. No civilised country would go to war if there were any other options.

Some may say it is easy for members of this House to sit here in comfort and send our soldiers to war. Even though the cause be just, this is not the case. Even though the public may support the Australian commitment, the decision is not easy. No member of parliament can put his fellow Australians in a position of danger without feeling something of the enormity of his action. When I became a member of parliament, I hoped that I would never be asked to participate in a decision on whether or not our country should wage war. I regarded it as just about the ultimately difficult decision that a member of parliament could ever face. So I approach this debate also with a heavy heart but also with a deep consciousness of my responsibility. At present more than 1,500 Australians have answered the call and are serving in Afghanistan, our largest commitment to a theatre since Vietnam. They deserve our respect and the admiration of all our people and we hold the obligation to ensure that they are properly equipped and supported. That care cannot lessen on their return. Too many come back sick of body and mind. We pray that their return will be sooner rather than later.

But it is important that we remember the reasons why we are at war. In 1996 Osama bin Laden moved his terrorist operations to Afghanistan on the invitation of the Taliban. When the Taliban took over power in that country later that year, bin Laden’s own power was cemented and an alliance was formed between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The path that led to the appalling acts of al-Qaeda on 11 September 2001 has been well covered by this House, at the time and in another debate in parliament in March 2003 which was centred on our second commitment to Iraq, so I do not propose to go through those details again. But those actions and the Taliban’s subsequent refusal to bring the terrorists to justice gave the rest of the world no choice but to act. In a sense our involvement in Afghanistan is an extension of the original decision to go to Iraq to quell terrorism and the threat to peace around the world.

We should not forget why Australia was there in the first place—to help secure our country from the threat of terrorism. Terrorists can strike anywhere and take Australian lives, as we saw most tragically in New York in 2001 and Bali in 2002 and 2005. The war against terrorism is a new war. There is no real frontline or trenches or marching armies. This is a war that has cost more Australian civilian lives than military. No-one is immune from the risk anywhere. The Taliban allowed the country they controlled to be used as a training ground for some of the world’s worst, most ruthless and most heartless people. A country that was part of the cradle of civilisation was being raped in modern times by those who wished to destroy civilisation. Let us not therefore weep for the rapists, the Taliban. Its extreme evocations of Sharia law and the demonstrated disrespect of women give it no right to be regarded as a legitimate government, let alone one that deserved the respect or recognition of other countries. The toppling of the Taliban regime was undeniably a good thing, and it remains critically important that the Taliban insurgency that has sprung up in various provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan is contained or stopped.

This parliament is demonstrating a strong unity in its view that we must stay the course in Afghanistan. I recognise that there are individual concerns within each member’s heart, and that is understandable given that we are talking about people’s lives and the frustration of slow progress. Critically, we cannot show weakness. Signalling a premature withdrawal, or that we will be turned by the threat of terrorism, only encourages those who wish to do us harm. It also sends a pathetic message of subservience, and no level of respect to the brave soldiers who have lost their lives or have served in this cause. We want the Afghan people to rule themselves in peace. We do not want a never-ending presence there, or to continue to tell them how to live their lives; but we do want to engender a better society than what has gone before. The appalling manner in which the Taliban treated 50 per cent of its own citizens, its women, is reason enough for Western intervention. The Taliban would never have allowed a political debate like this one where there is a potential for dissent, and indeed such dissent is likely.

There is nothing black and white about this war and our involvement. War always involves shades of grey. Simple nostrums about peace at all costs would not work here as they would never have worked in any other field of conflict. The Taliban has not gone away. Al-Qaeda may not have the same numbers in Afghanistan but it remains only a phone call or an email away. Greater global instability is always possible if we allow it or at least do nothing to try to prevent it. Given that Afghanistan will never have a parliament like this one, has a different dominant religion, has a different approach to democratic ideals and has a long history of vigorously rejecting the advances of other countries, what should we do? Do we recall our troops and leave with a job half done or do we stay the course, especially as our future security depends upon a more secure Middle East? The Nationals, in coalition with the Liberal Party and in cohesion with the Labor Party, have always accepted that this mission in Afghanistan is necessary. None of us here do that with any light-heartedness and nor with any spite. We do not wish to do any unnecessary harm to a country that has already suffered enough. We are all men and women of goodwill and we all wish to leave Afghanistan in a far better place than we found it.

We respect the Australian soldiers who have answered the call of their country to go to Afghanistan. They are serving in the same traditions as their forefathers in our armed forces who went to Anzac Cove, to World War II, to Vietnam and to other conflicts. They have answered the call to help preserve our peace. We respect and honour their role. Whatever differences there may be about a cause, no-one in this parliament should do anything other than respect their contribution and recognise that they are doing their duty for their country. They are responding to their government’s call. The people of this nation want to live in a safe and secure nation and our defence forces play a vital role in that. Indeed it is conflicts like Afghanistan—like the debate we are having now and those we had in 2003 and in 1991—that remind us that we must always be prepared and ready to respond should someone threaten to take our peace away from us. It is folly to allow our defence forces to fall into any kind of decline. It would be folly were we not to ensure that they were adequately equipped to do whatever task they are called upon to do. That is a responsibility for us as legislators and for the government of the day.

I pray for peace in Afghanistan, and in particular for the safe and secure return of our Australian contingent—and soon. But I know that peace will not be found at the wishing well. We have to work for it. Sometimes we even have to fight for it. Once peace is achieved we must then build on it. We must free the world of terrorism and guarantee an enduring peace for this generation and for the future of the world.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Towards the end of last year the Karzai government in Afghanistan passed a law which applies to the country’s minority Shiite population and, in particular, to its women. The law allows police to enforce language that sets out a wife’s sexual duties and restricts a woman’s right to leave her own home. According to US reports, child custody rights still go to fathers and grandfathers, women have to ask, before they get married, for permission to work and a husband is still able to deny his wife food and shelter if she does not meet his sexual needs. The government that passed this law last year is a government we are told that our soldiers should kill and die for.

It is now clear that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won, however you measure victory. It is now clear that the reasons successive governments have given to be in Afghanistan no longer stand up to scrutiny. It is also now clear that the main reason we are there is not to defend democracy or human rights but simply because the United States asked us to go and wants us to remain. And it is now clear that, although our alliance with the United States is important, a simple request is not a good enough reason for our troops to fight and die in an unwinnable and unjustifiable war. This is a decision we must make for ourselves as a country. It is time to bring the troops home. It is time to bring the troops home safely and for Australia to shoulder the burden of Afghanistan’s problems in a new way. And it is time to bring the troops home so they can be honoured for their service and no longer be asked to carry out this unjustified task.

