Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuing my remarks on this matter, I will pick up from where I left off. At the time I was making the point that our engagement in Afghanistan is often linked to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Bali bombings. I was specifically making the point that I knew Angela Golotta, who was killed in the Bali bombings. I know her family, and I know the trauma that the death caused her family. I also knew Andrew Knox, a young Australian who was killed in the Twin Towers attack. Andrew and I were political colleagues and friends and worked on campaigns on a number of occasions in the Makin electorate, which I represent today. In referring to both of them, I know and understand full well the strong links and passions that some members have in respect of our engagement in Afghanistan and both of those attacks. It is also my understanding that more Australians have now been killed in terrorist attacks on the West than those from any other Western country other than the United States. So, quite rightly, our engagement in Afghanistan is as much about protecting Australia’s people and interests as it is about supporting the US.

Today Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished nations in the world. According to the Australian Council for International Development, Afghanistan ranks second last at No. 181 of 182 countries on the UN’s Human Development Index. It is the most food insecure country on the planet. Less than 30 per cent of its people have access to safe drinking water and more than 90 per cent do not have access to proper sanitation. The average life expectancy for an Afghan woman is 44 years. Every 29 minutes, a woman dies during childbirth. Maternal mortality rates are estimated to be the third highest in the world at 1,600 per 100,000 live births. Literacy rates, at 26 per cent of the total population, are the fourth lowest in the world. One in four children die before the age of five.

The human and financial toll caused by three decades of fighting and destruction is immeasurable. If the same efforts had gone into addressing the level of disadvantage as have gone into the engagement in Afghanistan, the country may well be much different today than it is, and it may well not be as vulnerable as it is today.

The Afghanistan war began as a war on terrorism; however, I believe that that is no longer the focus of our presence there. So why are we still there? We are still there because we were party to overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and we cannot leave until an alternative, stable government is in place. To do otherwise would leave the people of Afghanistan at the mercy of those who would quite likely not treat them well. We are there because, having disrupted al-Qaeda operations there, we must ensure that a future Afghanistan government does not again provide a cover for terrorist training or a refuge for terrorists. These are valid reasons for Australia’s continued presence in Afghanistan. I am deeply concerned, however, that there is no end to the war in sight and that our ADF members could be in Afghanistan until 2014 or possibly for the rest of this decade.

I am also concerned that reports about progress made are countered by other reports which describe a worsening situation. What is now needed is international aid and a continuation of the training, mentoring and equipping of the Afghan army and police so that they can build their own capability.

The Taliban is not al-Qaeda and, according to several respected commentators, engaging the Taliban in constructive discussions may prove more successful in bringing an end to the war than continuing the military action against them. The member for Werriwa clearly articulated this in his contribution to this debate. Peter Leahy’s options of diplomacy, economic, military soft power should all be part of Australia’s strategy in our future engagement in Afghanistan.

In summary, our engagement in the Afghanistan war is not about human rights or liberating the Afghan people. If it were, we should be in many other countries as well. Nor is it about being a compliant partner of our allies, particularly the USA. This is as much our problem and our war as it is that of our allies. Securing the safety of the Australian people is no longer simply a matter of securing our own borders. This war was about attacking a terrorist organisation which presented a threat to all of the Western world, including Australia. That makes it a just cause. It is about Australia sharing responsibility on a matter of mutual international interest with our allies, and that makes it a just cause. I do not want to see any more ADF lives lost, nor do I want to see any more civilian lives lost because of the acts of terrorists.

I will finish with this remark. Last Thursday I attended the Remembrance Day service in my electorate. I was approached by the mother of an ADF member who is serving in Afghanistan. The mother was in tears when she asked me to strongly argue the case that Australia should withdraw from Afghanistan. She was in tears because every time her phone rings or there is a knock on the door, she is concerned that it is the phone call or the knock that tells her about her son. I understand exactly what she was saying to me. I may not understand how she feels, but I understand the point she was making to me. And I do understand that there would be so many other mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters in exactly the same situation. That is why I would like to see an end to this war sooner rather than later.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Makin and also those made by other speakers on this subject. I rise to speak on Australia’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan. For me, this is an excellent opportunity not only to reflect on and review Australia’s role in the war but also to ponder what is in the hearts and minds of Australians.

Before I start, I would like to state that I have a deep respect and admiration for Australian soldiers past and present. With Remembrance Day just last week, this is an opportune time to discuss this issue—keeping in the forefront of all our debates the memories of those who have passed—and to try to put into perspective the current situation and the future of those currently serving for Australia overseas. To those soldiers—some 1,550 of you—currently deployed, as well as to the many more who have been to Afghanistan and theatres around the world, and also, sadly, to all Australian troops who have lost their lives, and to those who have been seriously wounded: we must recognise that you have paid the price that many of us in this place talk about but have never experienced. While we are here today talking about the war, Australian men and women are living the war. They are at the coalface.

There are a number of reasons why this debate is timely. The politics surrounding the war in Afghanistan have changed. There are new elements reshaping the war debate, including a high number of Australian casualties, particularly this year; operational concerns from the troops, in particular with regard to leaked emails; three soldiers facing charges; national weariness of the nine-year war effort; and a lack of understanding as to why Australian troops are in Afghanistan.

This debate is not as simple as being prowar or antiwar, as some would want to believe. Our involvement is woven into the complexities of Afghanistan and into an ongoing commitment that has exceeded all expectations. If we are having a debate on whether or not Australian troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, we are really articulating a concern at the long nine years of Australia’s involvement and our generational commitment to the US-Australia alliance. Are we prepared, as the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said, to be involved in Afghanistan for the next decade at least?

The commitment is the issue that needs to be addressed. We should remember the reasons for deploying troops to Afghanistan were born after 9-11. It was the start of our commitment to the war on terror, and that commitment had Australia-wide support—even from the Greens. Senator Bob Brown, in a speech in September 2001 in the other place, described 9-11 as an ‘awesome tragedy’ in and a ‘heinous terrorist attack’ on the United States. Australia’s deployment was viewed as necessary to combat further potential terrorist attacks.

We have now been committed to Afghanistan for nine long years, and some Australian people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable. It appears we have no tangible outcomes and no end in sight. The confusion speaks to the heart of why our young men and women are still in Afghanistan. This is another reason why this debate is so important. The Australian people want reassurance that we are there fighting a just fight.

Australians only need to ask the troops who serve in Afghanistan for that reassurance. I have been privileged to speak to some of the fine young men and women of Australia who have served our nation in Afghanistan, and they believe they are there for the right reasons. Australians believe the primary motivation for our troops continuing their deployment in Afghanistan is to ensure that it does not again become a training ground for terrorists.

The threat of terrorism continues to be a real threat for all Australians. Nearly 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks over the past 10 years which have been planned and executed from terrorist safe havens within the mountains of Afghanistan. Australians have, unfortunately, been victims of a number of targeted terrorist attacks, including Bali in 2002, the Australian embassy in Jakarta in 2009, the London train and bus bombings in 2007, Bali again in 2005, and the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta in 2009.

I was recently reminded about the Bali bombings and the effect they had on all Australians and their families and friends when I attended the Bali bombing dawn memorial service in Kings Park on 12 October. I was joined by my colleague the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, in a moving ceremony that was attended by many people in Perth. Some were survivors and others were friends or family of the victims of these terrorist attacks. The memory of those Australians who died and those who survived these attacks will never be forgotten by these people, and all Australians should never forget them.

These Australians remain a stark reminder to us all about the reality of terrorism. If we are to continue the war against terrorists then we need to continue to ensure that there are no safe havens for them in countries like Afghanistan. We must remain vigilant to safeguard all Australians, and no more Australians should lose their lives because Afghanistan has served as a safe haven for terrorists to train.

Are we in Afghanistan to honour our alliance with the US? For some Australians the idea of Australia being in Afghanistan purely to keep the Americans on side does not sit well. Australians need to be reminded, however, that we have a responsibility to join with the US and its partners under the sanction of the UN to continue to achieve the mission in Afghanistan, and the mission clearly has not yet been achieved. The US has also supported us not so long ago with occupations of East Timor and the Solomon Islands in 2003. Our alliance with America cannot be the primary and only reason for staying; however, it forms part of a broader strategy.

So why are we in Afghanistan? There are a large number of reasonable explanations, including to uphold ANZUS; for Australia’s self-defence; to capture Osama bin Laden; to dismantle the Taliban; a commitment to be part of the war on terror; to help avert further terrorist attacks in places like Bali; for human rights, in particular liberating Afghan women; and to set up a democracy or training the Afghan National Army—all of which are just reasons to be there. However, we have seen the government change the focus on our involvement in Afghanistan over the past two years, which the member for Makin mentioned during his speech. What started as an anti-terrorist focus has now become the mentoring and training of Afghan soldiers to ultimately take responsibility for upholding the safety and security of their people.

Since the change of government in Australia in 2007 and the US in 2008, the mission in Afghanistan has changed, with the central focus now geared towards ensuring that Afghans take over responsibility for their own security. We must support the stabilisation of the Afghan state through the combination of civil, police and military training for local Afghans to enable them to achieve self-determination within a reasonable period of time.

In 2009, President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan that saw more troops committed and the long-term goal being a transition over to the Afghan government. Part of the new counterinsurgency strategy includes the COIN doctrine as laid out by General David H Petraeus. It aims to bolster economic growth, stability and Afghan goodwill toward their government with a strategy with a range of various components, including to hire Afghans first; buy Afghan products and build Afghan capacity; use contracting to hire Afghan workers and Afghan owned companies; and to consult and involve local leaders, develop new partnerships and contracts with a broader range of Afghan companies which will help break monopolies and weaken patronage networks that help breed resentment.

Progress in a counterinsurgency is gradual and achieved by degrees, village by village. It is a slow process, but there is no other way to achieve the goal. The success of Afghanistan can only be measured in the small wins that are happening day by day taking us closer to a secure Afghanistan. One of Australia’s operational objectives was to train the Afghan forces to the point where they can take responsibility for the Oruzgan province. That has not been achieved and is likely to take some years before that objective is achieved; however, the 4th Afghan Brigade are being trained and mentored to take control of Oruzgan so they can help build a secure place where the locals can live without fear of reprisals from the Taliban and other criminal elements.

