2010/21: Should Australia have become engaged and remained involved in the war in Afghanistan?

What they said...
'The recent multiple deaths of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan have reignited the debate on Australia's role in the conflict. Polls ... suggest that public opposition to Australia's participation in the Afghan war is increasing as the human toll mounts'
Dr Marko Beljac

'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'
The Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard

The issue at a glance
On October 19, a debate began in the Australian Parliament on Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan war.
The three-day debate did not consider a specific resolution on military objectives and there was no vote requiring members of parliament to declare whether the troops should stay or be withdraw.
Both the Government and the Opposition support Australia's military commitment to Afghanistan. The Greens (who demanded this debate occur as part of the terms of their agreement to support Labor in the hung parliament that resulted from the August 21st, 2010 federal election) are the only party opposed to Australia's involvement in Afghanistan.
Though the debate had no impact on Australian government policy regarding Australia's deployment of forces in Afghanistan, it has encouraged the first general discussion in the Parliament and the media of Australia's involvement in this war which began nine years ago in October 2010.

Background
The following timeline was prepared by the ABC and posted on its Internet site on October 19, 2010. It can be accessed athttp://abc.com.au/news/stories/2010/10/19/3041966.htm

Australian forces have been active in Afghanistan in various roles since the war's inception in 2001, with 1,550 personnel currently deployed.

October 2001: Invasion of Afghanistan begins in response to September 11 terrorist attacks.
2001-2002: Three special forces squadrons deployed in initial offensive against the Taliban.
December 2001: Special forces involved in initial offensives including capture of Kandahar airport.
December 2002: Special Forces Task Force withdrawn.
September 2005-2006: Special Forces Task Force redeployed.
March 2006- April 2007: Two Chinook helicopters deployed to support the Special Forces Task Force.
August 2006: First of four Reconstruction Task Forces deployed as part of Dutch-led Provincial Reconstruction Team based in Uruzgan Province.
April 2007: Special Operations Task Group redeployed to attack Taliban command and supply routes in Uruzgan province.
August 2007-July 2009: Australian Control and Reporting Centre deployed to Kandahar Airfield.
October 2008: First of two Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Forces replaces Reconstruction Task Force, with mentoring of Afghan forces incorporated into the mission directive.
May 2009: Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force boosted.
February 2010: Mentoring Task Force replaces Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force, resulting in a boost of Mentor and Liaison Teams.
August 2010: Command of Provincial Reconstruction Team passed to Australian and US forces after Dutch troops withdraw.

Australia's commitment began in October 2001 after the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington killed some 3,000 people. Australian special forces joined American, British and other international troops in an intensive campaign against Al-Qaeda and those who gave them sanctuary, including the Taliban.
By December 2002 the Taliban had fallen and many Al-Qaeda operatives had been killed whilst the remainder had fled across the border to Pakistan and Australian special forces troops returned home.
(In December 2001, Australia also made a commitment to the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, whose United Nations mandate to provide security around Kabul was subsequently extended to cover the entire country.)
By September 2005, the rising Taliban insurgency forced members of ISAF to refocus on Afghanistan and Australian special forces were deployed again.
In June, 2010, it was announced that Australia would play a greater role in Afghanistan's troubled Oruzgan Province after Dutch troops withdrew from the country in August. Australia is now playing a new role as part of a United States-led multinational effort, called Combined Team Oruzgan.
Prior to this Australia's 1550 troops in Afghanistan had operated under the control of a 1880-strong Dutch task group since 2006.
The Dutch provided key support including a hospital, combat aircraft and helicopters and artillery.