The Greens do not oppose the deployment in Afghanistan based on any absolute opposition to the use of military force or from any lack of commitment to our troops. We led the call for military intervention in Timor Leste and are proud of the role our men and women played in the struggle for freedom and independence in that country. Unlike in many other countries, our defence forces thankfully follow the lead of our political leaders and have little choice in the tasks they are set, so they are doing the job they have been asked to do in Afghanistan.

Already 21 young Australians soldiers have lost their lives, 10 since June this year. That is all the more reason why we should be having this debate and all the more reason why the government should bring the troops home. As the leader of the Nationals said a moment ago, the decision to go to war is probably the most important decision we can make. It is a decision fraught with danger and uncertainty and has great consequence both for the country and the soldiers going to war and for the people and the country with which a war is being fought or is being invaded. And it is a decision that can easily lead to unintended outcomes, peril and blowback for the people of the country whose leaders choose to go to war. It is for those reasons that such a momentous decision should not be left in the hands of the executive alone. This is why the Greens asked for and secured this debate on Australia’s Afghanistan commitment as part of our agreement to support the Gillard government. And this is why my colleague Senator Scott Ludlum has put before the Senate a bill to require a decision of parliament, as well as the government, to underpin any deployment of troops overseas. I can announce today that I will soon introduce the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill into this House.

The United States understands the importance of a check on democracy and ensures that congress needs to back a president’s decision to go to war. Many other countries do something similar, including Germany, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. We should join them.

The Greens’ bill will require a resolution agreed to by both the Senate and the House of Representatives before members of the Defence Force may serve beyond the territorial limits of Australia, except where emergencies require immediate deployment. The Greens hope that this debate can be a step towards the passage of our bill, which will mean that, once and for all, in the future the Australian people through their representatives will have a say in whether we go to war.

No-one knows exactly how many people have died and been injured in the war in Afghanistan, because in those infamous words of the US military ‘We don’t do body counts’. But we do know that it is in the tens of thousands. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, in the first six months of this year casualties increased by 31 per cent compared with 2009. Nearly every other week there is another story of a massacre or ‘accidental’ killing of civilians—more ‘collateral damage’ in a war in which, like Vietnam, our troops find it harder to tell the difference between insurgents and noninsurgents.

The Afghan war has now been going on for over nine years, almost longer than World Wars I and II combined. We must remember that, in the eyes of many of the people now fighting the coalition forces in Afghanistan, this is a continuation of their fight to remove foreign forces from the country—a fight begun with the Soviet invasion in 1979. The Russians learned, to their great cost, that more than 100,000 troops, backed by an Afghan government, could not win against the Mujahideen. The Leader of the Opposition was right yesterday in saying that, despite the history, we must deal with the world as it is. But we cannot close our eyes to the lessons of the past and be doomed to repeat them. Wilful blindness is no better than wishful thinking.

I know that many Australians ask the legitimate question: what will happen to the population in Afghanistan if we pull out? There is an alternative question: is our being there making the problem worse? Major General Alan Stretton, who served as Australian Chief of Staff in Vietnam and fought in World War II, Korea and Malaya, thinks so. He says that the Afghan population ‘now sees the war as a foreign invasion of its country’. The major general says:

In fact, the occupation is providing a reason for terrorist attacks, and instead of reducing the risk to Australians is actually increasing it.

The Prime Minister said this war may be the work of a generation. If coalition troops are there for another decade, a whole generation of boys and girls will have grown up under occupation, and we must expect all the consequences that may flow from that. On this, I think we should listen to Malalai Joya. In 2005, she was the youngest woman elected to the Afghani parliament. She condemned the warlords of whom the assembly was overwhelmingly comprised. Now, she says:

We are in between two evils: the warlords and the Taliban on one side, and the occupation on the other. The first step is to fight against the occupation—those who can liberate themselves will be free, even if it costs our lives.

Respected defence analysts have said that the process of training the army and police in Afghanistan is far less successful than the government has made out and may never be achievable. The desertion of personnel, infiltration by Taliban supporters and the quality of the troops and police all mean that very few are able to operate without coalition forces in support. According to some recent reports, the attrition rate far exceeds the number of new recruits. None of these problems were explicitly acknowledged in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, apart from a confident declaration noting the ‘Afghan government’s determination that the Afghan National Security Forces should lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014’.

It is important to note the careful language that is being used here. Afghan troops will ‘lead’ but not take over the full security task, and they hope to ‘operate’ in all provinces but will not be able to take on a full role in those provinces. In short, even by 2014 there will be no self-sufficient Afghan military or police, suggesting that we may be there for much, much longer. The leader of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, summed up his thinking on the length of deployment in this way:

You have to recognise also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting … You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.

While we talk here of decades and generations, President Obama is reported to have responded to Pentagon requests for more troops by saying:

I’m not doing ten years. I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.

If the US is increasingly asking how much it will cost in lives and money to be successful, and indicating that it will not make that kind of commitment, why are we not doing the same? And what would count as success, anyway? Many have said—and it was repeated yesterday—that we need to be in Afghanistan because of al-Qaeda. But most experts agree that al-Qaeda is now operating from other countries and not Afghanistan. General Peter Gration commanded the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993. He has reportedly described as ‘overblown’ the Prime Minister’s claims that there are direct links between the security of Afghanistan and terrorist threats to Australia.

We now know that al-Qaeda is operating in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, but we do not invade there. Very few, if any, such terrorists are in Afghanistan. In General Gration’s words:

To say that what we are doing in Afghanistan is defending Australians is drawing a very long bow.

Another key justification and strategy of the United States and, in turn, the strategy of the Australian government has been to hold up the Karzai government and make it democratic. Yet this same government passes laws to subjugate women. It is accused of widespread corruption and criminality. In fact, US General David Petraeus reportedly describes the Karzai government as a ‘criminal syndicate’, and Vice-President Joe Biden has asked:

If the Government’s a ‘criminal syndicate’ a year from now, how will troops make a difference?

Successive elections in Afghanistan have been marked by fraud. Recently came an announcement that the latest election results have been delayed because of widespread fraud, with estimates that up to 25 per cent of ballots will be thrown out. When on Monday I asked a question of the Minister for Defence about the alleged criminality of the Karzai government, he dodged the point. Again, yesterday and today, the government has failed to respond directly to General Petraeus’s assessment. It is a crucial point that the government must squarely address.

The ostensible reason that is most often given for why we are in Afghanistan is to fight the Taliban. Some have said that we should stay the course to ensure the Taliban does not become the government. But now we know there are extensive talks between the Karzai government and Taliban leader Mullah Omar and others, aimed at reconciliation and dealing them squarely into government. While pursuing peace and reconciliation is to be commended, and one hopes the process may ease or end the conflict, it somewhat undermines the claim that the Taliban is the enemy that must be opposed at all costs, even the cost of taking and sacrificing lives. And what now of the rights of the Hazaras, many of whom have sought refuge in Australia and whose persecution under the Taliban has continued and may now become entrenched if the power-sharing arrangements hold?