So are the Australian troops making a difference? The answer is yes. Our troops are doing their job in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The terrain is inhospitable, the weather and the dust overbearing, and the insurgents are unrelenting. Despite this, our forces are fighting the good fight. Progress is slow but is being made. Not only military progress but trust has developed between our forces and the Afghan forces, forging a productive partnership.

The Australian Defence Force are involved in a number of projects across Afghanistan, including Oruzgan Province and Kandahar. They are engaged in operations, including those involved in reconstruction, mentoring, security, accommodation, infrastructure and countering the effects of improvised explosive devices. Australia is leading the way in training and promoting the development of the Afghan people in determining their own destiny. Despite various media reports on the war, with various experts saying it is unwinnable, it should be understood that the success of this conflict will not be achieved through military means alone. Success will also be measured by ensuring that the local population is protected and separated from the insurgents.

Now we come to the question that lies at the heart of the debate: when is the right time for Australia to withdraw troops? When can our troops come home? Looking at the withdrawal of other international forces: in August the Netherlands withdrew most of its 1,950 troops from Oruzgan; the Canadians are expected to commence withdrawing their 2,830-strong troop commitment as of next year; Poland’s 2,600 troops will leave Afghanistan in 2012; indications are that the British will commence the withdrawal of their 10,000 troops in 2014 and 2015; the US have said that they will commence standing down troops in July next year; and, as to the remaining 90,000 troops, it is unclear when they will leave. The question is very difficult to answer. My colleague the member for Curtin has urged the government to not set a specific timeline for the withdrawal of Australian troops so that the Taliban do not use it to their advantage. I agree with the member for Curtin that we need to be very careful about how and when to start withdrawing our troops. We need to ensure that our exit does not leave the country to implode. The best exit plan for Australian and international forces is to finish the job we have started. For Australia this means completing the task of training the 4th Brigade and ensuring that the central government is capable of containing and defeating the insurgency. To leave before that goal is achieved would hardly be the actions of a friend. It was recently reported that America’s plan to start withdrawing troops from July 2011 had given a morale boost to the Taliban, who believe they can wait out the NATO forces. Our forces should only withdraw when Afghan forces are ready and able to take over. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Afghanistan over the past nine years has been a dynamic problem, with the challenge of keeping up with the constantly changing conditions on the ground. Counterinsurgency campaigns are rollercoasters with advances and setbacks, which brings us to the fact that Australian troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan. This is a high price. This is the most heartbreaking aspect of war and nothing can come close to the loss felt by devastated loved ones left to carry on. I hope that families can take some comfort in knowing that in the heart of every Aussie soldier is a dedication and commitment to ensure Australians are safer across the world because of the job they are doing. We are all forever grateful. We must also not forget the lost lives of our allies and the Afghan people.

This war has not been easily fought. All sides have been hurt. There is no hiding from the reality. We are part of an international mission in Afghanistan and we should not walk away from our responsibilities. Australia has a moral obligation to fulfil its part. We need to finish the task. Our country was built on hard work and finishing a job properly. Those values are still important for us as a nation today. Mature governments do not cut and run ahead of their senior allies. From the start, Australia’s commitment was mandated by the UN and the invoking of the ANZUS Treaty. Many vocal minorities quote international agreements for issues that they say we must support, but they conveniently forget our treaty commitments when they are about an issue such as Afghanistan.

Before I close, I would like to mention that last week I saw a show that mentioned Captain Noel Chavasse who was in the Royal British Army Medical Corps during World War I. He died on 4 August 1917 after suffering a gaping abdominal wound. His gravestone is engraved with two Victoria Crosses—that is unique in itself—but the inscription on his gravestone is what I want to bring to the attention of the House. It reads:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

In recognising the spirit of the inscription of Captain Chavasse’s gravestone, this applies to all our brave Australians in Afghanistan and to every Australian who has fought for their country. Whether or not they believe in the reasons for being there, they must never have their commitment undervalued by those back home who did not make the decision to send them to war or by those who have never faced an enemy or had to make the decision to put their lives on the line for their country.

In closing, I support Australia’s continuing deployment to Afghanistan because the job is clearly not finished. To leave the job half finished would be an insult to all those Australians who have given their lives or who have been wounded during duty, believing they were making a difference and ultimately making the world a safer place for all Australians.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the statement by the Prime Minister on Afghanistan. The decision to go to war should be the hardest decision that any government should have to make. This decision to put our men and women in harm’s way is one that I believe that this government has not taken—and should never take—lightly. Our mission in Afghanistan is both dangerous and difficult. Australia has paid a high price. We should never forget that 21 Australians have lost their lives serving Australia in Afghanistan. I cannot imagine the anguish and despair of losing a loved one in combat and I would like to put on the record my profound sympathy for those families and loved ones who have.

But, in spite of this mission being both dangerous and difficult, I do support the government’s commitment in Afghanistan and believe it is an important commitment that must be maintained. In this age of global terrorism, our work in Afghanistan is necessary. If terrorists harboured by the Taliban were allowed to regroup in Afghanistan, the security of Australians both at home and abroad would be in jeopardy.

September 11 2001 was a stark reminder of the realities of terrorism. The more recent attacks in Jakarta and Bali serve as a grim reminder that terrorism is not confined to the Middle East, the Americas or Europe. Australia’s commitment to the mission in Afghanistan is dedicated to minimising the threat of terrorism, rectifying human rights abuses in Afghanistan and ensuring the development of a stable and secure Afghanistan. Inaction and withdrawal by coalition troops will arguably lead to a power vacuum which would be filled by non-state actors, extremists and radicals, further hampering the Afghan people’s efforts to establish themselves as a viable nation-state.

Recently the UN Security Council unanimously renewed the International Security Assistance Force’s mandate in Afghanistan. The UN has affirmed its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan. This is an important point. The mission in Afghanistan is not a unilateral decision of any one country but a multilateral commitment made by the international community with 47 countries acting under this mandate.

This debate on the Prime Minister’s statement has been extremely comprehensive. Many previous speakers have outlined in detail the objectives and details of our mission in Afghanistan. Therefore I am not going to repeat what many of my colleagues have already placed on the record. But I do want to comment on the importance of providing support to our troops and their families. There is no denying that the recent past has been an exceptionally tough period for our troops in Afghanistan. On a daily basis they face dangerous conditions. The threat of improvised explosive devices is ever present. Afghanistan is a place where any rock or tin can may be one of these explosive devices and where enemy combatants do not wear uniforms. Our troops face a dangerous environment, a compromising terrain and an arid climate with scorching days and cold nights. Our troops are exposed to constant turmoil and threat: 156 Australians have been physically wounded in the war in Afghanistan, which has left them with the physical scars of war. But there are also the scars that we cannot see. History has shown us that the psychological toll of combat can also be debilitating. Both physical and psychological wounds can have a long-lasting impact. For many of our troops in Afghanistan this is not their first deployment. Many have been on multiple deployments not just in Afghanistan in recent years but also to East Timor and Iraq. Many of our troops in Afghanistan have been exposed to near misses and witnessed their mates injured or even killed.

It does not matter how resilient, capable or trained our soldiers are; these conditions will take their toll. For some it may result in mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder is believed to develop as the result of a human brain not completely processing a traumatic event. The results of this are debilitating and include invasive memories, hypervigilance, nightmares, loss of concentration, guilt and irritability. Therefore, post-traumatic stress disorder is an inevitable side effect of war that some of our troops may suffer from. As a government and as a society, we must ensure that our troops who serve our country get the support they need when they need it. We must ensure that there are no barriers for our defence personnel in obtaining mental health treatment.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 found that stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health disorders was a significant barrier to American soldiers and marines returning from Afghanistan and Iraq accessing treatment. In fact the study reported that service personnel who were most in need of treatment for mental health issues did not access services because of the stigma associated with receiving care. Since then there have been a variety of studies confirming that stigma continues to be a barrier to military personnel seeking treatment for mental health issues. This is concerning because accessing help for conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues should not be viewed by service personnel or anyone else as embarrassing or a weakness.

We know that addressing mental health issues can significantly improve the lives of those affected. Studies have also shown that addressing mental health issues can increase retention of personnel in the defence forces. As a government and a community we need to ensure that everything is being done to support those service personnel who are affected by mental health issues and work to reduce any stigma that may exist about accessing help, both within our defence forces and in our wider society.

We must not make the mistake that we did when previous war veterans returned home. Many have told me they were provided with little recognition of and support for their physical and mental health difficulties. The Vietnam War saw many soldiers return to Australia with no real support. They were expected to come back and just get on with life. Many were not offered support, understanding or the opportunity to talk about their experiences. For some, this led to lifelong issues that have been debilitating and have severely impacted their quality of life for decades. For many it took years to get help for some of the issues they were experiencing. Therefore providing prevention and early intervention services for our personnel is critical.

I am pleased that the Gillard government has taken the area of mental health in our armed forces seriously. Upon election in 2007 the government initiated a review of mental health care in the Australian Defence Force and transition to non-military life. The government accepted the majority of recommendations in this report. I have been advised by Minister Snowdon’s office that the Department of Defence department is now implementing these recommendations, with the enhancement of the ADF mental health workforce being the main priority.

It is not only service personnel who are affected by deployment to Afghanistan and other war zones. It is the families as well whom we should not forget when our service personnel are deployed. My brother is an Air Force pilot and has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and I have seen the anxiety and stress that those deployments have had on my family, especially my mother. The anxiety and stress that family members suffer is real. For some families the worst-case scenario they fear does indeed occur and they lose a loved one. We need to make sure that families in this worst-case scenario get all the support they deserve. Ensuring that families are prepared for their loved ones to be deployed has been found to be a very important factor in improving the family’s resilience. Ensuring there is support for soldiers and their families upon their return is also critical. Some of our Defence Force personnel may have difficulty readjusting to their lives in Australia after returning from deployment, and it is important that once again the appropriate support is available for them and, importantly, their families as well.

Our mission in Afghanistan is a difficult and dangerous one. It is a mission that I believe we should not abandon. If coalition forces were to withdraw there could be serious consequences for global security. Our troops in Afghanistan are doing a professional job on the ground but, as I have said, it is dangerous. It is important that while we continue our work in Afghanistan we do not forget that this mission could have a significant impact on our personnel on the ground and their families. We must support them.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Afghanistan. It seems that every Australian has an opinion on whether our troops should remain in Afghanistan or whether they should be withdrawn, and I think that debate is quite good and proper. We are all asking ourselves ceaseless questions like: should we stay in Afghanistan or should we walk away; are we making headway or is it a lost cause; and have we matched our military might with social and economic reconstruction? I might say by way of an aside that the lessons of previous conflicts should have told us that we need to put a lot more into social and economic reconstruction.