Internet information
The Australian Department of Defence has an Internet page supplying information on the conflict in Afghanistan. This includes detailed information on Australian troop fatalities.
This information can be found at http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/info/personnel.htm

On 26 February, 2009, The Huffington Post published a report titled, 'Losing the People: The Cost and Consequences of Civilian Suffering in Afghanistan'
The report was written by Erica Gaston, a human rights lawyer, representing the DC-based human rights NGO CIVIC in Afghanistan. The report details the suffering the war has inflicted on Afghan civilians and the hostilities that is felt toward the international forces fighting in Afghanistan. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-gaston/losing-the-people-the-cos_b_170084.html

On 22 June, 2010, the then Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, made a statement on the need for Australia to continue its commitment of troops to Afghanistan.
An ABC report on Senator Faulkner's statement can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933414.htm
This ABC Internet page includes links to ten video reports of Prime Minister Gillard, Defence Minister Stephen Smith, and others giving their views on different aspects of Australia's involvement in the Afghan war.

In August 2010 the Internet site of the British newspaper, The Guardian, published a detailed report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan since 2006. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics#

On 4 August, 2010, Australian Policy Online published a report by Brian Toohey titled, 'Time to assess our nine-year war'. The report is critical of the conduct and consequences of the Afghanistan war.
The full text of this comment and analysis can be found at http://inside.org.au/time-to-reassess-our-nine-year-war/

On 19 October, 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard opened the parliamentary debate on Australia's involvement in the war in Afghanistan with a speech which outlined the nature of and reasons for that involvement.
The full text of this speech can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6963

On 20 October 2010, The Newcastle Herald published an editorial titled 'Australia in Afghanistan'.
The editorial is critical of the rationales offered for Australia's continuing involvement in this war. The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.theherald.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/australia-in-afghanistan/1973729.aspx?storypage=0

On 20 October, 2010, the online opinion site, Opinion Online, published a comment by political commentator Bruce Haigh. The opinion piece is titled, 'Repeating others' mistakes in Afghanistan'. Haigh argues that there is nothing of value to be achieved by Australia fighting in Afghanistan and that Australia's sole reason for involvement is to maintain the United States alliance.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11123&page=0

Sussan Ley is a Liberal member of parliament representing the Division of Farrer, New South Wales. On 21 October, 2010, Sussan Ley participated in the parliamentary debate on Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan war. She noted that the rationale for the war had not been well-explained to the Australian people and that this needed to be done or popular support for the war would continue to decline.
On 22 October 2010 The Border Mail published a report of this speech. This report can be found at http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/afghanistan-war-not-clearly-explained-ley/1976105.aspx

On 21 October, 2010, Steve Gibbons the Labor Federal Member for Bendigo, made his contribution to the debate over Australia's involvement in the war in Afghanistan. Mr Gibbons gives a detailed overview of Australia's involvement and though he has some reservations about it, ultimately supports that continued involvement.
The full text of this speech can be found at http://www.stevegibbonsmp.com/media-centre/speeches/debate-on-australia-s-involvement-in-afghanistan/

On 21 October, 2010, WAtoday published an editorial suggesting the essential unreality of the debate taking place in the federal parliament on Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan war. The editorial is titled, 'Speeches mask the reality of Afghanistan's war'
The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/editorial/speeches-mask-the-reality-of-afghanistans-war-20101020-16u2w.html

On October 29, 2010, the online opinion site, Opinion Online, published a comment by retired Professor George Venturini, formerly of Social Research, Swinburne University. The comment is titled, 'Debate on Australia's presence in Afghanistan? What debate?'. The comment suggests that the terms of Australia's initial involvement in Afghanistan were never properly debated and are not being so now.
George Venturini gives a detailed explanation as to why the war against Afghanistan was illegal. The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11157&page=0

On 1 November, 2010, The Sydney Morning Herald published an editorial titled, 'Australia's Afghan confusions are multiplying' The editorial argues that by making alliances with corrupt warlords the United States and Australia are further forfeiting the goodwill of Afghan civilians.
The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/australias-afghan-confusions-are-multiplying-20101031-178ru.html