According to Australian defence analyst Hugh White, the real reason the Australian government has troops in Afghanistan is that the United States has asked us. This is why the Greens believe we need a relationship with the United States that is strong but based on autonomy and independence. In the words of Major General Alan Stretton:

Although it is important to remain an ally of the United States, this does not mean that we have to be involved in all American military excursions.

The experience of the British in standing up to American pressure to take part in the Vietnam War was that it did not undermine the British-American relationship. Australia could still retain the support of the United States even if we pursued a more independent foreign policy.

Like most people, I shudder when I hear that the Taliban and now the Karzai government are prepared to legislate for the sexual subjugation of women. But, if we are looking for a tool to spread human rights and democracy, it is folly to think that invading and occupying a country is the answer. Withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan does not mean we must disengage from the country or stop trying to help the Afghan people. We do not advocate leaving without helping those we leave behind. In fact, there are good reasons to be separating our aid efforts from our military activities. The Australian Council for International Development have called for military and development activities to be decoupled. They say increased funds linked to political and military objectives make it less likely we will see lasting and comprehensive community based development outcomes that will meet real needs.

At the moment, the government has its priorities wrong. The Greens believe a withdrawal of Australian military forces from Afghanistan could enable additional aid to be directed to the country, targeted in particular to civil society institutions that foster democracy, sustainable development and human rights. It is time to look at countries like Oman instead of Vietnam or Russia. Unlike its neighbouring conflict-racked terrorist base of Yemen, it has transformed itself. It was a society where only a few decades ago not one girl in Oman was attending school. Now all children are expected to finish high school and the place of women has been transformed, with three of the country’s cabinet ministers being women. The Prime Minister yesterday noted the rise in Afghan girls getting an education. In Oman, girls attend school, read books and surf the internet, without the need for an expensive, unsustainable foreign occupying military force and without the life-shattering effects war can have on children, their education and upbringing. In the words of New York Times journalist Nicholas D Kristof:

… one of the lessons of Oman is that one of the best and most cost-effective ways to tame extremism is to promote education for all.

Malalai Joya, the former Afghan MP I referred to before, knows this. She called for all of our assistance in strengthening civil society in Afghanistan, not the occupation or the corrupt government, saying, ‘Education gives us hope and courage,’ and ‘Open the eyes and minds of the justice loving.’

While others in the world are discussing exit strategies, Australia is writing blank cheques. More and more countries are removing their troops, and we should join them. Earlier in the year, the Netherlands withdrew their troops from the province in which Australia operates, and Canada will leave next year. No-one has doubted their integrity or their commitment to democracy. And even the US and NATO have talked about a time for withdrawal, yet it seems that our Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are unwilling to set a date. Instead the Prime Minister has just committed us for another decade or more of war.

The Greens have a different view. The Greens believe it is now time to bring our troops safely home. The Greens believe the Australian people and our defence forces should not be asked to continue this war for another decade. And the Greens believe that many people in Australia agree with us, with recent polls showing that most Australians want our defence forces personnel brought safely home. If we really want to ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for terrorists, we must encourage education and help strengthen the institutions of civil society. We must foster democracy from below, not imagine we can impose it from above down the barrel of a gun. No matter how much the contemporary trend might be to dress it up in the garb of human rights, an invasion is an invasion, a war is a war. It is a mistake we have made before but not yet learned from. We owe it to our troops, the Australian people and the people of Afghanistan to adopt a different path.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important opportunity to outline for the parliament the reasons for our engagement in Afghanistan. It is not a debate I welcome; it is a debate in which properly one should be involved. It is not a debate about whether or not Australia supports the Karzai government. All of us would agree that a government with the sorts of values that have been mentioned—and I do not dispute those—is questionable. But it does not mean that we should not be involved in Afghanistan. I note that in an outstanding speech by the Leader of the Opposition in response to the Prime Minister’s statement he had this to say:

Afghanistan may never be a Western-style, pluralist democracy. In any event, it is for Afghans, not for outsiders, to reengineer their society from the feudal to the modern. Our broader mission is merely to foster effective governance, at least by Afghan standards, and to ensure that Afghanistan never again hosts training camps for international terrorism. Australia’s particular mission, in Oruzgan and the surrounding provinces, is to strike at active Taliban units and to mentor the Afghan army’s fourth Brigade into an effective military unit loyal to the central government.

It is in that context that this debate needs to be seen. This is not about a war, as the member for Melbourne suggests, that cannot be won. If the view was that wars could never be won, one would stand aside and allow a Nazi regime to dominate the world. I am sure that there were times of great doubt. But people’s determination in that situation never wavered.

The honourable member for Melbourne quoted General Gration to give authority to the proposition that this war that cannot be won is something that we should walk away from. But I notice that in General Gration’s comments, reported by Cameron Stewart in the Australian on 19 October, the general said, ‘Having come this far, we cannot unilaterally walk away.’ They were observations that were not brought to our attention by the member for Melbourne.

I want to take this opportunity to observe that this week I spoke on a condolence motion for the family of Jason Brown. The family are constituents of mine. I grieved at his death, as I grieve for all those young Australians who have lost their lives. But they are not the only funerals that I have attended. I have attended the funeral of a young man whose sister is very closely known by my daughter and who perished in Bali as a result of a terrorist bombing that took the lives of 88 Australians.

Our Afghanistan involvement commenced in 2001 after a most horrendous event that is now ebbing in the minds of many Australians. I do not know whether the honourable member for Melbourne remembers where he was on 9/11. But I know exactly where I was: in a Melbourne hotel room. I came in late, expecting to get Lateline but instead watching planes flying into the World Trade Centre, tragically taking the lives of many thousands of people, including Australians. It was probably one of the most momentous events in my life to see such horrific terrorist acts occurring; such wanton acts that simply took people’s lives as if they meant nothing.

The enormity of that loss was well understood by the Australian community generally. I look back at the comments of former Prime Minister John Howard, when he determined, along with the government, that, in consultation with the United States, article 4 of the ANZUS treaty applies to terrorist attacks on the United States. He spoke later about those events. He noted that in relation to New York, 22 Australians, as well as people from around 80 other nations, 14 of whom were Muslim, died in that attack. He made the point that no-one doubts that the al-Qaeda network, led by Osama bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks and that the Taliban had allowed Afghanistan to become a safe haven for international terrorism. Later, in a speech that he made about al-Qaeda, he had this to say:

Whilst the destruction of the Al Qaida network must be our first priority, the long-term aim of this war is to demonstrate that organised, international, state-sanctioned terrorism will not be tolerated by the world community.

We know that our mission will not be easy. It will be prolonged and against an enemy hiding in the dark corners of the world. An enemy who will falsely portray our objective to destroy terrorism as an assault upon Islam.