Of course, if we abandon our course prematurely, we are simply surrendering Afghanistan to authoritarian governments or to warlords or, even worse, to terrorist organisations that would possibly run the country, as they have in the past—organisations which will invariably carry out attacks on foreign soil or allow the training of people who will carry out attacks on foreign soil. The fact that so many terrorists and would-be terrorists have admitted to training in Afghanistan demonstrates the depth of the problem. Those of us who have seen Australians killed in Bali or in the London underground bombings should be in no doubt of the capacity of these terrorists—and that is saying nothing, of course, about other occasions and near misses at Australian and American embassies and the dreadful events on the Spanish railways. They are other examples of training that occurred in that country.

It is important that all views are aired and it is important to support the men and women who are carrying out their duties in what must be the most hellish of circumstances. It is absolutely pivotal to this debate that we understand the broader implications of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. We must take into account Afghanistan’s history, its current situation and its likely future. We must consider international alliances and security matters, Australia’s role in Afghanistan up to this point, the welfare of our troops, the wishes of Australians and the deeply held sentiment of people that we must finish the job in Afghanistan as a fitting tribute to the 21 Australian soldiers who have been killed to date.

Bearing in mind the parliament’s bipartisan commitment to remain militarily engaged in Afghanistan, it is timely to re-examine our role in reshaping that country—and, of course, that goes beyond the military. For hundreds of years Afghanistan has experienced conflict and strife—strife that we as a nation have never known but strife that has gone on there for literally hundreds of years. History tells us that whenever a foreign power has tried to exert influence over Afghanistan, that particular country has come off second best. You can trace that back to colonial Britain or, more recently, to Russia. They are just two of many examples of countries that have tried to use their influence in Afghanistan. So we must be cautious in our endeavours.

I believe we must stay the course in Afghanistan but we must also have a roadmap and benchmarks for our eventual withdrawal from that country. For the sake of our troops, their families, their friends and all Australians, we need to know when that job is done and not just stay on in some endless continuum.

As developed nations forge closer ties and become more and more engaged with the internet and so on—in other words, as we become a more global community—it is ironic that the gap between Afghanistan and the rest of the world widens. It is a nation which faces enormous challenges, and not just in the political sense. Geographically, Afghanistan has some of the most hostile terrain on earth and its people struggle for basic subsistence.

Almost 44 per cent of the population in Afghanistan is aged under 14. Corruption is rife and public infrastructure, as we all know, is diabolical. Unemployment runs at 35 per cent and roughly the same percentage of Afghans live below the poverty line. And per capita, Afghanistan’s GDP is only $1,000. It is also the world’s largest producer of opium—an illegal crop. Throw into that mix constant armed conflict and terrorism and you have about as grim a situation as you can imagine. Clearly, there is a hell of long way to go before peace and prosperity will be created in Afghanistan. So the goals must be military, political and social if we are to achieve genuine results in Afghanistan.

Our troops are there to make a difference, and I believe they are doing just that. Our nine-year presence in Afghanistan is only second in Australian memory to our engagement in the war in Vietnam. On that point, I want to come to another aspect of our engagement in Afghanistan, and that is support for our troops. I hope that I am not being unduly critical but I am not convinced that it is all that it should be. I want to take you back to Vietnam and, in particular, to the Battle of Long Tan to make a point about the importance of support capability for our troops in the field. While I accept that Australia’s role in Afghanistan is quite different from its role in Vietnam, and also the environment in Afghanistan—the desert and hostile terrain that I was talking about before—is quite different from that of Vietnam, the need for support for our troops in Afghanistan is as paramount as it was in Vietnam.

In the Battle of Long Tan, 105 Australian troops, with some support from RAAF helicopters and a contingent of APCs, took on an estimated contingent of 2,500 North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong. The odds of 105 to 2,500 are just enormous. Even though those odds were overwhelming, the Australians prevailed. But what was seminal to that battle—and I have heard it from people who actually served there, even the commanding officer in the field, the commander of D Company of 6RAR, Major Harry Smith, now Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, who was decorated for his exceptional leadership and bravery on that day—was the strategic nature of New Zealand, Australian and American artillery units who provided a carpet of fire into the rubber plantation where the battle was occurring. Harry Smith makes no secret of the crucial nature of the artillery fire and of the helicopters which brought in ammunition at the height of the battle. Imagine his situation: he was right at the front of the firefight, with his New Zealand artillery officer beside him. They were both lying face down in a puddle of muddy, swampy water, trying to raise their heads just enough to keep them out of the line of fire to call down a withering barrage of artillery from the three units that were literally metres in front of them. He says that that was the turning point for them. The only way that they could have won that battle was with the support of the RAAF helicopters and that barrage of fire. It was scary, it was frightening but it was crucial and decisive. In fact—and I just say this by way of an aside—it is said that, if they had not won the battle on that day, the Australian base at Nui Dat would probably have been attacked by those 2,000-plus North Vietnamese troops. Contrast that with the situation in Afghanistan where the Dutch helicopters stayed at 5,000 metres above our troops at Deh Rawood, out of the firefight but broadly in support of the troops. This is not a criticism of the Dutch helicopters—they had to make the call on that day—but, rather, a call for an integrated Australian capacity where the Australian commanders in the field can make those decisions and call on Australian backup.

I was disappointed by the criticisms made of the shadow defence minister, Senator Johnston, when he called for better Australian support. Honourable members would know that there have been too many delays in military procurement in this country. I am not criticising the current government or the previous government; I am just talking in broad terms. There have been too many delays, too many changes and too many cost blow-outs of all sorts in defence procurement. When I hear of troops wanting to buy different shoes or not being happy with their flak jackets and the like, it gives me a sense of unease. Our people have to have the best support, whether it is in their personal equipment or in having other forms of backup. General Jim Molan said we should have tanks in Afghanistan. We need to take notice of people who have been in these sorts of situations and can make a judgement. If a soldier says something to me about his equipment or his backup, I am more likely to listen to him than to a Defence spokesman.

In the remaining few minutes I would like to back up my colleague the member for Kingston and say how important it is to have support for the families. Just last week we had a friend around for dinner—and you do not realise the impact of this until someone close to you is in this situation. Her daughter’s husband, her son-in-law, was killed in Afghanistan just a few months back. Of course, once the funeral is held and the tributes are paid and the troops return to the field, there is a lonely widow and two children. The lonely widow is so wracked with grief that she suffers from clinical depression and has to go to hospital. When you see that at close quarters you call for another form of support, as the previous speaker did—support for the families—and no support is too much.

My colleague also made a very good point about support for returning troops. Again, I spend a lot of time in my electorate with Vietnam veterans, for whom I have a great affection. We ran a health program for them—I cannot remember its name—through the YMCA. I remember that, when I went to the graduation of these ex-servicemen who had been through this health course and this physical exercise, two of them told me that they were on the verge of suicide at the time they took that course. So, in closing, in talking about support and in examining what we do on the ground in Afghanistan, we should also remember the families that have been left behind and the troops who suffer psychological damage from these conflicts.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Hinkler and the member for Kingston for raising the very important issue of post traumatic stress disorder. We have seen the ramifications of that for veterans in all wars—of course, in World War I they called it shell shock. There should be no shame in reaching out and admitting that you have a problem and seeking treatment, and we have to be much better this time round at offering that treatment.

This is an incredibly important debate for the parliament to have because it involves the welfare of Australians and the safeguarding of our national interest. It is an important debate for the parliament to discuss and think about the great challenge of our age, which is the dangerous combination of transnational terrorism and failed, lawless and chaotic states. I support our mission in Afghanistan and I support our ADF personnel, our federal police and our civilian aid agencies who are undertaking that mission. Having seen ADF personnel at work in the field in Afghanistan as part of the parliamentary exchange program and having met many of them in my electorate of Wakefield at RAAF Base Edinburgh, I have seen the professionalism, maturity and decency that they bring to a dangerous and hostile environment in Afghanistan.

Our thoughts in this debate are with the families of those who have made the greatest sacrifice, with the wounded and with all those who serve our nation. This conflict does serve as a reminder of the generations of Australian servicemen who have made many sacrifices big and small to protect our liberty and more often than not the liberties of people from many distant places around the globe. We must remember that those sacrifices do not stop with one generation; they echo down the generations and they define our nation as a beacon of liberty, justice, mateship and democracy.

The history of Afghanistan should weigh heavily on this debate because Afghanistan has been fought over the centuries in what was described in the 18th century as the great game. Prior to the first British-Afghan war, Mountstuart Elphinstone, the former Governor of Bombay, wrote to a friend:

If you send 27,000 men up the Bolan pass to Candahar (as we hear is intended), and can feed them, I have no doubt you will take Candahar and Caubul and set up Soojah; but for maintaining him in a poor, cold, strong and remote country, among a turbulent people like the Afghans, I own it seems to be to be hopeless.

The British found Afghanistan an easy place to invade and a very hard place to hold. I have one of the Rats of Tobruk in my electorate. When I went round to see him prior to Anzac Day he showed me his medals. One of those medals was from Dunkirk, which he had neglected to mention. When I asked him how he came to be in the British Army he said he had actually joined up in the thirties and spent some time on the Khyber Pass. He is 90-odd now and it just goes to show you that some things do not change.

The Soviet Union also discovered this reality about Afghanistan. Despite their brutality, unrestrained use of force and conventional military advantage, they could not bring peace, order or stable government to Afghanistan. In the process of the invasion the Soviet Union destroyed Afghanistan’s agricultural economic base—which was fairly sophisticated—fractured its tribal society, exacerbated ethnic and tribal tensions, killed over a million Afghans, internally displaced two million more and then forced a further 5.5 million to flee abroad. That legacy is especially confronting when you consider that from 1880 to 1973 Afghanistan was largely stable and peaceful, and ruled through a combination of strong local governance and benign royalty. In fact, it was even possible to travel through Afghanistan—as many people did in the 1960s, following the hippie trail—with relative degrees of security.

