Australian troops off to Afghanistan

Great Debates
21

I don’t think so…?
An American friend of mine says “Damn skippy”, but I’m not entirely sure what he means.

A good point.

Anyway, despite my patriotic fervour in sending Australian troops off to war, I said I’d play devil’s advocate. So here goes (bear in mind that I don’t actually hold any of the following opinions personally):

  1. its an American problem with an American resolution. Most of the other Western allies are not silly enough to get involved. Australia shouldn’t either. If it was going to be a multi-national task force it would be done under the aegis of NATO (which Australia doesn’t belong to anyway) or the UN;

  2. the point someone else made - Australia’s participation doesn’t make a difference. Australia could be helping out in other ways, like other US allies, without endangering Australia lives which wouldn’t turn the tide whether they are there or not;

  3. Australia’s involvement in this makes Australia a target for terrorism. Why stick our necks out?

  4. We have Muslim neighbours who we have been trying to have stable relations with for decades. Our regional diplomacy is undermined by this adventurism.

Any takers?

22

I’m an Australian who is very wary about war, and about this war as much as any. I don’t see it as much of a solution. It would be easy to turn this thread into one about the rights and wrongs of the current action in Afghanistan, but that would end up being a hijack. I guess I’m seriously in the minority, most Australians are almost certainly nearly as enthusiastic about sending troops as Americans are.

In my view, America’s war on terrorism will be as successfuly as their other war against a concept, their war on drugs. If terrorism is stopped, it will be through diplomacy and long term change, so that no one wants to attack the US, not by hunting down a few foolish suicidal footsoldiers and their leaders (so that they are replaced by others who feel the same way).

I don’t think the US would support Australia if it were invaded except if it was strictly in the US’s own interests (or if some country was committing genocide and the moral pressure became absolutely overwhelming). The admission to this effect by the US admiral (mentioned by Dave Stewart above) seems to have been blithely forgotten by most Australians. We just carry on (perhaps more in hope than sense) believing that we have to support the US so that the US would come to our aid if required, despite the US never affirming any such thing.

And I really have trouble believing that the US would commit forces to defend Australia just to ensure that they could keep a couple of listening stations out in the desert. Particularly when whoever invaded would (in the long term) probably just let the US have the bases back anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some paranoid who thinks the “yellow peril” is about to descend from Asia, far from it, but the above is just my view on the realities of what would happen if they did.

And by the by, if we want our moslem neighbours to hate us, we couldn’t do much better than by supporting a war affecting a whole moslem country, creating literally millions of starving moslem refugees, because of the actions of a dictatorial regime hated by the majority of people in that country and the inhuman actions of a fundamentalist fringe group who hide there. And while we treat fleeing refugees from that very regime with less consideration than we would dogs, to boot.

And now, Leander, on to Philip Adams. He is a national treasure. His views are by turns pig-headed, insightful, inflammatory, intelligent (though not as intelligent as he believes they are, perhaps) alternative and necessary, in a country where most of the media is controlled by one or two individuals. That he has survived in the media (when he takes so many kicks at the views of those who own the media he is published by) for so long is a tribute to the man. The very fact that he publishes criticisms of his own views on the webpage to which you linked makes him a standout compared to almost any other media personality in this country you might care to name. One of the criticisms made of his article was that it was one-sided. Given that 99% of the media in this country would never question the standard US/Australian government line on the whole issue, being concerned about one little alternative viewpoint article as if it might create an imbalance in the reporting of this issue (in Philip Adams’ favour) is laughable.

Rave over.

23

I’ll give it a shot, but I think you countered most of your own arguments above.

**
I could be wrong but isn’t Australia still a member of SEATO? It’s late at night (here anyways) and I located a copy of the treaty but couldn’t find anything like the Article V of the NATO charter so I’m not sure if this is relevant.

**
By sending troops it sends a message that Australia is doing more than merely getting the US’s back, it shows that other countries also believe that terrorism is a threat to their own way of life. Also a claim could be made that there is a common belief that terrorism enacted upon civilians is immoral and by participating in show of force Australia shows backing for that belief as well.

**
Who’s to say that terrorists haven’t already targeted Australia? This link shows that there are suspicions that terrorists with connections to Osama bin Laden are already operating within the continent.

Your regional diplomacy could be undermined even more if in a time of crisis you did not come to the aid of an ally. Not only would it be questionable if they would come to your aid at a later date, there are also the international political ramifications that would accompany such a stance: i.e. the Australians are not to be trusted. Actually I think my response to the last question was my weakest so far because I am unaware of all of the complexities of your relationships with your neighbors so perhaps if you provided a few links I could expound on my comments.