The war will be a new kind of war. There will be few, if any, set-piece battles to bring it to an end. Rather it will be a sustained effort, requiring sturdy patience, and the careful marshalling and coordination of resources.

He went on to say that there could be no valid comparison with Vietnam. He made this point:

In contrast, today all the major powers of the world are as one in their opposition to international terrorism. In the present situation, we are not at war with any other nation. We are certainly not at war against any faith or against the people of Afghanistan, who are the victims of the very terrorism that we are opposing.

He made it clear that there was bipartisan support for our engagement in those activities to constrain the potential impact of terrorism upon Australia.

I served in the government of John Howard. I was a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet. I received briefings from our intelligence organisations and publicly was able to say that some 10,000 people from around the world went to Afghanistan for the purpose of training with al-Qaeda. Numbers of those were from Australia. It is clear from the prosecutions that have occurred in Australia that people who have been involved in planning terrorist activities in our country trained offshore in that very situation. Of course, that was not only our experience, it has been the experience in Europe. Australians lost their lives in the London bombings that were orchestrated by people who were similarly aligned.

It is important that we do not allow ourselves to be beguiled by arguments that war is difficult, that the Karzai government has perhaps less credibility than we would like and that we walk away from the effort of ensuring that there is no opportunity for al-Qaeda to operate on that scale again. It has always seemed to me that, as hard as it is, it is more important to fight the battle there and win than to simply walk away and fight a battle here, on our own shores, with even greater tragic consequences.

I have had the opportunity of looking at the strategy in which we have been engaged. It seems to me that it is a strategy designed to serve Australia’s interests and to protect our community. I recognise that we are not involved in this task alone. We are committing in the order of 1,500 Australian troops compared with the United States commitment of 78,430, the United Kingdom, 9,500; Germany, 4,590; France, 3,750; Italy, 3,400, Canada, 2,830; Poland, 2,630; Romania, 1,750; Turkey, 1,740; and Spain, 1,555. This is not something in which we are engaged alone. We are part of the world community dealing with this issue.

I have had the opportunity of visiting Afghanistan to see something of what our troops are doing to train the Afghan troops through the Mentoring Task Force. I had the opportunity of seeing something of our special forces. I was very proud of the way in which young Australians serving their country were undertaking their efforts. When I know of the enormity of the task and when I see them, I am very much persuaded by the reports we receive from those who are involved in planning our operations. General John Cantwell, who briefed me and who also briefed the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition when they visited Tarin Kowt, said, ‘It’s not the time to lose faith, it’s not the time to forsake the loss and the sacrifice and expense and the heartache that’s gone into this.’ Twenty-one Australian troops have died during the Afghanistan deployment. ‘We can’t let Afghanistan become a seat for transnational terrorism,’ he said.

What interested me were the reports I saw this week of the views of Australian families who have lost their loved ones in Afghanistan. In McPhedran’s article in the Courier Mail we see this quote:

The father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan and the partner of another who has just arrived in Oruzgan Province have appealed for a deeper understanding of what our troops are doing in the troubled country.

Gary Bewes and Taryn McGowan made a number of observations. Mr Bewes, whose son Nathan died in conflict, said that he hoped that politicians did not get pressured into pulling out in the short term. ‘It would be a terrible waste of the good work they have done,’ he said. Of course, Miss McGowan was similarly concerned. What a tragic loss of young Australians, who gallantly serve the interests of the nation to protect the lives of other Australians, if we were simply to say now, ‘It’s all too hard and we’re going to walk away.’

I was interested in some of the comments made by Alexander Downer, who served with me on the National Security Committee of cabinet. When writing on these matters in the Spectator recently, he made this observation:

Sudden withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. For the people of Afghanistan it would almost certainly lead to the return of a Taleban regime with all its attendant human rights abuses. It would be perceived by the Jihadist movement around the world as a historic victory and give that movement fresh momentum and hope. And a Taleban-run Afghanistan would have the potential to destroy the stability—such stability as there is—of a fragile regime in Pakistan.

He goes on to say:

Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. That, in turn, would escalate tensions between India and Pakistan, and who knows where that might lead.

These are issues of very great moment. They are not issues that have been dealt with lightly. The decision to commit was a decision taken seriously by the former government and it has been supported by this government. I think the reasons by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition outlining our engagement were compelling and I strongly support the statement that has been made.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I am a Duntroon graduate and a former Army lieutenant colonel. For a time, as you would know, I served as a senior intelligence analyst. I believe in just war and I supported the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds that al-Qaeda was involved in the 9-11 terror attacks and so significantly intertwined with the Taliban that any effective US response warranted regime change in Kabul. Unsurprisingly then I am a strong supporter of the Australian Defence Force and have been as saddened as anyone that it is my old battalion, the 6th, based in Brisbane, which has lately borne the brunt of casualties in Afghanistan. I was a platoon commander, the adjutant and then a company commander in 6RAR and understand well the difficulty of the job our soldiers are doing in our name.

On balance, I am also pro US. The United States and Australia are natural allies on account of our common histories, cultures, values and strategic security interests. The US-Australia bilateral relationship is understandably one of Australia’s most important, and I can understand Prime Minister John Howard’s decision to invoke the ANZUS treaty after 9-11. When the US is in strife it is right that we should come to its aid, as in fact we should try to help any country so long as doing so is genuinely within our means and genuinely consistent with our national interests.

But despite all of this I am a vocal critic of the war in Afghanistan and I believe we must bring our combat troops home as soon as possible. When I say ‘as soon as possible’, I envisage a withdrawal timeline carefully planned by military professionals, not by politicians, a timeline which speedily hands military responsibility over to Afghan security forces in a matter of months.

Yesterday the Prime Minister was talking about us still waging war in Afghanistan in 10 years time. That was an extraordinary admission of the difficulties we have gone and got ourselves into, and entirely inconsistent with our national interest. If it were up to me, I would be very concerned with any military plan that still had us fighting in Afghanistan in 10 months time, let alone in 10 years time.

In 2001 Afghanistan was a launching pad for Islamic extremism. But now the country is irrelevant in that regard because Islamic extremism has morphed into a global network not dependent on any one country. Yes, countries like Pakistan are incubators for terrorists, but so are countries like Australia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and the United States, which now grow their own terrorists. This is a much more worrying situation because it enlarges the threat and buries it deep within us, where it is even harder for the security services to detect.

In 2001 Osama bin Laden was thought to be in Afghanistan. But now no-one knows where he is or even if he is alive or dead—not that it matters anymore, because his ideas have taken hold and grown strong globally. In 2001 al-Qaeda was the world’s most dangerous Islamic terrorist organisation, but now al-Qaeda, like bin Laden, is much less important because it has spawned offshoots directly and inspired other terror groups to crystallise.