The sudden withdrawal of Soviet forces, while celebrated locally and internationally, opened the door for an even more brutal period of civil war amongst warlords, with foreign interference, the Taliban and ultimately with the nation becoming a client state of al-Qaeda. Advocates of the sudden withdrawal of UN sanctioned NATO forces should consider that historical lesson. Those who imagine that Afghanistan can somehow be made good through sudden withdrawal, foreign aid and wishful thinking must face up to the murderous chaos that would ensue if NATO forces withdrew suddenly.

It should not be our desire, and it is not our desire, to permanently occupy Afghanistan but we can only withdraw when a relative degree of peace and stable governance is achieved. The real question that should be debated is how to bring peace to Afghanistan. In my opinion there are four pillars on which that peace may be based. The first is that we must embark on well-researched and intelligence orientated intensive counterinsurgency operations. Insurgencies are in essence violent competition for the state and, to be overcome, they must be met with careful and selective use of military force, with civilian aid and with good governance. These operations are being undertaken now, and that includes the training of the Afghan National Army—a direct part of the Australian mission in Afghanistan.

The second thing we must do in Afghanistan is disaggregate the threats. There is a tendency in this debate to roll a whole lot of people up in a bundle and call them all our enemy. I think we need to disaggregate those threats and understand the bewilderingly complex nature of Afghan tribal society and the difference in the threats we face and have a different strategy for dealing with each of them. It seems to me there are three main threats in Afghanistan. The first threat is that the Pashtun tribes may turn against us and wage a permanent insurgency. If that occurs, all will be lost. These tribes must be understood, and we must take into account the complex nature of their society, be mindful of their interests, be respectful of the code of Pashtunwali, which has reigned there for centuries, and resist the impossible task of imposing Western values on their communities. In short, we must make these tribes our allies, not our enemies, because Afghanistan cannot be peaceful or stable if Pashtun society is disrespected or ignored. We must seek an honourable engagement built on respect in order to create the conditions for peace, and marginalise those who would truly damage our national interests and international order.

The second of these threats is the Taliban, whose ranks range from thieves and thugs to religious zealots, and that group must be isolated and marginalised and forced into peaceful conduct through counterinsurgency campaigns. Force is necessary to provide unrelenting pressure on our part on the Taliban.

The third enemy, the final threat, is of course the most dangerous and the real reason we are in Afghanistan—al-Qaeda and groups like them who subscribe to Takfiri transnational terrorism and who have declared war on all civilised societies and all the world’s major religions, Islam included. I use the term ‘Takfiri’ deliberately, and for the benefit of the House I will provide a definition of the term. David Kilcullen, who is a counterinsurgency expert, uses his description because he thinks it is much more accurate than terms like ‘Islamic extremist’. In his book Counter Insurgency he describes the term as follows:

The doctrine of Takfiri disobeys the Qur’anic injunction against compulsion in religion and instead holds that Muslims whose beliefs differ from the Takfiri are infidels who must be killed. Takfirism is a heresy within Islam; it was outlawed in the 2005 Amman Message, an initiative of King Abdullah II of Jordan, which brought together more than 500 ulemas, Islamic scholars and Muslim political leaders from the organisation of the Islamic Conference of the Arab League in an unprecedented consensus agreement, a ‘unanimous’ agreement by Muslims everywhere as represented by their acknowledged most senior religious and political leaders. Al-Qaeda is Takfiri and its members are universally so described by other Muslims who they routinely terrorise.

Dr Kilcullen continues in his book:

I prefer it to the terms ‘jihad’, ‘jihadist’, ‘jihadi’ or ‘mujahadeen’ … which cede to the enemy the sacred status that they crave …

It should be understood that these Takfiri transnational terrorist groups threaten the Muslim world as well as our own. We must resist the notion that there is a clash of civilisations or religions and expose al-Qaeda for what they are—murderous heretics. We must isolate al-Qaeda from the Muslim world in order to destroy it, and we must seek allies in the Muslim world in order to do this. There is a great deal of overlap in the threats. Nothing is simple in Afghanistan, but we must disaggregate the threats as far as possible and have a different strategy to deal with each of them. Peace and stability can only occur if we understand the nature of the threat we face and concentrate on the true nature of our ultimate enemy—al-Qaeda and groups like them.

The third pillar to bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan is that there should be some movement away from the highly centralised government there. As I said before, previous periods of stability were characterised by highly decentralised governments. I believe that only by devolving democratic power back to the provinces and the valleys can we avoid civil war and eliminate national kleptocracy. A devolution of power is essential to bringing peace to Afghanistan.

The fourth and final pillar to seeking a stable and peaceful Afghanistan is to end the great game which has been played by a range of foreign powers who have sought to fight proxy wars with each other within Afghanistan’s borders. We must seek broad international and regional agreements that end the overt and covert support for warlords and extremists—and, basically, a different era in the great game must begin. We must foster regional security in exchange for an end to the money, aid and resources that have fuelled the civil war and the insurgency in Afghanistan. Safe havens can only be eliminated through diplomacy, and we should give no quarter to those who spread violence, terror and disorder around the world, because no state, religion or community is safe from that violence, terror and disorder. It seems to me that diplomacy is an essential tool for ensuring peace and stability.

Afghanistan once was peaceful and it can be stable and peaceful again. In the end, only Afghans can decide this, but they need our assistance and the world’s assistance. There are plenty of nations that have overcome barbarism and civil war, but in Afghanistan this can only occur with the help of the rest of the world and the goodwill of its neighbours. It is natural to have doubts, ask questions and seek knowledge, but we must not fool ourselves about the nature of the threat of al-Qaeda. It is as evil and unrelenting as any tyranny; it is as ambitious as any tyranny. Like fascism and communism before it, Takfiri terrorism is a political ideology of absolutes that cannot be reasoned with. We should remember the words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1938:

Before we cast away this hope, this cause and this plan, which I do not at all disguise has an element of risk, let those who wish to reject it ponder well and earnestly upon what will happen to us if, when all else has been thrown to the wolves, we are left to face our fate alone.

Our mission in Afghanistan is a reluctant duty—a duty we commit to knowing the terrible sacrifices that will be made in our national interests, in the interests of international stability and security and to protect the liberties, however small, of others.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important motion regarding Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. It is an opportunity to join with so many other members of the House and restate my commitment to our important engagement in Afghanistan. I have had the opportunity to hear a great many of the contributions that have been made in the House and in this Main Committee, including those of the last hour or so. I think that those contributions, by members from both sides of politics, showed the strength of our commitment, and the thought that went into them demonstrated a thorough grasp of the very difficult issues and challenges.

We of course reflect on the sacrifice of those 21 Australians. We reflect on those who have been injured in Afghanistan. We reflect on the pain of the families who have lost loved ones. And we think of those serving there today doing very important work not just on behalf of Australia but on behalf of the values of freedom that are the values of our country and other countries throughout the world.

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition outlined in great detail some weeks ago the important issues at stake. I will not at this stage of the debate cover each and every one of them. But, in reflecting on this statement just a few days after Remembrance Day, all of us who have spoken in this debate have made the following point about the terrible events of 11 September 2001, nine years and a couple of months ago. When those events occurred, the world community had a choice: to do something or to do nothing. The Taliban and al-Qaeda, which had wrought so much damage, in bringing in a new form and reign of terror had signalled that their ultimate aim was to carry out more September 11s, perhaps in different forms. Their ultimate aim was nothing short of the destruction of the values and the freedoms we hold so dear.

At that point in time, our country and other countries made a commitment. A lot has been said in the public arena and in the debate on this statement about the difficulty of engagement in Afghanistan. The previous speaker very eloquently ran through some of the history, and most of us are very familiar with the history and difficulty of engagement in Afghanistan. The point I would like to make is that at the time that we, the United States and the other allied countries commenced the engagement, no-one stated otherwise—there was no voice saying that the engagement would be short or easy. Everyone knew the history and the difficulty, but also the importance, of the task. In fact, I took the trouble to look back on some of the contributions that the then Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition and other senior frontbenchers on both sides made back in 2001 and 2002, and each side of politics made that point. It is natural to compare the length and difficulty of this commitment with that of conventional wars that have occurred in the last century. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that, World War II lasting six years, the length of the engagement has now been, obviously, 1½ times that of World War II. But it was known that that would be the case, and the fact that it was known and recognised went to the strength of the commitment and the purpose and necessity of the action.

In his recent book, Tony Blair makes this point very eloquently. I was reading this recently. He says that the goal was not simply to remove the Taliban but to replace them with a democracy to rebuild the country. This was not just a matter of idealism; it was also about understanding why Afghanistan had become a failed state, why it had become a breeding ground for terror and why it had descended into this horrible cruel mix of anarchy and despotism. Like it or not, from then on we were in the business of nation building.

I mention that because there is another world leader, a critical one at the time, who recognised exactly what was at stake. For those who think we should not be engaged in Afghanistan, the absolute point they need to confront is this: what is the alternative? The member for Kingston, the previous speaker on the other side, made this point. Some have said we should replace military action just with aid, as if aid can somehow be delivered in a country which would surely and quickly descend to the sort of place it was 9½ years ago. Those people need to state how they think this terrible scourge of terrorism can be dealt with. In our hearts what we know is that September 11 was a beginning, in one sense, of what al-Qaeda wants to wreak on a much larger scale. In fact, if we look back, things had begun before September 11—a long time before. Think back to the first bombing of the World Trade Centre.

I mentioned earlier our natural inclination to measure conflicts in periods of time that we have been conditioned to understand, through the history that has been taught to us and through conflicts that have occurred during our own lifetime. The great difference, as has been pointed out, is that we were then engaged with one nation; the conflict at hand is not a conflict between nations with borders, it is not a conflict about the sorts of things we have seen in previous conflicts, and it is going to be at so many levels a long battle. By that I do not just mean the physical military action in Afghanistan. The very freedoms that we cherish are at stake. To have confronted the reality of September 11 and done nothing was never an option. Similarly, to know what the consequences are of premature withdrawal means that there is no option. Our Australian troops are doing good work. It is a long and difficult process and at the end of it we want to see a better Afghanistan and, importantly, we want to see those roots of terrorism stamped out so that not just Australians but people around the world have this threat removed.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be participating in this very important debate on Australia’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan. It is a debate that is taking place in the ninth year of our involvement, and I think we can say that it is a war that Australians generally appear to have concerns about and may no longer support. Public support for the war has changed over the course of the last nine years and I do believe that a great number of Australians now are not supportive of Australian military involvement in Afghanistan. It is on behalf of those people, many of whom are my constituents, that I wish to make my contribution here today.