I’m afraid I didn’t do the best job of refuting your points I could because I’m tired (it’s 5:22 East US time) and I know you are playing devil’s advocate. Maybe if you scowled or something.

Princhester I would love to give you a debate, but I’m dead tired and off to bed. If others don’t beat me to it I might post tomorrow. Good night.

24

Princhester, I feel just as uneasy as you do about campaign being labelled a “war on terrorism” because there are many terrorist organisations throughout the world which I believe our government and the US government have never given a damn about going after and most certainly won’t give a damn about pursuing should Al-Quaeda be wiped out.

To those who live outside of Australia, there is a great deal of significance to the question of “did X country ask for our assistance?” Documents released under our FOI legislation have pretty much proven that the US asked only for equipment and intelligence assistance at the onset of the Vietnam war and an overenthusiastic PM vowed to go “all the way with LBJ”, thus leading to a chain of events which have left a very deep scar on our national psyche.

I’m no fan at all of John Howard, but I don’t think that he would dare have said at a press conference the other day that Dubbya had asked for specific assistance from Australia if that wasn’t the case. Three weeks out from an election, he’s not going to hand the Opposition or any other party his head on a platter.

I’m not sure where you get the feeling that “most Australians are nearly as enthusiastic about sending troops as Americans are”. With the exception of the usual racists who emerge at times like this saying “bomb the crap out them”, the people I’m listening are mostly giving qualified support to our involvement. For a very substantial portion of our population (myself included), the memories of Vietnam are either something we lived with ourselves or something we have passed on to our children.

I understand the political context you are talking about. Indonesia is really pissed off at us about East Timor and they aren’t too thrilled about us trying to make them accountable for continuing to let people-smugglers operate out of there. The US didn’t support us with peace-keeping in East Timor because they had no interest in the region which was threatened. Irian Jaya is right on our doorstep and part of Indonesia. So we sent peace-keepers to East Timor to ensure the integrity of the elections there anyway and without US support. It was us who rightly or wrongly stuck our noses into East Timor in the first place, and while we had every right to ask for assistance from our partners in various treaties, in the absence of an act of war, we had no right to demand it.

I don’t think that Phillip Adams is wrong to be asking us to pause think about what we are doing. I’ve already pointed out that due to the fact that the lower house has been dissolved our commitment hasn’t been subjected to parliamentary debate.

I agree with your opinion that the “war on terrorism”, like the “war on drugs”, can probably never be totally won - I reject, however, any suggestion that because an ideal cannot be perfectly achieved it is not worth fighting for.

The people in Afghanistan (and many other nations throughout this world) were already displaced and starving and fleeing long before the events of September 11. We, like the US, sign or don’t sign trade agreements or treaties according to what best suits our interests at the time. We are a democracy, and if we don’t like the fact that our government does that then we have not just the opportunity, but the obligation to convey that message to our political representatives in no uncertain terms.

We haven’t cut off our foreign aid to Indonesia in spite of the fact that they are very pissed off with us about East Timor and we are pretty pissed off with them about people smuggling. Do you seriously think it’s OK that Megawati refused to meet with our PM about the issue of people-smuggling during APEC? It’s OK for Indonesia to take our foreign aid, to let people-smugglers operate and to expect our government to pick up the bill when our navy has to rescue those people from the open sea and look after them until their applications for asylum can be processed? It’s an important point to make to people outside of Australia, Australia - and not Indonesia - is paying the bill for these people whose status is currently undetermined. This isn’t about “making Muslims hate us” it’s about holding accountable for actions they take which affect us and for which we are paying (both in terms of military resources devoted to the issue and in terms of our literally paying the bills when we rescue these people).

I doubt there is anyone on these messageboards who wouldn’t far prefer that there was a diplomatic solution to all of these problems. But to suggest that Indonesia hates us because we have joined the US in this campaign is wrong. Indonesia disliked us long before September 11 for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with our being an ally of the US.

Longterm change? It’s absolutely vital. Western nations, and transnational corporations in particular, can’t go on treating the rest of the world as some kind of limitless resource which we have some birthright to exploit without any accountability. Do you really think there would have been so many “why do they hate us?” threads on this and other messageboards if people truly didn’t want to understand the sheer hatred which has been building towards Western nations, and the US in particular?