The misguided response to 9-11, not the least of which was the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when we had the chance in 2002, followed by the outrageous invasion of Iraq in 2003, has resulted in a significant baseline number of would-be Islamic terrorists and a global network of small terrorist clusters. In other words, Afghanistan is no longer relevant to Australia’s security in the way it was way back in 2001, and the continued government and coalition insistence that we must stay in Afghanistan to protect Australia from terrorists is deliberately misleading: 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.

Mind you, yesterday and today there have been no shortage of misleading statements in this place regarding our military commitment in Afghanistan. Both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader laid it on thick with 9-11, the Bali bombings and the attacks on our embassy in Jakarta. Yes, a token effort was made by both of them to distance these shocking events from our current role in Afghanistan, but the way they were recounted achieved the speaker’s aim of forming associations in people’s minds and steering listeners towards the conclusion that the terrorist attacks of years ago are as relevant today to our mission in Afghanistan as they were then. If there is in fact any relevance of Afghanistan to terrorism and Australian security nowadays then it is the way in which the ongoing war continues to enrage disaffected Muslims right around the world.

Just last week the Victorian Supreme Court heard that one of the men allegedly plotting to stage an attack at Holsworthy army barracks in Sydney was angry at Australia’s ongoing presence in Afghanistan. According to media reports, one Wissam Fattal discussed a trip by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Germany to hold discussions about the war and was overheard to say, ‘It was shameful that Australian troops killed innocent people.’

If the government and the coalition are going to continue to argue for years more fighting in Afghanistan and deaths then you need to start being honest with the Australian community. Ditch the dishonest terrorism rhetoric and try to sell the real reasons for our seemingly open-ended involvement in a war that has gone from bad to worse over nine years, making it one of the longest wars in Australian history. Only the 13 years of the Malayan Emergency and the 10-year service of the Australian Army Training Team in Vietnam surpass it.

The reality is that the main reason we are in Afghanistan is to support the United States and, by that support, to enhance the likelihood of the US coming to our aid in the event Australia’s security is one day threatened. Such a reason for staying in Afghanistan has appeal to a not insignificant number of Australians. The problem is it is a misplaced appeal because the reality of foreign policy remains that alliances last only so long as interests overlap. So US support for Australia at some point in the future will depend on our usefulness to Washington at that exact point in time. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other supposed downpayments on our American insurance policy will not in themselves necessarily amount to anything. Turning this point around is the reality that Australia is and will remain as important to United States strategic interests as the US is to ours. Our location, political and social stability and inherent security, in part because of our air-sea gap and inhospitable frontiers, combine to ensure Australia is one piece of real estate the US will continue to be prepared to shed blood over.

Some commentators see in the case of New Zealand a demonstration of the perils of saying no to America. But the reality is that Prime Minister David Lange’s decision in 1984 to deny US nuclear ships the right to visit New Zealand did not unplug Wellington from US security arrangements for the simple reason that America had a continuing need to access the material collected by the Waihopai signals intelligence ground station on the North Island. In other words, the bilateral New Zealand-United States security arrangement did continue, albeit in another form, because the security needs of the two countries continued to overlap. All the theatre about New Zealand having been completely cut adrift by the US was just that—political theatre for public consumption, mainly in America. Australia could also continue to rely on United States security guarantees if we pulled out of Afghanistan because we are simply too important to the US’s own security for it to be otherwise. In fact, we would almost certainly be at less risk of being taken for granted in Washington if sometimes we simply said no.

All of this leaves ordinary Afghans as pawns in the strategic game we continue to play out with the United States. Yes, the Afghans in our area of operations have often benefited from the good work of our soldiers, and the Prime Minister’s speech on the war yesterday was a fitting reminder of the local achievements of our soldiers. But let us not kid ourselves: after nine years of war and billions of dollars in foreign aid, a third of a million Afghans are still displaced within that country’s borders while 10 times that number—three million—eke out an existence as refugees, mainly in Iran and Pakistan. Moreover, the central government still fails to exert much control outside Kabul, and the Taliban’s strength is put in the tens of thousands and growing, even though foreign force numbers have now maxed out at well over 100,000 troops. I remember well my visit some years ago to north-east Iran, where I met with some of the Afghan refugees accommodated at one of the camps on the border there. There were thousands in the camp and, even though the conditions were relatively tolerable thanks to Iranian government efforts, the looks on the faces of many of the refugees, including the children, was the stuff of nightmares. Such experiences help explain my compassion for asylum seekers to this day.

Australia’s achievements in Afghanistan are eerily similar to the way in which Australia achieved tremendous results in Phuoc Tuy province in South Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 only to see those achievements eventually steamrolled by the broader Vietnam War debacle. In other words, it does not matter how well we do in Oruzgan Province, because ultimately Afghanistan’s fate is being decided elsewhere.

Another alarming similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is how these wars were or are propping up deeply corrupt regimes—and this matters. There have now been two elections in Afghanistan in the space of 14 months, and both have been widely ridiculed for intimidation and fraud on a scale completely discrediting the outcomes. At the end of the day, this is the government our soldiers are propping up and dying for. I find that totally unacceptable and something the government still needs to properly explain. No wonder Australian public support for the war and our involvement in it are at such low levels, as evidenced by a poll in June by Essential Media Communications which showed that nearly two-thirds of people wanted the government to withdraw troops from Afghanistan while only seven per cent thought that the number of troops should be increased. Also this year, research by the esteemed Lowy Institute put at 54 per cent the number of people polled who felt that Australia should not continue to be involved militarily in Afghanistan.

Very few members may be unambiguously speaking out against the war, but standing behind those of us who do are the millions of Australians who are concerned about the ongoing war in Afghanistan and feel strongly that it is time to bring the troops home. Every member here needs to understand that, while the number of members speaking against the war in this place is small, the number of people out there concerned about the war is huge. In other words, numerous members are prepared to sit there behind their party’s policy at the expense of genuinely representing the views of their constituents, and that is a shocking breakdown of democracy. Some things should be above party discipline, and this is one of them. Whatever happened to some of you that you are now so ready to sacrifice your soul for your party’s political self-interest?

I also acknowledge those of you who have travelled to Afghanistan to visit our soldiers. But please understand that you have had an intoxicating experience more likely to entertain than to deeply inform the sort of strategic-level analysis and decision making now needed more than ever. The views of our enthusiastic diggers and operational-level commanders are obviously important, but they are only one perspective when it comes to understanding Australia’s strategic interests and the most sensible way to achieve them. That most of our soldiers are keen to stay in Afghanistan does not necessarily make staying there the right thing to do.