We have heard a lot about Afghanistan from many speakers, and many great contributions have been made. Afghanistan finds itself at the epicentre of a global paradigm which speaks constantly to us all of national security, of Islamist terrorism and of the war on terror. This is a somewhat narrow perspective and it has dramatic human consequences. These consequences very much include the loss of Australian and Afghan lives and the mass displacement of people seeking refuge. Ironically, in my own electorate some 150 young unaccompanied Afghani minors are currently being accommodated in the Melbourne immigration transit accommodation centre in Broadmeadows. So the reality of displacement is very much in my own electorate and in our neighbourhood. It is clear for us all to see and to try to understand.

The prognosis for resolution in relation to the war in Afghanistan has been assessed. It is often referred to as protracted and is often also considered to be a military success, but from time to time it appears to be described as outright hopeless. As I said, most Australians, including many of my constituents, are asking very pertinent questions. They ask me often and they have certainly been asking me over the course of the last nine years. The obvious question is: what is the war in Afghanistan all about? They want to know where it is leading and what the cost is of our continued involvement—not only to Australia but to the people of Afghanistan, to the region and to the US and all of our allies.

In her speech to the House, the Prime Minister did answer some of these questions. She pointed in particular to two very vital national interests that drive Australian involvement in Afghanistan. The first is to make sure that Afghanistan does not continue to be a haven for terrorists. The second, most emphatically, is that we are there to stand firmly by our alliance commitments to the United States. The Prime Minister also went on to make it clear that we would not abandon Afghanistan and that we will be engaged throughout this decade at least. I know that that has resonated with a lot of the public, particularly with a lot of people in my electorate. So the war appears to be a long way from being over and, despite little progress, it also appears that we intend to stay the course—that is another phrase that is very often used and linked to what we are doing in Afghanistan: ‘We intend to stay the course.’ A lot of people do not fully understand what that course is.

In 2003 I said in this chamber regarding the Howard government’s decision to commit Australia to war in Iraq:

I am a representative who cares about the reason our country went to war.

I also recall addressing an antiwar rally in Melbourne where over a quarter of a million Melburnians marched against the war in Iraq. The rally in Melbourne was part of a weekend of mass international protests which saw tens of millions of people out on the streets in over 600 cities and towns across the world.

At that time, the war in Afghanistan was seen as different. The attacks on the twin towers on September 11 did cast a very violent narrative, and the almost immediate association of Osama bin Laden with these horrific acts catapulted Afghanistan to the forefront of a new and dangerous threat, a threat the world and we here in Australia were not familiar with. It was easier to support Australian involvement in Afghanistan because there was a strong and obvious correlation between the killings on September 11 and the man who has come to personify the face of Islamist terrorism.

Iraq was a different proposition. There were questions about regime change, missing weapons of mass destruction and shifting geopolitical balances. Our involvement in Afghanistan seemed to have a nobler cause, especially so in light of the Bali bombings that so horrified our country and killed so many innocent Australians—young people who were just going about their business while on holidays.

I think this debate therefore gives us the opportunity to take stock—and many members have done that in the course of their contribution—and to examine what has become of our Afghanistan mission: what progress have we made? What have we achieved? Have the original objectives in going to war been met? In short, I think they have not been met: bin Laden has not been captured; al-Qaeda has not been eradicated but has, rather, been pushed into Pakistan, relocated but not defeated; stability and peace have not come to the people of Afghanistan or the region; and the allied troops are no closer today to resolving this theatre of war than they were nine years ago.

The renowned American journalist of Watergate fame, Bob Woodward, in his recent book Obama’s Wars, describes Afghanistan as a war bogged down with slow progress, almost no capacity to build a new nation and little or no prospect of victory. Indeed, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, made this concerning assessment:

… I don’t think you win this war; I think you keep fighting. It’s a little bit like Iraq … This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.

Concurring with this assessment of the military situation on the ground, Australia’s Brigadier Mark Smethurst, one of our top combat soldiers, said that our troops are overwhelmed and unable to defeat the Taliban. This prognosis is devastating, I think, and does not offer much hope for progress. It is therefore only logical that, given those cited assessments, we carefully and truthfully re-examine our commitment to this war—a commitment that places the lives of Australian soldiers and Afghani civilians at risk and a commitment on which we have failed to make decisive and definitive progress.

This quagmire is neither new nor unique. Putting aside renditions of George Santayana’s altered phrase that ‘those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’, we have been down this road before. I want to reflect on the words of Arthur Calwell, who stood against another infamous war that was both protracted and unwinnable, a war waged on the pretext of national security, the need to stop the spread of communism—those of you who have studied this war will recall the so-called domino theory and the yellow and red ‘perils’—and our commitment to the US alliance. I am referring of course to the Vietnam War.

In May of 1965, Arthur Calwell, leader of the Australian Labor Party, long before Australian popular opinion morphed into a groundswell of antiwar protestation, stated:

Our men will be fighting the largely indigenous Viet Cong in their own home territory. They will be fighting in the midst of a largely indifferent, if not resentful, and frightened population. They will be fighting at the request of, and in support, and, presumably, under the direction of an unstable, inefficient, partially corrupt military regime which lacks even the semblance of being, or becoming, democratically based.

A debate similar to this one took place in this country at that time. Our government’s commitment was espoused with the catchcry ‘All the way with LBJ’. It would, however, take Australian governments another decade to realise that Arthur Calwell’s assessment was indeed correct and that, perhaps, LBJ’s way was the wrong way.

I think Calwell’s words ring true today, as they did over 45 years ago. Afghanistan and Iraq have become the 21st century’s Vietnam for both the US and for us here in Australia. I do not intend, in expressing my views, to disrespect or devalue the sacrifices and the courage of our young Australians serving in Afghanistan. Rather, my objection to the war and our involvement goes to its purpose, the prospects of the mission itself and our ethical responsibility to those we send to fight in our name. I was here when the member for Makin made mention of the approaches—indeed, the pleas—that he has received from the mother of an Australian soldier, a mother who wants the member for Makin to support our soldiers being brought back home. We need to be conscious of that anxiety and concern here in Australia.

As we mourn the death of our fallen soldiers, we have to also reflect on the countless deaths of Afghani men, women and children who through no fault of their own have become the casualties and victims of a war they have no say in. Given the course, the prospects and the cost of our engagement, I believe it is now time for Australia to withdraw its troops, or to disengage from its military involvement in Afghanistan. The objective is to end terrorism by removing al-Qaeda and, sadly but clearly, together with our American allies, we have not achieved that objective. It is now clear that we cannot meet these objectives through a continuation of war.

It is my view that peace talks working towards a political settlement should commence almost immediately amongst the Afghani parties, and that includes the Taliban, mediated and facilitated by the United Nations. If this entails power-sharing with the Taliban, such a proposition should not be viewed as fanciful and intractable, but it should be seen as the way forward.

I want to refer to comments made by Professor Amin Saikal, who is the director of the ANU Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies. He recently wrote, and it is very important because he is right:

The problem of Afghanistan is not that the US and its NATO and non-NATO allies have not deployed enough forces and firepower. They have.

          …            …            …

The problem of Afghanistan is largely political, economic and regional. The corrupt, dysfunctional and nepotistic nature of the government of President Hamid Karzai is well documented.

Professor Saikal is correct in his assessment. We cannot resolve this issue by staying only on a military course. Dialogue and negotiation for political solutions are now the only viable option. And, again, as Professor Saikal notes:

It is now absolutely imperative for the UN Secretary-General to convene a regional conference with all five permanent members of the UN Security Council to establish such an agreement.

We will need to come to the realisation that we cannot choose who the Afghan people put forward to make peace. We must discard the idea that, if the Taliban were not there, it would be easier to manage Afghanistan’s transition into a peaceful and stable state.

After nearly a decade of being consumed by the monologue of war on terror, it is time that we commenced a dialogue on the politics of withdrawal: how to peacefully and effectively disengage our military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. As Australia we should—indeed, it constitutes our moral imperative—continue our commitment to the Afghani people through our technical and even our international aid programs. By calling for an end to the military engagement, we are not abandoning the people of Afghanistan. Instead, by supporting a peace process through dialogue towards a political settlement rather than a military solution, I believe we are providing the only real hope for peace, stability and prosperity for the people of Afghanistan, for the region, for us here in Australia and for all of the international parties involved in this conflict.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia’s contribution to the war on terror is absolute: the need to restore sovereignty to the people in Afghanistan, to promote universal values of liberty and democracy, and to ensure the security of Australia and our allies is paramount. There is a simple fact that those who do not support our troops in Afghanistan do not understand—that is, the war on terror is real, it is happening now and, if we do not take a stand, it will continue to haunt the world for generations to come. Let us not forget the same totalitarian Islamist movement we are fighting in Afghanistan was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people in New York on 11 September 2001, 202 people in the Bali bombings in 2002, 191 people in Madrid in 2004 and 56 people in London in July 2005. It is sad to say, but the list goes on and on. I say ‘people’, because it is not only the victims who have been affected; it is also their partners, their parents, their brothers, their sisters, their friends and their extended families—and, in some cases, children have had to deal with the loss of a loved one from the atrocity that is a terrorist attack.

I am full of pride to share the site of the Enoggera Barracks with the member for Ryan, Jane Prentice. Of the 1,550 troops that Australia has committed to Afghanistan, I am honoured to announce that the 6RAR Battalion is a significant contributor to the war effort. To the men and women of the 6RAR Battalion who are over in Afghanistan, who are about to go or who have been: as a nation we are privileged to have such fine representatives of a great nation furthering freedom and liberty across the world.

The Mentoring Task Force is led by the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, most of whom call Brisbane home. Involved in the Mentoring Task Force are several Brisbane based units, including the 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment, the 1st Field Regiment and of course the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. Australia’s military contribution to the International Security Assistance Force includes around 1,550 Australian Defence Force personnel, who are deployed within Afghanistan. Of these, 1,241 are deployed in Oruzgan province and around 300 in Kabul, Kandahar and elsewhere in Afghanistan. I am proud that Brigadier McLachlan at the Enoggera Barracks and the 6RAR are doing their best in leading the mentoring of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.