We are not going to placate the extremists of this world (whatever their religion or political persuasion) with diplomacy. In my opinion, we should not try to use economic sanctions in order to force already oppressed and unbelievably disadvantaged people to oppose governments with whose policies we in the West disagree purely in order to make ouselves feel better about defending our way of life. Restrict technology, restrict the sales of weaponry (and for goodness sake let’s all of us stop providing it to nations with whom with we have nothing in common but the fact that “my enemy’s enemy”), but no, I don’t believe we should cut of food an medical aid to any population purely because of the actions of their unelected governments.

I actually own several Phillip Adams books. Much as I love his work, I don’t consider him any more representative of the “average Australian” than I do Piers Ackerman, Alan Jones, Stan Zemanek, Pauline Hanson, or John Laws.

Anyway, this in in dire danger of becoming a “rant” rather than a rebuttal, so I’ll post it now and respond tomorrow (sorry, I’m not being rude, but I have to be up at 6am).

25

In the spirit of devilling the devil’s advocate…

Our problem too on a couple of levels.

It was an attack on America; under ANZUS treaty, that makes it our problem too.

Australians died there. That involves us.

We may not be the deciding factor in how this goes, but a show of unity - and the reality of it - is a factor.

Terrorists go for high profile targets. On the world stage, Australia’s pretty small fish now that the Olympics have moved on. We’re not a likely target.

No guarantees, though. It might happen. I don’t like the idea, but I don’t think the risk is high enough to justify us staying home.

Relations are improving, hiccups aside. Indonesia has enough internal problems to keep Ms Sukarnoputri busy for some time; she’s astute enough as a leader to know that her power base is finely balanced and that starting a war with us now would only undermine her own position.

Apart from that, pick on us and we scream for the US. And the Kiwis. Now they’re tough :smiley:

Terrorists are not interested in negotiation. They are interested in achieving their goals, not in compromise. You can’t negotiate with someone who won’t give up even the smallest point.

Those bases are strategically placed - I don’t imagine they picked Australia just because they liked the scenery. If the US put 'em there in the first place, I’d think they’d protect their investment.

Your second point is impossible to predict, given that we don’t know who your hypothetical invader is.

26

I didn’t see the US fail to come to our aid when Darwin was bombed and Japanese submarines were in Sydney Harbour. And lest anyone advance the argument that the US only gave a toss because of Pearl Harbor, IIRC, in 1941 Hawaii wasn’t a state.

I’m pretty much not prepared to comment on Pine Gap or other US military installations at this time other than to say that they are now and have always been far more than just “listening posts”.

27

I seem to recall a book coming out in the last month or so that overturns the “Curtin turned to the US who rode to our rescue when the Brits abandoned us after Singapore” story. IIRC John Curtin’s notes have been found and they reveal that MacArthur told him that the US didn’t give a rat’s about Australia per se, but would use it as a convenient base for some Pacific operations (a pretty sensible response IMHO).

This is pretty easy to get around. You let them know informally that you would like to be asked, and then looked vaguely surprised when the post arrives. I don’t have a problem with the SAS going but I don’t doubt for a moment that the dominant thought in Howard’s mind is not “How can we assist in the most effective way?” or “How can we draw and bind regional support for anti-terrorist action?” but is “How can I use the military for maximum political advantage?”

28

The prospect of a war with Indonesia has faded for some time now. However the prospect of Indonesian disintegration is real enough and presents Australian with almost as many challenges. And certainly ones that require a closer relationship and understanding of our inherently different philosophies.

I’m of the opinion that invoking the ANZUS treaty argument is a furphy. ANZUS is more about consultation on events in the Pacific theatre. None-the-less, I fully agree with the commitment and the bipartisan approach, regardless of the political climate.

29

I do hope that if Australia is ever in trouble that we lend a hand just as you’ve done for us. It always makes me happy to find out we’re not alone out there as it sometimes feels. Note: I don’t mean alone on top; just alone. It’s always a little depressing to hear nothing but criticism about your country.

30

Let’s not forget that the UK can be none to quick to help the Aussies either. I’m an American, personally, but I spent a semester at Murdoch Uni in Perth and loved every minute. Are you guys hiring technical writers at the moment?.. Remember WWII? When Churchill basically told the Aussies to “get to Sydney. We’ll protect Sydney. Prepare to scrap the rest.” When American ships came over to help Darwin Harbor, it marked a big turning point in Aussie relations [sub](or so I was told in my Aussie history class there. I don’t mean to sound like an expert).[/sub]

Of course America would help if Australia were threatened. Think about it - besides political relations, Australia’s a massive natural base from which to watch China and North Korea (the latest evil red empire and favorite “rogue” state). Let’s not forget the bases, not only within Australia but also off its borders (Diego Garcia, Guam - my bro in the USAF has been stationed at both) from which Austrailia would be a logical destination were they threatened. There’s also incredible good will between the two countries - witness the esteem with which anything Aussie is held here in the U.S. And don’t discount the “look like us” and “must protect democracy” theories.