One argument for staying in Afghanistan is the need to stabilise Pakistan. But this notion is baseless, because one of the main reasons Pakistan has become increasingly unstable since 2001 is Islamabad’s support for the war. Moreover, one of the reasons the north-west frontier has become so much more problematic is the flow of militants across the border. On balance, pulling out of Afghanistan will help rather than hinder Pakistan. This is something I saw firsthand in 2002, when I visited the Protestant church in the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad which had been attacked by terrorists only days before. The grenade attack, which killed five including the wife of an American diplomat, is a sobering reminder of the dangers faced by our own diplomats overseas, especially in the many countries with heightened levels of Islamic extremism.

The difficulties we face in Afghanistan, especially since they come so soon after the Iraq debacle, throw into question how the decision to wage war is made in Australia. That currently such decisions can be and are made by the Prime Minister acting virtually alone is patently inadequate and potentially disastrous. Decisions are hostage to the competence of an individual with all his or her strengths and weaknesses, ideology and prejudices. There is no mandatory gross error check either at the outset or later on.

This parliamentary debate is a case in point. It is good that we are having it, but we are only having it because of the extraordinary 2010 federal election result and the pressure brought to bear on the new government by a small number of agitators experiencing extra-ordinary political influence. There is a real need for a public and political discussion about this matter because the current war powers arrangement is indefensible. Perhaps, for example, section 51 of the Constitution, which outlines the legislative powers of the parliament, could be amended to include the line ‘to declare war on or make treaties of peace with foreign powers.’ One option I favour is that the decision to go to war should be made by a conscience vote in a joint sitting of the parliament.

The international community, including Australia, confronts a dreadful dilemma in Afghanistan. On the one hand, it could walk away from the seemingly inevitable disaster that would unfold or, on the other hand, it could stay and fight as it plans to in the hope of somehow avoiding a different but equally inevitable disaster. Success will not be measured by capturing the capital—we did that nine years ago and, in any case, civil wars are rarely won that way. No, success will be measured by some sort of consensus among the Afghan community, and that will not be possible until there is a political solution underpinned by an agreement between all the major political groups. In other words, there can be no enduring relative peace in Afghanistan without first negotiating with the Taliban.

The Prime Minister said yesterday she believes Australia has the right strategy in Afghanistan. She is wrong—dangerously wrong. The reality is that the best plan the Australian government can come up with is simply to continue to support whatever the US government comes up with. And that alone is no plan—it is just reinforcing failure. The only way to turn Afghanistan around now is to hastily rebuild the governance, infrastructure, services and jobs which give people hope and which underpin long-term peace. But this appears increasingly unachievable because the foreign troops which anchor such a solution are now seen by many Afghans as the problem. They are prompting a nationalist backlash which is sometimes coalescing around Taliban elements.

That is our dilemma: on one hand, there is an argument for keeping our combat troops in Afghanistan but, on the other hand, we must pull them out. There is no good solution. Whatever we do from here there will be violence and people will die. There is no avoiding that. The only certainty is that Afghanistan will never face the possibility of enduring peace unless it is allowed to find its natural political level. That cannot happen while the Afghans regard themselves as being occupied by foreign powers that are propping up an illegitimate central government.

In closing, I reiterate my support for our soldiers on active service, especially in Afghanistan. Vale Andrew Russell, David Pearce, Matthew Locke, Luke Worsley, Jason Marks, Sean McCarthy, Michael Fussell, Gregory Michael Sher, Mathew Hopkins, Brett Till, Benjamin Ranaudo, Jacob Moerland, Darren Smith, Scott Palmer, Timothy Aplin, Benjamin Chuck, Nathan Bewes, Jason Brown, Grant Kirby, Tomas Dale and Jared MacKinney. You died serving your country and I salute you. May you rest in peace, and may my new colleagues in this place see the sense in ending this conflict now before too many more young Australians are sent to their deaths.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate about our involvement in Afghanistan. The debate is timely as not only has the operation changed since our original involvement commenced in 2001, following the terrorist attacks in New York that year, but the politics have changed as well. Our current commitment to the operation in Afghanistan is our largest current troop commitment. It is our job to question the government to ensure not only that our troops are supported in the operation but also that there is sufficient budgetary appropriation to provide whatever is required by our commanders and advisers in the Department of Defence so that our troops are not let down by a lack of resources for the mission.

We have a right to question. I am not here to criticise; I am here to question the government so that the Australian public can have confidence that our troops are getting the support they need from their government. The people of Australia want to know that. That is why I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister and the opportunity to talk openly in the parliament about our commitment to the operation in Afghanistan.

I acknowledge and admire the professionalism of our troops because they operate in the time-honoured way of our history. They are like the Anzacs of long ago; they are our Anzacs of today. They rank amongst the best soldiers in the world. They are professional, they are good at their job and they are dedicated. It is not sufficient to just support the troops; we must support the objectives of the operation. The coalition has always supported the troops and the operation.

I had the opportunity as chairman of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to go to Afghanistan in 2002, under Operation Enduring Freedom. We went to the Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The night before, we went to Kyrgyzstan and saw the pilots and those involved in the air operation. It was with great pride that I was able to be there and see the men and women who formed part of that operation. Under the same chairmanship role, I was able to go to Iraq in 2005 and go on patrol with our troops out of Al Muthana province and then on into Baghdad. It is worth recording that whilst we were in Iraq the referendum that had been conducted saw the people of Iraq determine their own constitution which requires that the parliament in Baghdad must include 25 per cent women members. That is a far cry from the situation that existed under Saddam Hussein. I put that on the record because I have been to see where our troops have operated. Not only have I seen the environment; I spent a night in the desert with them and I went on patrol with them, and I have seen the terrain where they operate.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they survived!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the former defence minister would have done that too. It is important as members of this parliament who commit our troops to operations such as this in Afghanistan that we see where they operate. I know how much the troops appreciate a parliamentary delegation seeing them and their operations. They operate so professionally and with great pride, and they do the job that the government have asked of them.

Let us remind ourselves of that horrific day for the world on September 11 2001 when terrorists attacked the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, and of those fearless passengers on flight 93 who prevented the fourth plane from crashing into the US congress in Washington. Almost 3,000 innocent people died on that one day. A year later, in 2002, our country lost 88 Australians in the terrorist attacks in Kuta, Bali—202 people in total were killed from three bombs on that day. Five years ago, 52 people from all walks of life were killed and around 700 people were injured when four suicide bombers linked to al-Qaeda detonated bombs on London’s underground and on a double-decker bus in London.

All three attacks have been linked to extremist Islamic groups, particularly al-Qaeda and Jamaat-i-Islami. My memories of that horrible day in September 2001 are very vivid because the defence minister at the time, Peter Reith, was overseas and, as defence personnel minister and veterans’ affairs minister, I was acting defence minister that day—it was that evening that the news came through. It was an event that shocked the world and which would unite like-minded countries in ensuring that something like this would never happen again, and that those responsible would be brought to justice.

