Well, fellow Australians, and other esteemed posters? A good idea or a bad idea?
For me, its the right thing to do. Australia has treaty obligations through ANZUS. The US gets attacked, Australia is obliged to support it.
There is a risk of opening Australia up to the risk of terrorist attacks too. Indonesia sits above our heads, and they’re pretty riled up right now.
But this is hardly an excuse not to do the right thing by an ally.
I would be interested to see how Australian SAS troops and US Special Forces interact, if they do at all. Despite the Kangaroo military exercises between the two coutries, its not like they have really trained together.
The fact that a small contigent has been sent I think doesn’t reflect poorly upon Australia’s committment (as I think it did in the Gulf War). This is not a big land war - its a different sort of operation requiring small units.
I think that the Taliban ambassador mocking the size of our commitment will probably piss a lot of Australians off.
We most certainly should have sent our SAS and our support vessels. I suspect that making a announcing a larger commitment than was originally envisaged has a lot to do with the federal election. This way, whoever wins the election can say that voters were well aware of the size and nature of the commitment and that they gave the winning party a mandate for it. I’m not thrilled about our ground troops going into one of the most heavily land-mined countries on Earth, but I don’t see a whole lot of alternatives. We aren’t defending “US interests” here, we’re defending the interests of the whole free world, including our own. We’ve been attacked on our own soil recently enough to know what it feels like and that our freedom is worth defending. I’m sure our troops will do us proud and serve us well in this campaign as they have in the past.
I also think it’s great that so many people turned up at the harbour to farewell them yesterday. It’s a sign that while people realise that the US and Britain don’t actually need our help militarily, we want to stand up and be counted. I can only wish our military personal - along with those of the US, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand - God speed.
Glad to hear the above opinions - but if I may, a small (but related) hijack:
What’s the relationship between the election polls and the American attacks - in other words, the attacks seemed to have affected voters’ opinions in some way, and I was wondering how and why?
Second, do most Australians you know feel the same as you about sending in troops?
Third, who’s this Phillip Adams jackass and do people take him seriously? (I sort of know who he is from the various articles, but what’s the general consensus from people you know?)
So give me the straight dope from down under if you please…
While in the Army in Germany, I had the opportunity to take four days of R&R at Berschtesgaden–the Armed Forces Recreation Center of Europe. I met some Aussies soldiers there.
Tell me, is it a requirement that all Aussie soldiers have to be at least 6’5", 260 lbs, and built like Ahnuld? I’ll say this…those guys can drink. And, if they couldn’t find anyone else to fight, they’d fight each other. Then laugh and drink some more.
Amusing blokes, those.
Whatever. I was just glad those guys were on our side.
Re the OP: Anyone who appreciates freedom and justice welcomes the addition of the Aussies. Thanks, mates.
Makes me want to wear my Akubra and Driz A Bone to work tomorrow it does. Nice to know that Aussies still have their brass ballocks. Anything less would have been a shame. I’ll have to hoist a pint of the precious amber fluid to your brave troops. Feel free to name your favorite label and I’ll try to get it to toast the health of your soldiers next weekend, Dave Stewart.
I doubt that most young people would have a clue who Phillip Adams is. In my youth, he used to write very entertaining and often insightful newspaper columns. He’s of the generation (like myself) who lived through the Vietnam war. The government which committed us to Vietnam did so without full disclosure. Neither political party is going to risk doing that this time.
At the moment, we have what is called a “caretaker government”. From the time the writs for the federal election were issued, until the election actually takes place, our Prime Minister is essentially “marking time”. The House of Representatives can’t be recalled to debate our commitment to the war against terrorism as it has already been dissolved. In real terms, as our commitment has bipartisan support, that doesn’t matter a whole lot. The Senate could be recalled (as this isn’t a double dissolution), but there wouldn’t be any point in recalling the Senate to debate something which has bipartisan support.
What our potential leaders are doing right now is making damn sure that the electorate cannot say that our commitment was misrepresented. Politicians here have a long history of saying one thing during an election campaign and doing something totally different once they gain office.
Prior to the attacks of September 11, the party in power was almost a certainty to lose the election. That has been pretty much reversed, partly because people are seeking some kind of stability, and partly because our PM was the person who visibly made the commitment to support the US. The Opposition supported that commitment, rather than opposing it and forcing it to be debated, so their role isn’t visible - the PM gets the kudos. The fact that he was in the US at the time of the attacks and shown on TV communicating our country’s horror hasn’t hurt his image either.
There certainly isn’t universal approval here of the deployment of our troops, but I think I can fairly say that the majority opinion is that even deploying our troops turns out to be a bad decision, it’s still a better decision than saying “it’s not our problem” and doing nothing.
First off I’m an American. I don’t think that the actual size of the contingent sent by Australia is of all that much importance, because in terms of pure military strength necessary I believe the current troops there (U.S. and British) can do the job alone (not knocking the Australian military, you guys can be some mean bastards, and I mean that in a nice way).