As an international community we need to promote the same freedom and democracy that we celebrate here in Australia. In the case of Afghanistan, we need to promote modernisation at the expense of extremism. We need to develop an environment where societies celebrate diversity through tolerance for everyone with the exception of the intolerant. This simply cannot be accepted in Afghanistan and anywhere in the Middle East or throughout the world with the Taliban and al-Qaeda active and recruiting people to their unjust and immoral cause. We simply cannot miss the opportunity to stand for liberty and freedom simply because the journey is a long and tough one. As a nation we simply cannot allow the threat of terrorism to fester and the oppression of Islamic fundamentalism to continue indefinitely.

The recent AUSMIN talks are a sign that Australia is here for the long haul and that we will only withdraw when certain conditions are met and not on any given time frame. I was glad to see that the US Secretary of State and US Secretary of Defence, in Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, share the same view as we have here in Australia. Can I also add that President Obama has recently recommitted to staying the course in Afghanistan. These recent comments by our American allies are an important reaffirmation of the US-Australia alliance by both countries.

The Taliban treatment of women and ethnic minorities is one of the worst, if not the worst, examples of Islamic fundamentalism the world has ever seen. There are positive signs appearing since the ISAF invasion in 2001. Under Taliban rule, Afghan women and girls were not educated beyond the age of eight and were not permitted to work. As a consequence of this, many of the teachers, being women, have now been forced to leave their jobs and the schools have been shut down. Women were not allowed to go to the doctor without a male relative, resulting in many illnesses that women face going unreported and without medical treatment. In the Taliban-run Afghanistan, women were regularly beaten. They were stoned, flogged to death and had their limbs cut off. But it does not stop there. At the peak of this tyrannical Taliban rule, windows in houses were blackened on the off-chance that someone saw a woman inside. This sort of behaviour would certainly not be accepted in Australia. We would not tolerate this type of behaviour if it were committed by any country in our region. So there is no reason why we should accept it in Afghanistan. We can look at three important development indicators that prove my statements. The literacy rate for men is 49 per cent and for women it is 18 per cent. School attendance in Afghanistan for boys is 66 per cent, yet for girls it is 40 per cent. The differences are appalling.

I am a Liberal because I believe in four fundamental freedoms: the freedom of the individual, the freedom of choice, the freedom to pursue excellence and the freedom to seek reward for effort. Under a totalitarian Islamic rule, none of these freedoms is achieved. This is another and just reason as to why we as a nation have committed troops to Afghanistan. In the defence of liberty we cannot allow these atrocities to continue or, at the worst, spread around the world in the form of sharia law, home-grown terrorism and transnational terrorist bodies—for all of which Afghanistan and the Taliban are fundamental and ideological nuclei.

To those people who wish to withdraw Australia’s military commitment to Afghanistan, I would like to make one important point and that is of the Spanish experience. In 2004 Spain was attacked by a terror cell associated with al-Qaeda. After that unfortunate and heinous incident, spurred by fundamental Islam, the government of Spain changed and the Spanish government started contemplating a withdrawal from the Middle East. But this did not change the fact that al-Qaeda was actively trying to continue to kill innocent, mainly Christian, civilians through terrorist bombings not only in Spain but throughout Europe.

Australia’s role in Afghanistan is equal in importance to our other counterterrorism efforts in the region. We are currently involved in policing, training and enforcement with Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Australia also engages with regional partners on intelligence sharing and gathering, through ASIO, ASIS and the AFP, and Australia is a major contributor to rebuilding efforts through AusAID.

Let us not forget what terrorist groups are capable of. We must not allow a recurrence of the Bali terror attacks in Indonesia in 2002 when 202 people, including 88 Australians, were killed, or the Jimbaran Beach attacks in Bali in 2005 when 26 were killed, four of those being Australians, or the 2009 Marriott bombings in Indonesia, where seven were killed, including three more Australians, by fundamentalists that were linked to the Taliban.

If as a nation we are serious about stopping these events, we must continue to support our military efforts. If we are willing to commit police and intelligence officers, why would we be unwilling to follow it though with troops on the ground in Afghanistan, which is the breeding ground and, more importantly, the training ground for international terrorism?

Since 2001, Australia has committed nearly $750 million in development and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. As of the last budget and this financial year, the annual AusAID budget for Afghanistan is around $106 million, which is delivered in line with the development priorities of the Afghanistan government’s Afghanistan National Development Strategy and through the World Bank’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund. Australian aid is being used to support agriculture and rural development, the promotion of good governance, the protection of vulnerable populations and for the improvement of efficiency and spread of basic service delivery to the Afghani people. While the coalition supports these contributions, we need to ensure that they are done with absolute financial integrity through all recipients and to ensure that the maximum amount can get to the people in need and not be used to perpetuate needless bureaucracies, which is so often the case with aid funding.

The idea that Australian troops or the ISAF engagement as a whole is making the Afghanistan situation worse is simply fanciful and utter rubbish. An article in the Australian recently showed a snippet of the attitudes of the Afghani people in Oruzgan province, where the majority of the Australian troops were based. They gave unqualified support for the Australian efforts in the region. The article began by saying that Afghans in Oruzgan province had painted a bleak picture if the Australian military contingent were to pull out and not be replaced. Most agreed that schools would close, people would retreat to their homes and major security gains made in the past few years would evaporate. The locals are supporting our efforts to train their police force and the locals are enjoying the new-found liberty and security that our Aussie soldiers are able to afford the Afghan people.

If we leave Afghanistan now, the situation will simply go back to where it was before we started. The girls schools will close, women will once again have no more rights, democracy will be dead and the community at large will be scared to leave their homes because of the sheer brutality of the Taliban. Australia’s deployment in Afghanistan needs our 100 per cent support. We owe it to the Afghans, who are relying on our support for their own security; we owe it to the international community in the support of liberty and security and the spread of democracy; and we owe it to all the Australians who have died in terrorist attacks at the hands of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and its networks. Most importantly, we owe it to the 21 diggers who lost their lives—three of whom were from the Brisbane area—and their families to finish what we are now so close to achieving. At a moving ceremony at Anzac Place in Brisbane on Remembrance Day, the RSL Queensland President Doug Formby acknowledged their great service to our great country. To those families in the Brisbane electorate who did lose loved ones, you have made the ultimate sacrifice and we are eternally grateful for your sacrifice. Your husbands, sons, brothers and fathers will not be forgotten.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend those before me who have made a thoughtful and considered contribution to what is a complex and difficult debate. I welcome this debate. Any engagement that puts the lives of Australian troops at risk deserves to be discussed openly and responsibly in this place. My focus today will be on military justice, but I will say this about Australia’s role in Afghanistan: we cannot let Afghanistan once again become a safe haven for terrorists who want to perpetrate attacks on Australia or our allies.

We all remember the September 11 attacks on New York, Washington and the Pentagon which brought the world’s attention to al-Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan. We all remember the 202 people who were killed, including 88 Australians, in the Bali bombing of 2002. We all remember the coordinated suicide bombings on London’s transport system on 7 July 2005. Each of these has been linked to al-Qaeda and activities in Afghanistan and each of these caused mass fatalities, including the loss of Australian lives. The decision by the former Prime Minister John Howard to assist the United States and our allies to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks was the right one. Unlike the war in Iraq, the decision to send Australian troops to fight in Afghanistan was bipartisan and done with a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.

Ours is a challenging and difficult mission in Afghanistan: protect the civilian population, train and equip the Afghan national security forces and improve governance and socioeconomic development in an emerging democracy. We intervened in Afghanistan, and remain there, because it is important to defend ourselves and our values. In World War II we stood and fought beside our allies to defend the values of freedom, respect for the law, fairness and democracy. The defence of these values is why we went to war in Afghanistan nine years ago and our commitment to these values is why we are still there today. These values are worth fighting for both abroad and at home.

To recognise that we are fighting to defend these values is to recognise that we must also uphold these values. There is an onus on us, as a nation which has repeatedly stood up and fought for fairness, equality and the rule of law, to enhance respect for these values in our own country and respect for our people. That leads me to the recent public discussion over the military justice system and the charges laid against three Australian soldiers while serving in Afghanistan. I do not know if these three men, one of whom is facing a charge of manslaughter, are guilty or not. If I did have an opinion it would be inappropriate for me to make comments that might tend to influence the outcome of proceedings against these soldiers.

It is the same situation for the Leader of the Opposition. But that did not stop him from shouting from the rooftops his disapproval of the military justice process, trying to score cheap political points by accusing this government of letting down the troops by allowing the process of military justice to take its course. Just as it is completely inappropriate for any member of this place to prejudice a criminal or civil trial by commenting on it publicly, it is inappropriate to go on Sydney radio and make the suggestion that by being put to trial these three soldiers are being—and I quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition—‘thrown to the wolves’.

The current system of military prosecution was set up under the Howard government. Its independence is paramount. The process must be free from political interference and it must focus entirely on the law and on the facts of the case, just like any other legal process in this country. That is crucial to confidence in the system and fairness for our men and women in uniform. Yet the independent Director of Military Prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade, has been under personal attack from some areas of the media, with derogatory references to her gender and her 23 years of service to military justice. How did the opposition leader respond to these attacks on Brigadier McDade, who was appointed, I would remind the House, by the Howard government? The opposition leader responded by staying silent when a talk show host referred to the brigadier’s ‘so-called’ independence. The opposition leader responded by creating a presumption that all soldiers have done the right thing. The opposition leader responded by falsely suggesting that the government had failed to assist in the defence of these soldiers—in short, he responded by involving himself in what should be an independent and apolitical process. This kind of rhetoric from the opposition leader is irresponsible and is yet another example of why he is unfit to be this nation’s Prime Minister.

The old adage that war is hell is true. It is ugly and dangerous, and I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to serve Australia in a war zone. But there are rules of engagement in war, and it is vital that the Australian defence forces conduct their activity within those rules. It is that insistence on compliance with the rules of engagement and that insistence on proper conduct even in the fog of war which differentiates us from our enemies. It is also worth pointing out that the rules of engagement for Australian troops in Afghanistan are consistent with the rules of engagement that the US forces are bound by. For Senator Johnston, the opposition defence spokesman, to say that he is disappointed that charges have been laid in this case and that this case going to trial is ‘counterproductive to our national interest’ smacks simply of political opportunism, especially when just two years ago Senator Johnston said in committee about Australia’s military justice system:

These statutory officers have to be completely independent …

But now Senator Johnston is willing to compromise the independence of our military justice system by publicly commenting on whether a case should be going to trial or not. This of course is not the first time that Senator Johnston has gone off on an irresponsible tangent when it comes to Afghanistan. A few months ago, he publicly said that Australian troops were poorly equipped and that more troops were needed. This stance was inconsistent with the expert military advice from the Chief of the Defence Force and senior officers of the ADF, and it was quickly recanted once the opposition leader went to Afghanistan and spoke to our troops on the ground.