The operation in Afghanistan was established under the United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 in December 2001. It is a NATO-led security mission and it is reaffirmed by the United Nations each year. Let us also remember that the United Nations was established after World War II to ensure that atrocities carried out by Hitler would never occur again. I underline that to remind us all of the important role the United Nations plays in bringing like-minded countries together in a resolution to deal with atrocities and to make sure that the world can live more peacefully. Australia is part of a global coalition participating in an operation that is approved by the United Nations and NATO. Our involvement in Afghanistan is directly linked to our national security interests because we are a member of a global society. The Australians who died in Bali, the Australian who died in London and the Australians who died in New York on September 11 2001 prove to us that we are truly living in one global community.

Since Australia’s first involvement in an international conflict in 1885, Australia has lost 102,808 Australians. Their names are forever inscribed on the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial. Sadly, 21 names of young men who fought in Afghanistan have been added to that roll. They made the ultimate sacrifice. Our parliament and the Australian people should never forget what has been lost to make our country the strong democracy that it is today and we should never forget the people we have lost in our quest to help other nations achieve what we in Australia take for granted. Our thoughts on this day in this parliament are with the families particularly of those 21 brave Australian soldiers, as we discuss the war in Afghanistan. It is important that we remember them. Let us also remember the 152 men who have been seriously wounded. It is our responsibility to ensure that the government provides the necessary support that they need for their complete recovery from their wounds.

These men did not die in vain and we should take the opportunity to remind the Australian people about the success and the progress that has been made. So often the media concentrate on the tragedies—and it is important to report the mistakes and the failures of war—and recently we have learnt that three Australian troops have been charged with manslaughter, dangerous conduct, failure to comply with a lawful general order and prejudicial conduct after a night-time incident in which six Afghani civilians were unfortunately killed. I have received a number of calls from my constituents concerned about this incident and I have explained to them that the troops were in a very intense battle with the Taliban. The Afghanistan conflict is being fought in a very harsh environment where it is not readily apparent who the enemy is and where the insurgents do not fight under our very detailed rules of engagement. They place very little value on human life and often use innocent civilians as human shields. The opposition respects the decision of the independent Director of Military Prosecutions to charge the three soldiers and to let them have their day in court. But there have been concerns raised with me by my constituents that this is unprecedented and perhaps could have serious ramifications for our troops in the battles ahead.

We must also remember the good that is being done in Afghanistan. Progress is being made. Our troops have been involved in a number of infrastructure projects which have helped to improve the health and education of those in Tarin Kowt. We have helped build a waste management facility for the community. We have also helped to redevelop the Tarin Kowt boys primary school, which now has a new 35-classroom building. The boys high school has received an upgrade with new classrooms, and we have been involved in the construction of a girls school. A health centre has been developed which includes separate male and female clinics. Thirty shops have been constructed in the Sorkh Morghab bazaar development. We have helped build the Kowtwal Crossing, which is an all-weather crossing over the Tiri Rud River. And we have trained 1,200 Afghani males through our trades training school. That is significant progress in making sure there are employment opportunities and that young girls, in particular, are now able to go to school and, over time, participate in their communities as we see women participate in our own communities and in so many other Western democracies.

We should not withdraw our troops from Afghanistan until the job is done. That is the Australian way. I am reminded also of our latest rotation into East Timor. We will not withdraw from East Timor until the job is done, we did not withdraw from Bougainville until the job was done, and we should not withdraw from Afghanistan until this job is done. We are operating under a UN mandate in partnership with 47 other nations. The ANZUS treaty, which we signed in 1951, after World War II, has been called into play.

The mission is achievable and we will achieve the objectives. The next two to four years will see military transition to the Afghan 4th Brigade and a growth in the civilian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. The operation in Afghanistan is working and certainly worthwhile. We must stay the course. That is why I welcome the debate and welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. In her address she said that she will make a statement in this parliament each year that our involvement in Afghanistan continues, and that will certainly allow members of parliament and the people in the constituencies we represent to have their say and to continue to monitor the progress and success that we all hope and pray for in Afghanistan. Importantly, it will demonstrate to the Australian people that the parliament supports not only the operation in Afghanistan but also the troops and their families who wait back here at home for their safe return.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to debate Australia’s part in the international community’s efforts to stabilise Afghanistan. It is an initiative which, when I was Minister for Defence, seemed unnecessary. Back then, regular ministerial statements and shadow ministerial responses seemed to suffice. But two things have changed since then. First, 19 months on and 11 more deaths on, the Australian community is more and more sceptical about our prospects of success and increasingly doubtful about the merit in us being there at all.

Second, cracks have been appearing in the bipartisan support for the campaign. This latter development would be disappointing in any circumstance, but it is particularly disappointing given it appears, to me, to have been more about domestic politics than about the national interest or indeed about the interests of our troops in theatre—and this from a political party which, when in government, took its eye off the ball to pursue a non-UN-sanctioned foray into Iraq and was sending our troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan without insisting on being part of the strategic planning processes. I remember very well preparing to travel to Vilnius, Lithuania, to be the first Australian defence minister to speak at a NATO conference on Afghanistan. ‘Please make sure I have the NATO planning documents among my travel papers,’ I said to a senior official. The astonishing response was: ‘Sorry, Minister. As a non-NATO partner we don’t have access to them.’ I am delighted to report that that quickly changed.

I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has taken the opportunity of this debate to clarify the opposition’s position and to reaffirm their support for the mission in Afghanistan. My own contribution to the debate will be one which reaffirms my own belief in the mission and the manner in which we are pursuing our objectives. Let me provide three important reasons. First, when the twin towers came down on September 11 2001, the terms of ANZUS, our most important alliance, were invoked. It is easy for people to dismiss our participation in Afghanistan as a ‘suck to the US’. Let me send a very important message to all and sundry: our relationship with the US matters; it matters a great deal. American expectations that we might come to their aid should be no less than our own expectations if we were to find ourselves in trouble. And any assistance they might provide to us in the future could be in response to an existential threat. The assistance we provide them in Afghanistan helps them to establish moral authority. The assistance they may provide us in the future may be far more important. In any case, the United States is unequivocally a force for good in the community of nations, and despite Uncle Sam’s great wealth, power and dominance he should not be expected to carry the weight of global peace on his shoulders alone.

Second, Afghanistan matters to Australia’s security. Just ask the family and friends of those who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists in Bali and Jakarta or indeed those who survived but live with physical disability or emotional scarring. We cannot and should not sit back and allow Afghanistan to once again descend into a breeding ground and safe haven for extremists with such a dedication to their cause that they are willing to murder innocent men, women and children.