What is more important however is the show of unity that the sending of troops demonstrates. With multiple nations sending troops to Afghanistan it shows that this is not perceived as merely a U.S. problem (although opponents would say the reason they are sending troops is that these countries are puppets of America), and it also demonstrates a sense of honor, as you mentioned in the OP with the ANZUS reference.
Also I believe that different countries forces don’t usually work together directly. At most they are sent on complimentary missions (one may provide a distraction for the other’s more important mission, etc).
Actually I am from Perth, where one of the SAS barracks is located (Campbell). I have a friend who is an SAS captain (in communications - he spent most of his tour in East Timor setting up for the Kylie Minogue concert, to his horror), and know some SAS infantrymen. They’re good guys. They seem to spend their on-line time at porn sites so I doubt they’ll read this, but I’m sure they would appreciate the sentiments.
Zenster- We will drink anything except Fosters, which is too weak so we export it.
No one against an Australian troop committment?
I’ll give it a few hours, and if not, then I’ll play devil’s advocate just for the sake of it.
I’m glad to see not much has changed. When I used to go out with an SAS paratrooper some twenty-plus years ago, they used to spend their spare time perving down at Swanbourne Beach (which, for the non-Aussies, was a nude beach).
The “puppet of America” thing might come up. I keep reading though how much emphasis is placed by Tony Blair especially upon the fact that this isn’t a civilisational dispute. But look at the countries sending troops. All of them are Western countries. We share fundamental values because of our common European heritage - this doesn’t make us puppets, its makes us siblings. Curiously, the countries deploying troops are also all Anglophone. This week’s Economist reports that the French Ministry of Defence is keen to fight, but the socialist politicians in the ruling majority are stalling.
Well, as far as I’m aware, our Prime Minister’s approval rating shot through the roof several days after the September 11th incident. This was due to the fact that he made several strong statements concerning the incident. He actually did nothing, so why people all of a sudden think he’s a great leader, when they were ready to vote him out earlier is a mystery to me also. Note I said “vote him out” as the opposition is truly not worth voting in at this point in time. Mind you, this is just my opinion, and when it comes to politics in Australia, the only thing we all agree on is that they’re all bastards !
As for sending troops, I have mixed feelings. I am very opposed to warfare, but can accept that in an imperfect world, it can be the lesser of two evils. I feel that the Taliban should have been removed quite some time ago, however, most people didn’t even know where Afghanistan was or how they ruled until mid-September.
For the most practical and selfish reasoning (and one you will not hear often because nobody likes to admit it) we have to fight beside America, because if we are ever in trouble, we will need the Americans. We are unable to defend our own coastline effectively if threatened (due to population and geographical factors), and so need to be able to rely on Uncle Sam to help us if we are attacked.
I disagree. Australia is capable of defending its coastline effectively. I will now have to go off and find stats on Australian defence capabilities, no doubt, but I recall that they are above par compared to anyone else in the region (which I think would surprise some Australians). Thousands of miles of searing desert also must be a barrier against any ground invasion from the north. A blue water navy would get around the issue, but who in the region has one of those?
Secondly, I have vivid memories of an American admiral appearing on Australian 60 Minutes in the 80s. He said there is no guarantee that the US would help defend Australia in a war with (say) Indonesia or Malaysia (the two regional rivals for those who don’t know). It caused quite a stir at the time. Perhaps US policies have changed, I don’t know. But, you’ll note that in the Falklands War, the US didn’t aid Britain in its fight with Argentina. It conducted diplomacy. The US seems more likely to do this in an Australian war. I don’t think Australia could rely on the US in a regional war. This doesn’t change Australia’s obligation to support the US in Afghanistan, though. As someone else said, the terrorists attacks were an assault on our common values.
Actually I think it would depend on the situation. If the U.S. felt that Australia had done something to promote the attack, or were in fact the aggressors themselves, then we probably wouldn’t send troops in.
However if Australia was the victim of an unprovoked attack, especially if it was as a terrorist one on the WTC level, I suspect that a lot of Americans would be pushing for our troops to head across the Pacific. IMHO.
I have to say that I found the timing of our committment interesting. A couple of weeks ago our committment was 1 ship and a couple of mid-air refueling planes (I think that was it, can’t remember exactly). Then The Great Debate… the PM didn’t perform so well and hey presto 2 days later we’ve tripled our committment.
I’m not saying that this extra commitment is a bad thing (on the contrary, I think it’s a very good thing) but I do find it’s timing suspicious, especially since a number of political commentators are saying that John Howard’s main election chances lie in keeping the electorate’s focus on the war and away from domestic issues.
I hate election time. I turn into a really suspicious bastard.
I consider it highly unlikely that the US wouldn’t respond to an any attack on Australian soil. Apart from anything else, there are a couple of US military installations here which I’m sure they don’t want to lose.