We have an opposition leader and an opposition defence spokesman who seem determined to make unhelpful and irresponsible comments about a case which they have no particular responsibility for and no particular knowledge of—a case which is going through an independent process that was set up when the opposition leader was sitting at the cabinet table and, indeed, is being presided over by a senior officer who was appointed by the former government.

Neil James, the Executive Director of the Australian Defence Association, says that the fair trial these commandos deserve could be prejudiced by comments being made in the public domain. He understands that no-one in a position of influence—politicians, senior military officers or talkback radio hosts—should interfere in that independent process. One would hope that the opposition leader, of all people, understands why. To have a strong and credible military, you need a strong, credible and independent military justice system. We are fortunate to have both in Australia.

I conclude by paying tribute to the 21 brave Australian men who have given their lives on duty in Afghanistan. Their loss looms large in the hearts and minds of their families and friends, and indeed of all of us, and is a constant reminder to Australians of the ultimate sacrifice they have made to defend our freedom and our way of life.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact that we are holding this debate reflects a huge change in our world view. With the possible exception of the Russian invasion of 1979, for most Australians Afghanistan fell into the category of those faraway lands about which we knew little and cared perhaps even less. When the Russians departed, effectively defeated nine years later, the country sank back into obscurity—an obscurity broken only by occasional cries of outrage at the activities of the fundamentalist Taliban regime. Even then there were those both within and outside Afghanistan who argued that, whatever their faults, the Taliban were providing some measure of stability in what had become a ruined and lawless country. However, any tolerance of the Taliban and any measure of obscurity vanished with the tragic and barbaric events of 9-11. Afghanistan was revealed as the source of an evil—plotted and enacted on a scale that we had not seen before—that changed our perception of national security and national interest. It questioned our commitment to defending fundamental values and challenged us to act on our beliefs and help turn an impoverished and divided country into a stable, democratic nation.

Before I turn to those issues, I will say that it is above all the sacrifice made by our fellow Australians that has brought Afghanistan to the forefront of our national consciousness. Twenty-one Australians have been killed in action and 155 have been wounded. I wish to pay tribute to them all, but in particular I mention Sergeant Matthew Locke from my electorate of Cowper. Sergeant Locke from Bellingen joined the Army in 1991 and was posted to the 5th/7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, after he completed his training. In November 1997, he completed the Special Air Service selection course and eventually joined the 3rd SAS Squadron. He had a distinguished career, including service in East Timor and Iraq, and was awarded the Medal for Gallantry while serving in Afghanistan in 2006 for his actions when his patrol came under sustained attack from anti-coalition forces. I quote from the citation:

The courageous and gallant actions of Sergeant Locke were instrumental in regaining the initiative from the Anti-Coalition Militia and allowing the successful exfiltration of the patrol on foot prior to first light the next day.

Sergeant Locke’s actions of gallantry whilst under enemy fire in extremely hazardous circumstances, displayed courage of the highest order and is in keeping with the finest traditions of Special Operations Command-Australia, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.

He was fatally wounded in October 2007 by small-arms fire while on patrol in Oruzgan province in an operation to clear Taliban from an area around Tarin Kowt, where many Australian troops are based. I was privileged to be able to attend his memorial service in Bellingen. Throughout this debate we should remember that, when we talk about national security, national reconstruction, defending democracy, denying terrorists a safe haven, and many other abstract concepts, this is what it comes down to: a brave and committed soldier putting his life at risk in a foreign land, a memorial service in a small country town and a grieving family. Matthew Locke was just one of the 21 servicemen who have died.

There is much in the history of Afghanistan of which we should take note in an attempt to avoid previous mistakes, but we should also look into our own history and ensure that it is not just the dead we honour but the 155 wounded as well. We require a longer and more difficult commitment, but that is the very least we can do. Everything we say during this debate should be seen in the light of what we are asking our service men and women to do and in the light of the sacrifice that they may have to make. This is no academic exercise divorced from reality and dignified by the use of words like strategy, geopolitics and democratisation; for our service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan it is a reality, and it can be nasty, brutish and fatal.

I mentioned the history of Afghanistan in the context of our avoiding previous mistakes—but, to be more precise, its recent history is instructive. It has been invaded three times not for the resources it has but for where it is. In the 19th century, the British saw the country as a back door to British India through which the Russians would march if allowed. In 1839 the British dispatched a force of 21,000 men which succeeded in controlling enough of the country to install their own man on the throne in Kabul. The British withdrew the bulk of their force, leaving an occupying army of some 8,000 soldiers who were soon after allowed to bring their families to join them.

Resentment grew against the propped-up puppet government and the presence of foreign troops and their families, and a revolt broke out in 1841, leading to what the British thought was a negotiated retreat and safe conduct for the soldiers and their dependents. The retreat started in 1842, and in the depths of the Afghan winter the British were systematically slaughtered as they struggled through the snow. Only one man, Dr William Brydon, made it back to British territory.

In 1878 the British tried to send a diplomatic mission to Kabul in response to a similar move by the Russians. They were turned back at the Khyber Pass—through which many of the coalition forces’ supplies travel today—and their response was to summon an invasion force of some 40,000 soldiers, nearly twice the size of the previous expedition. Once again the British succeeded in gaining control of most of the country, and they established a British presence in Kabul.

All was well until September 1879, when all of the members of the British mission were killed in a rebellion. The rebellion was put down, but this time the British, learning from their mistakes, withdrew while they still had control and retained only two passes and oversight of Afghanistan’s foreign policy for their pains.

In a twist of history, it was again geopolitical concerns that led to the Russian invasion in 1979, ostensibly at the request of the then communist government in Kabul. The Russian forces rapidly became bogged down in a vicious guerrilla war in which they controlled only the main towns and connecting roads, and they eventually completed a withdrawal in February 1989. Around 15,000 Soviet soldiers and KGB operatives lost their lives; estimates of the Afghan dead range from 100,000 to two million people.

Five million people fled to neighbouring countries and two million were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, half the refugees in the world were from Afghanistan. In the midst of all this misery Afghanistan became one of the most heavily land-mined nations on earth. Thousands of its citizens were crippled or killed, and any attempt to restore subsistence farming to previous levels was seriously limited.

So what did we learn? That the Afghans have no love of foreign forces on their soil, whatever their reasons for being there; that the country is extremely difficult to control and supply; that the three major invasions could be regarded ultimately as failures; that inevitably the country’s professional classes would have been among the first people to leave; that we are dealing with a country in which tribal and family loyalties are far more relevant than dealings with any form of regional or national administration; and that we are dealing with a country that was shattered and brutalised even before the military actions of 2001.

A report on ABC Radio National noted recently that in Oruzgan province, where most of our forces are based in their training in rebuilding roles, the illiteracy rate is 95 per cent. How do you rebuild a police force, a health service and an education system when only one person in 20 can read and write? How can you rebuild on this scale while fighting a guerrilla war? The scale of the task is tremendous, and it is good at this juncture to remind ourselves why we are there. To my mind, arguing the case for our presence in Afghanistan is the easiest part of the whole debate. We are there because 111 Australians lost their lives in terrorist attacks linked in some way to the freedom that terrorists enjoyed in Afghanistan.

It is not that we are seeking revenge, but we want those responsible brought to justice and to deny another opportunity to those who would harm us. We are there because we have a treaty obligation to other countries, notably the United States, and because we as a country meet our obligations. We are there because it is simply the right thing to try to rescue and restore a failed, broken state and provide the Afghans with the things that we take for granted: adequate food, water, shelter, health services, education and freedom from fear.

I refer to the government’s national security statement, which aims to establish freedom from attack or threat of attack. The premise behind the action in Afghanistan supported by the United Nations resolution was that the Taliban regime allowed al-Qaeda to operate in the country and to use it as a training base. Most security analysts believe that al-Qaeda has been seriously weakened by the denial of its base and the fact that its leaders have been forced into hiding, probably in tribal areas of Pakistan. On the other hand, it is obvious that the support for the ideology of al-Qaeda remains strong and widespread, and if a weak or fundamentalist regime were in charge in Kabul there would be little doubt that the movement would quickly re-establish itself. Would it be a threat to Australia? Of course. Australians were killed in New York. Australians were killed in Bali and an Australian was killed in Mumbai. Slaughter aside, a resurgent al-Qaeda or its successor would have a measurable effect on international travel, commerce, communications, merely by its presence, let alone by any attacks it was to mount. There is no way that Australian citizens or Australia’s interests would remain untouched.

As I said, we also have treaty obligations. In the case of ANZUS, one which we must honour, failure to do so would be morally reprehensible, would damage Australia’s standing and, crucially, would send a signal to our enemies that we are not united. One of the principles of our national security is to support the UN in its efforts to promote rules based international order. This is an important reason for staying the course in Afghanistan.

This continuing conflict is not just about preventing loss of life; it is about values. It is about Australians standing up and saying that mass murder is evil and must be prevented. It is about standing up for tolerance, free speech and basic human rights, not least in Afghanistan itself. Put simply: to be part of an international presence in Afghanistan is the morally right thing to do; putting aside all strategic and political considerations, it is the right thing to do.

Of course doing the right thing is not always easy. We are trying to build a nation that had little to start with and has lost what it had. Many Afghans have fled. Many of those who remain have been brutalised by violence, poverty and insecurity. There is no civic structure as we know it. Our efforts in nation building will be undermined until the Taliban and other forces are finally defeated or, more likely, persuaded to become part of the process. That may seem far-fetched, but one only has to look at Northern Ireland to see where such a process can lead and the benefits that it can bring.

