How not to have a debate: Australia in Afghanistan

It was the debate that never really took place, however poignant pundits would like to think it was. Both the Australian government through Prime Minister Julia Gillard and main opposition leader Tony Abbott took familiar stances this week in parliament. The themes are drearily familiar. Afghanistan should not be allowed to fall to rapacious war lords and the durable Taliban, or continue to be a training ground for terrorists. Improving the mettle of the Afghan forces to combat their foes would take priority. The Australian role in training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan Province would take between two and four years.

For Abbott, greater emphasis had to be made on combating the ideology of the Taliban – a ‘pernicious’ sort that made the survival of the Karzai government an imperative. ‘More’ rather than ‘less’ was needed. He proceeded to outline his idea of ‘winning’ – ‘completing the task of training the 4th Brigade … and playing our part in ensuring that the central government is capable of containing and defeating insurgency’ (Sydney Morning Herald, Oct 19). That the Karzai government is a cesspool of corruption and a political creature richly deserving of collapse is not something both leaders are considering.

Both leaders wanted to bring gravity into the proceedings by talking about the fallen. Gillard called on the words of one Australia’s more significant poets, James McAuley: ‘I never shrank in fear, But fought the monsters of the lower world, Clearing a little space, and time, and light, For men to Live in Peace.’ Abbott paid an almost melancholic tribute. ‘We should weep for the fallen: good tears for those who have served their country in the company of their mates.’

Even The Australian, a paper often cheery about war, was deeply dissatisfied, accurately noting the ‘Alice in Wonderland quality to the parliamentary debate’ (Oct 21). It proceeded to give a list of things that were not mentioned by the leaders. What of those critical moments when Australian ground forces had called for helicopters that were simply not available? Or the poor equipment on Australia’s underdone Black Hawks? Most scathing was a remark about Australia’s fleet of Tiger helicopters. ‘We have had the Tigers for years now, and they are magnificent helicopters that can be deployed anywhere except in battle, just like so much of our defence kit.’ That old accusation – that the defence establishment has been politicised to buffer government decisions – is cited.

It was left to the smaller fish in Parliament to make the necessary noises against the war. The independent MP Robert Oakeshott was keen that plans for a withdrawal from Afghanistan be discussed now. ‘This will be a messy and complex withdrawal, whether it happens now or in 10 years’ time. The work should, therefore, be on in earnest now’ (Sydney Morning Herald, Oct 22). The Greens MP, Adam Bandt, and the Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie both argued for a withdrawal of Australian troops.

That is the fundamental story of the Australian effort. Its defence forces are often handicapped by chronic equipment problems. Its politicians are trapped in a fantasy of adventurism and misguided expectations. The constipation in the debate is evidenced by the inability of the major sides to admit that the Taliban are a force that will, one way or the other, have to figure in negotiations. They have failed to read the signs of an open-ended conflict that was doomed from the start. There will be no such thing as ‘victory’ in this war, and that vital issue was conveniently evaded.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

© Scoop Media