Australians in Afghanistan

[Taiko]

Marston says: "The questions some coalition commanders are asking is when is Australia, as in senior commanders and politicians, going to become embedded within this huge debate that has occurred within the US and British militaries about what went wrong and what went correct in Iraq as well as what needs to be done in Afghanistan?"

A little bit of research goes along way. This is more sensational journalism, than reporting the facts on the ground. There is some scope to criticising the ADF's approach to FID/SFA, however, they are being addressed, to say otherwise is completely false and a disservice to those who are working very hard to come up with solutions. I have no real respect for Australia's media, they are very similar to US media. All to quick to point out our faults but very silent on the atrocities committed by the other side. In many ways they have become little more than tools for A'Q propaganda. Facts don't sell copy anymore, beat ups and sensationalism do. Its fairly obvious that the academic is promoting himself by overstating the case (from now on I shall call it the Kilcullen Syndrome!), a simple one minute search, that any under-grad could of done, would of lead him to such examples of the debate as:

1. Lt. C. John Blaxland: 'Revisiting Counterinsurgency: A Manoeuvrists Response to the 'War on Terror' for the Australian Army. July 2006

2. http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/lwsc/...r_2008_2_2.pdf more recent publications on COIN, Iraq and Afghanistan.

3. Jim Molan has been and is very vocal on this subject area. He is giving a seminar at my Uni on Tuesday title 'Lessons Learnt From Iraq'. His book 'Running the War in Iraq' is now in its second reprint.

There are plenty of other sources and ample evidence of the debate, like I said a little bit of research goes a long way.

While the Americans, in short, are fighting a counter-insurgency campaign, consider what the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said about Australia's mission this week. The "underpinning reason" for being there, aside from the US alliance, was "acting against the global threat of terrorism".

One wonders if Miss Banham understands the difference between political messages directed toward public consumption, its easier to sell the war in Afghanistan this way, and the actual political and military focus in Afghanistan. Then again may be its good that she doesn't, why tell the enemy what we are doing?