I note the Prime Minister’s statement that we will be in Afghanistan for at least a decade. I believe that this is a realistic assessment and that we should stiffen our resolve, support our troops in any way we can and get the job done. Only when the Afghan people as a whole feel they have something to lose, only when they feel they have an investment in their own country, will we have solved the problems of Afghanistan.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an honour to speak in response to the Prime Minister’s statement in the House on Afghanistan. We as Australians know that the vast majority of us do not and would never support terrorism. We would never subscribe to the notion that there is somehow justification for taking people’s lives for a particular cause or belief. Making a statement or a point by killing and maiming is simply abhorrent and totally unacceptable. On the other hand, many Australians do not like the idea of going to war whatever the justification, and in a sense this is what this whole debate is about.

We know the threat of terrorism in this country is very real. Only recently more plots to cause widespread death, injury, damage and public chaos in Australia have been uncovered by our intelligence and security agencies. Without any major events having occurred in Australia, it is sometimes difficult for us to imagine the scenario of a terrorist attack, but it only takes us a little reading through the details of plots that have been so far uncovered to realise how close we have already come to witnessing nightmarish scenes unfolding on our own soil.

It is clear that, among many Australians, there is difficulty accepting that Australia’s presence in Afghanistan is actually making a difference. There are doubts about our role in fighting terrorism on foreign soil. There are questions about whether, indeed, the point of us being there is to help stop terrorists. I have no doubt that Australia’s military presence in Afghanistan is making a difference and is helping to weaken the network of terrorists that use that country as a base.

We will never forget September 11 and the more than 3,000 people who died in the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Centre. And it did not end on September 11. Since 2001, some 100 Australians have been killed in attacks by extremists overseas. Amongst those, 88 Australians were killed in Bali in the first bombing there and four in the second in 2005, and our embassy has been bombed in Jakarta. In each of these cases, the terrorist groups involved had links to Afghanistan.

Australia went to Afghanistan to make sure it never again would be a safe haven for al-Qaeda. We went with our friends and allies, as part of the international community. We went with the support of the United Nations. As a result of our efforts in this war, al-Qaeda’s core leadership has been dealt a severe blow. Some have been killed, others captured, many have been forced into hiding and all have been forced onto the defensive. But al-Qaeda remains a resilient and persistent network. Our successes against it in Afghanistan are only part of our effort against terrorism. We are working to counter the rise of affiliated groups in new areas such as Somalia and Yemen, and the violent extremist terrorist groups in Pakistan.

I wanted to know what people in my electorate thought about Afghanistan, to prepare myself for this debate, and what they thought about Australia’s involvement in the conflict. To this end, we did some phone surveys of members in my constituency. We also went to shopping centres and I used Facebook to ask people their views on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. The response was mixed. Many do not agree with our troops being there. Some believe that, initially, Australia did the right thing by becoming involved but that the time to withdraw is now. Others think we should remain in Afghanistan until our objectives are achieved. We asked when or in what circumstances the respondents believed it was legitimate for Australia to be involved in international conflicts. Geoff said: ‘All the time.’ Deborah said we should be involved unless it involved harm to Australians. ‘If our country is threatened,’ was the reply that Christine gave. And James said that he believed that commitments to defence agreements must be upheld. Others in our survey were a bit more blunt. Ralph thought we should not, as he put it, ‘blindly’ support an ally and that we should be involved only when our national security was directly at stake. Warren and Deborah said we should be involved only if it affected Australia directly, and Rex said, ‘Not at all.’

We also asked the constituents what they thought about the Afghanistan conflict generally. A significant number of them said they believed that international intervention there had achieved little or nothing. Some thought there would never be peace in Afghanistan. Others thought Australia had done enough and should leave the Afghan people to resolve the conflict themselves. Judith told me that she thought Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan was probably justified initially but that the United Nations should do more to end the conflict. Mervyn believed we were only there because the United States was. Robert, himself an ex-serviceman, said the Afghanistan situation was ‘very sad’ but we should bring our troops home.

I also asked, as I said, my friends on Facebook—of which there were many—what their responses were to our involvement in Afghanistan. Julie thought there would always be fighting over there and that nothing would change no matter what the allied forces did. Cale’s view was that Australia should have had a bigger task force to scrutinise the situation in Afghanistan and check out why we would go to war there in the first place. He also said: ‘We can’t pull out without the system we put in place collapsing. But if we stay there all we are doing is spreading a growing dislike of the Western world.’ He went on to say: ‘If we are to stay there over the next 10 years, make it constructive: build schools, put in water pumps—that kind of thing. But, most of all, try to understand the people. If you win over their hearts this whole mission might not be a waste of time.’

Teresa wanted to relay the simple message that she was grateful for the diggers’ service in Afghanistan. Teresa said she had many American friends who were serving, including one now attending officer training school in the United States, and more than likely will serve another tour there. ‘It is dangerous work and I am very grateful,’ were Teresa’s words.

As we can see, the Afghan conflict is in the minds of most Australians. There are many and varying views about why we should or should not be in Afghanistan. It is fair to say that there is widespread feeling in my electorate on the Central Coast that Australia’s involvement should at least be fully reviewed—and that is what this debate, in some ways, is about. This is understandable, given the length of time and the cost of the international military presence. The allied forces have been in Afghanistan a long time—nine years. But we have to remember that if the insurgency in Afghanistan were to succeed, helped significantly by a withdrawal of the international community, then Afghanistan could, once again, become a safe haven for terrorists.

We must always think about al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill. They and their partners are very good at all of those things. We cannot afford to drop our guard when it comes to this very fearful and ruthless organisation. I have very little doubt that withdrawal of the allied presence in Afghanistan would present the opportunity for resurgence in al-Qaeda’s influence, and the propaganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enormous.

Our troops have a clear goal and so do our partners in the international community: to deny terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan. Let us have a quick look at what has been achieved so far. Removing the Taliban government in 2001 and pursuing al-Qaeda in the years since has made a crucial difference in preventing terrorist attacks. From 2001 to mid-2006, US and coalition forces and Afghani troops fought relatively low levels of insurgent violence. The international force in Afghanistan was focused on a stabilisation mission and there were no Australian units deployed in Afghanistan between December 2002 and September 2005.

Through this period, few would now argue, US and international attention turned heavily to Iraq. Australia’s substantial military involvement in Afghanistan resumed when the Special Forces Task Force was redeployed there for 12 months from September 2005 in support of international efforts to target key insurgents. Violence increased further in mid-2006, particularly in the east and the south. Due to significant intimidation and the absence of effective governance in many rural areas, some Afghanis turned to the Taliban at this time.

The mission moved to a counterinsurgency focus. Australia’s contribution increased from October 2008 as we took a growing role in training and mentoring in the southern Afghanistan province of Oruzgan. However, the international counterinsurgency mission was not adequately resourced until 2009. In December 2009 President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan and a surge of 30,000 US troops. NATO has contributed more; so has Australia.

Australia has two vital national interests in Afghanistan: (1) to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where attacks on us and our allies begin, and (2) to stand firmly by our alliance commitment to the United States, formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. The overarching goal of the new strategy is to enable transition—that is, to prepare the government of Afghanistan to take lead responsibility for its own security—but our vital national interests in preventing Afghanistan being a safe haven for terrorists who attack us and in supporting our allies do not end with transition.

Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists. Australia’s key role in that mission—training and mentoring the 4th brigade of the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan—is expected to take two to four years, and President Karzai has said the Afghan government expects the transition process to be complete by the end of 2014. This means the Afghan government will take lead responsibility for security. The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014, and Australia will remain engaged.

There will still be a need for Australians in a supporting role. There will still be a role for training and other defence cooperation. The civilian-led aid and development effort will continue. And we will continue to promote Afghan-led reintegration of former insurgents who are willing to lay down their arms, turn their backs on terrorism and accept the Afghan constitution.

Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan does make a difference. The government support the new international strategy and we have supported the surge. Australia has increased its troop contribution to Afghanistan by around 40 per cent in the past 18 months. We now have around 1,550 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan. Our military force is complemented by around 50 Australian civilians. Earlier this year we took over leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Oruzgan to spearhead our civilian efforts and increased our civilian commitment to Afghanistan by 50 per cent. In fact since 2001 we have committed over $740 million in development assistance to Afghanistan.

The new international strategy is in place. The elements of the surge to support the strategy are now reaching full strength. Afghanistan is a war ravaged country that faces immense development challenges. While the challenges are huge, there are many tentative signs of progress to date. The Afghan National Security Forces are being mentored and trained. The Afghan National Army is becoming increasingly capable and is supporting coalition operations more effectively. Nearly 85 per cent of the army is now fully partnered with ISAF forces for operations in the field. Afghan forces are now in the lead in Kabul.

The ability of the Afghan government to provide services to its people is being built. In primary education, enrolments have increased from one million in 2001 to approximately six million today, and some two million of these enrolments are girls—there were none in 2001. In basic health services, infant mortality decreased by 22 per cent between 2002 and 2008 and immunisation rates for children are now in the 70 to 90 per cent range. In vital economic infrastructure, almost 10,000 kilometres of road has been rehabilitated and 10 million Afghans now have access to telecommunications compared to only 20,000 in 2001.

Australia will do everything in its power to ensure Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorists. Like my constituents, I think many of us have mixed views about the war in Afghanistan, but what we can say is that, once we made that decision to go there, we could not simply abandon Afghanistan midway through the process. To do so would simply provide al-Qaeda and other terrorists with a propaganda victory. It would mean turning our back on the work that we have done as part of the international community in trying to make a difference in Afghanistan.

Of course, we cannot speak about Afghanistan without turning our thoughts to the professional soldiers of the Australian Defence Force and their families, who have made such a commitment over these years. They are proud people. These soldiers offered their lives to make sure that this mission was successful. They embraced wartime sacrifice as their highest duty and in return they look to us for wisdom and guidance. Our highest duty is to make wise decisions about this war and ensure that the mission we set ourselves—to make Afghanistan an unsafe haven for terrorism—continues so that Afghanistan can be part of the international community. These are issues that we need to continue to work on.

Our commitment to Afghanistan will not be over quickly. Our commitment to Afghanistan will continue to attract mixed views in the electorate and invoke some controversy. One of the great things about this discussion that we are having is that it enables MPs like me to talk directly to their electorates about their views and to better inform the electorate regarding the motives around why we are there. More importantly, it enables us to help our constituents understand the complexities of what we are doing there, the time line of our presence in Afghanistan and the nature of the mission.

It has been an honour to participate in this debate today on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. This is a very important debate for all Australians and I am very glad that I have been able to take part in it.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.