Third, even if you are of the view that the intervention in Afghanistan was unjustified, you must accept that any precipitous withdrawal would lead to a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale as the Taliban reimposes its murderous system of justice and sets upon a course to punish all those who sided with those trying to establish new democratic, economic and social models and, of course, a lasting peace. Our commitment to this cause has been expensive in economic terms but more importantly, in human terms. Every life lost is one too many and to have lost 21 is devastating, but the brutal reality is that people die in armed conflict.

The second brutal reality is that in relative terms our losses in Afghanistan have been modest, thankfully—modest when compared to comparable countries such as Canada and modest in historical terms, when compared with other conflicts. I am often asked whether I really believe we ‘can win’ in Afghanistan. I believe we can. But it is really important to understand what ‘winning’ means. ISAF will have won in Afghanistan when the majority of Afghans come to the conclusion that the political, economic and social model we are offering is better than any being offered by the insurgents. We do not expect to offer a model democracy but we do expect to offer something much better than what is being offered by the Taliban.

Arriving at that point requires not just an effective military campaign but an effective nation-building campaign and a resolution to the complex political issues within both Afghanistan and the region, particularly in Pakistan and along the Durand Line where the Pashtun people have been divided by an international boundary imposed upon them long ago. In this civil-military-political campaign, each piece of the matrix is as important as the next. We will not kill and capture our way to success in Afghanistan. We will not win without an economy, a legal system and something to enforce it, and a public service and a government largely free of corruption. And we will not win if too many people in Pakistan are willing us to lose.

That Australia has but a relatively minor role to play in the outcome in Afghanistan is yet another reality. Oruzgan province is not that important in the big strategic picture. The fate of ISAF’s military campaign will be determined in Helmand province, Kandahar province and in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

The civil and political campaigns will be won or lost in Kabul, Islamabad and Washington. Beijing and Moscow also have roles to play on the political front but, as yet, seem unwilling to play with any great enthusiasm. None of these points are intended to undervalue the excellent work being done by the ADF and its partners in Oruzgan. Every contribution is important and our people are doing wonderful work there at great risk to themselves, but we must be open and transparent with the Australian people.

Oruzgan is important because it is often a northern safe haven for insurgents seeking respite from the main game in Helmand and Kandahar provinces. It is also an important transit route from the east for the insurgents. But it is a relatively small piece of a very complex and large strategic jigsaw puzzle. Our role there now is to train the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army to a point where it can take care of security in the province. I was minister when the National Security Committee redefined our mission. In doing so we effectively put in place an exit strategy. It was a difficult decision for me as minister because I knew it would increase the risk to ADF personnel, particularly our infantry and engineers. And sadly it has come at a cost, but it was the right decision and one I firmly believe was welcomed by and remains welcomed by the ADF members it affected.

We are undoubtedly a long way from achieving the aim of bringing the 4th Brigade to the standard required of them. That standard will not be determined by us; it we will be determined by NATO. The challenge is to build a force from soldiers with only the most rudimentary infantry and artillery skills. At the moment they enjoy the support of Australia’s special forces, our infantry fighting alongside them, our UAVs and our intel, and ISAF’s artillery guns, attack helicopters and fast jets. When Australia and its partners in Oruzgan leave, the ANA will be expected to provide security without our special forces clearing and disrupting, without our infantry mentors, without ISAF’s artillery and without close air support. That is a very big task. Indeed, they will never be in a position to do so in the absence of ISAF’s success in the broader military, nation-building and political strategy.

Anyone who thinks they will be able to handle alone an aggressive, determined and well-armed insurgency at some point in the future is not thinking at all. However, will they be capable of handling rogue elements and tribal leaders acting alone in a more stable Afghanistan? The answer is yes, but they will never be in a position to win a protracted campaign against an enemy fighting in an environment lacking a political settlement. So political reconciliation is critical. Therefore political negotiation is necessary. There is of course a difference between negotiating with moderates and doing deals with hardliners—that is an important point. Of course negotiation is most likely to meet with success if we are negotiating from a position of strength, and that in turn takes us back to the importance of the military campaign, the nation-building campaign, and the roles of Kabul, Islamabad and Pakistan’s ISI.

In the meantime it is incumbent upon Australia to do its bit. It is morally right to play a role rather than to simply allow the US to carry the burden alone. Just as important, our participation helps to provide moral legitimacy to the ISAF campaign. Along with the participation of other nation states, it sends a message that the Afghanistan project is one being undertaken by the community of nations, not just one or two nation states which may be perceived to have other agendas.

I would like to say something about our troops and the Afghan people. Our troops are the finest in the world and all Australians should be proud of them and grateful for what they do. They are volunteers, all of them, and they put their lives on the line for us without complaint or question. The majority of Afghan people want peace. They are sick and tired of war. I vividly remember their defence minister telling me so, and on all the evidence I have seen I am sure that is true. Our people in Afghanistan are helping them win the peace. We have also built them schools, hospitals, dams, roads and bridges. We have also made it possible for girls to obtain a school education. Education, of course, is the ultimate tool of empowerment.

Finally, one of the things that makes the debate about Afghanistan difficult is that members of the National Security Committee cannot share with the Australian people every detail of the campaign. Sometimes secrecy is critical both to our success and to the safety of our troops in theatre, our police, our aid workers, our advisers and, of course, our diplomats.

I appeal to the Australian electorate to have faith in the decisions of their government on these issues—a government which would never, ever send or leave our troops in harm’s way without good reason and a government which would never let them down by failing to give them everything they need in theatre, everything they need to make their task as safe as it is possible.

Having said that, both the government and the ADF need to be as open, honest and transparent as is possible to secure the trust of the electorate. Defence, in particular, has a tendency to be unjustifiably secretive. That is why as minister I insisted on having journalists be allowed to embed with our troops, something that the ADF leadership resisted with some determination.

Indeed, the same people ran interference on my own determination to venture—to use the defence vernacular—‘outside the wire’, to visit our troops in the field, to see the schools and hospitals we had built, to witness these projects with my own eyes and to walk the streets of Tarin Kowt for a friendly chat with the locals. There I saw the gratitude in their eyes. I saw people appreciative of what we Australians are doing in Afghanistan. I saw people with the hope of peace in their eyes and people who believe, as we should believe, that peace is worth fighting for.

In this debate I have heard a number of contributors use the perceived, or alleged, corruption within the Karzai government as an excuse to do nothing. As I said earlier, we would be foolish to expect within 10 years or even 20 years to have a model democracy in Afghanistan. No government, even in the Western world, can possibly hope to be absolutely free of some form of corruption and we certainly should not expect that outcome in Kabul. Certainly, the model we are seeking to put in place and, in turn, the model we want the Afghan government and its security forces to protect in the future is far better than anything on offer from the Taliban or any other group. These are the reasons why it is so important that we should stay the course. As members of parliament, we should remain determined to ensure that those people who have given their lives in Afghanistan have not given their lives in vain.

Debate (on motion by Ms Ley) adjourned.