I guess I’m glad that the Aussies are helping - it does present more of a united front against terrorism, at least from the white world <shrug>. But I’m saddened too, as here’s another thing we’ve drug someone else into. And the Aussies, as Queen Vicky’s lackeys in the early 1900’s, have been drug into enough. The threat from Indonesia is significant and should not be discounted, and this at a time when Australia’s been working so hard to become more a part of the Asian community to which it geographically belongs. 'Course, I feel bad that American soldiers are over there too - either way, no matter what’s done, it’s a lose/lose situation.

In any case, Aussie Aussie Aussie! Thanks for the help. It’s sorely needed.

31

I think the British Army was spread pretty thin by that stage – it’s hard for a smallish country to fight all the way from France to Malaysia. The eastern troops were heavily bogged down in Burma et al too (we couldn’t even hold Singapore remember). So I reckon Churchill’s comments were more to do with realistic expectations than any reluctance to save Australia from the Japanese Empire.

32

<minor sarcasm>I’m sure the Aussies took great comfort in that when faced with the fact that their queen would not protect them while under attack.</minor sarcasm> Kidding aside (and no dig meant towards the UK), it was a turning point for Australia. While the Brits admittedly were up against the proverbial rock, the Aussies did take the reply as a slap in the face (from what I’ve been told). From then, relations distinctly turned from UK-centered to US-centered. Why? Because the US helped when Darwin was being bombed. The Brits didn’t. No disparagement or interpretation was meant for Churchill’s remark - the Aussie reaction to said remark was what I was focusing on here.

33

No offence taken, Snickers. In any case, although I’ve got reservations about the wisdom of the whole war, It’s certainly better to have the Aussies on your side in any fight, and I send my best wishes to all the troops involved for their safety and the fastest possible conclusion to the whole shitty business.

Anyway, if you thought they were pissed off with us about Darwin, you should have asked them about the 1932-33 England Cricket Tour. Not to mention when we joined the Common Market and pulled the rug from under a lot of their food export plans :o.

BTW, I’ve got family in Perth – good to hear you enjoyed your time down there.

34

Snickers - I graduated from Murdoch Uni and my father-in-law is Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Its a nice releaxed place for a visitor - I’m glad you liked it.

Reprise:

I had always thought the US did come to our aid, and smashed a Japanese fleet heading towards Australia in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Before that, Australia was looking like being invaded. Churchill was mad at Curtin for pulling troops out of north Africa to fight the Japanese. So, the US helped us, when the UK would not.

For those not familiar with regional politics, a very brief and sketchy summary: Australia has been on very iffy relations with Indonesia since Indonesia invaded and annexed East Timor in the early 70s. Some Australian reporters disappeared during the invasion and from memory it has always been assumed they were shot by Indonesian soldiers. Australia then appeased Indonesia by being the only country in the world to recognise the annexation. Australia recently sent in peace keeping troops when East Timor became independent again. This caused significant strain between the two countries (there were anti-Australian rallies in Jakarta). Australia has until recently feared Indonesian expansion: polls over the years have repeatedly shown that the Australian public names Indonesia number one candidate for a war with Australia.

The relationship with Malaysia is also strained. Malaysia is the country primarily responsible for not letting Australia join ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), because Australia is not “Asian”. Tempers flared in the early 90s when former Prime Minister Paul Keating, an advocate of Australia becoming an Asian country despite very cultural and historical links and only geographical and economic links, attacked Malayasian PM Mahathir and called him a “recalcitrant” for not letting Australia in ASEAN.

Australia gets on well (and bullies) its Pacific neighbours (the islands and Papua New Guinea), has a strong and close relationship with Japan, Thailand and Singapore (Australia has air force bases there, from memory - Lee Kuan Yew did once refer to Australians as being the “white trash of Asia” but I don’t think anyone bears a grudge over it), and Brunei too I think. I don’t know what the situation is with the other countries in Indo-China. New Zealand and Australia share a trade free zone and are best friends (except when it comes to air lines).

35

and football games ! :smiley:

  • I agree with everything else you said though, just wanted to correct an important point !
36

Yes, rugby union, too - and I meant “free trade zone”, not “trade free zone”!

37

::cracks a tube of Foster’s Special Bitter::

Here’s to the health of your fighting forces! May the Taleban find opportunity to have an Australian boot upon their neck as well.