Arguments against Australia engaging in a war in Afghanistan
1. The war is an illegal action against a sovereign state
The United Nations Charter defines international law with regard to war. The Charter requires that disputes be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorise the use of force. Without this authorisation, any military activity against another country is illegal. Measured by this standard, the United States-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.
There are two exceptions to the requirement for UN authorisation.  Firstly, if your nation is attacked by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. However, Afghanistan did not attack the United States on September 11. Those men charged with the crime were not Afghans. Secondly, the danger of an immanent attack also justifies an immediate response. It has been claimed that this justification also did not exist, even in the view of the United States itself which did not attack Afghanistan until a month after the September 11 attack. Even then, that the Afghanistan government may have harbored terrorists does not make that government itself responsible for terrorist attacks.
Resolution 1373, the one of only two Security Council resolutions about this issue, laid out various responses to September 11. These included matters such as freezing assets, criminalising the support of terrorists, exchanging police information about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.
Australia has ratified the United Nations Charter; therefore it cannot have legally entered a war in Afghanistan even though in support of its ally the United States. Interestingly, the war was illegal under United States law as well. The UN Charter was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the United States Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the 'supreme law of the land'. The war in Afghanistan is therefore in violation of United States law as well as international law.
The United States has repeatedly claimed that it attacked Afghanistan because the then leaders of that country refused to surrender Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks. However, as noted by Scott Burcell, a senior lecturer in international relations at Deakin University, in an opinion piece published in The Age on October 22, 2010, 'Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar said he would consider the request, and asked Washington to pursue formal extradition proceedings with accompanying evidence of bin Laden's responsibility for the attacks - normal practice under international law.
No evidence was produced by Washington because, at the time, none was available. Nothing conclusive had appeared by June the following year, eight months after the bombing of Afghanistan had begun. Following the most intensive criminal investigation in history, the FBI was unable to definitively say who was responsible for 9/11.'

2. The war is not resulting in a reduction of the terrorist threat
It has been claimed that fighting a war in Afghanistan will not reduce the terrorist threat. It has been claimed that the best that can be hoped for is that terrorists will simply relocate. An Age editorial published on November 1, 2010, stated, 'The official reason for Australia's involvement [in Afghanistan] is that defeating the Taliban will supposedly prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for jihadist terrorists. As The Age has noted before, this stance ignores evident facts: terrorists don't need a haven, terrorism in its jihadist form has already gone global.'
Indeed in the United States and Great Britain there is a growing acknowledgement that the greatest terrorist threat may actually be 'home-grown', that is, form citizens within these states' own borders.
In a report released in September 2010, the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group, a Washington research group, stated, 'Today, America faces a dynamic threat that has diversified to a broad array of attacks, from shootings to car bombs to simultaneous suicide attacks to attempted in-flight bombings of passenger aircraft.'
The same report stressed that future terrorist attacks were likely to come from those living within the United States, either as citizens born there or as immigrants. It stated, 'In the past year alone the United States has seen affluent suburban Americans and the progeny of hardworking immigrants gravitate to terrorism. Persons of colour and Caucasians have done so. Women along with men. Good students and well-educated individuals and high-school drop-outs and jailbirds.'
The only common theme, the report identified was, 'a new-found hatred for their native or adopted country, a degree of dangerous malleability and a religious fervor they feel justifies violence.'
There are those who have suggested that waging war on what are believed to be terrorist states may actually serve to increase the spread of terrorism. On June 5, 2010, John Humphreys of 'Liberty Australia' wrote, 'Some commentators believe that the war on terror may do more to increase terror by increasing anti-Western hatred than it will do to decrease terror by killing terrorists, making terrorist attacks more difficult and reducing the institutional support of terrorist groups.'

3. The war has not resulted in a legitimate government for Afghanistan
It has been claimed that the legitimacy of the current Afghan government has been tainted by election fraud.
The main Afghan election observer group, the independent Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA), stated that it had serious concerns about the legitimacy of the August 20, 2010 election because of reported fraud.
At least 21 civilians and nine police officers were killed during the voting, according to the election commission and the Interior Ministry, amid dozens of bombings and rocket attacks. In addition, two poll workers were kidnapped in northern Balkh province and their bodies discovered the following day.
Throughout the ballot, there were complaints that anti-fraud measures were ignored across the country. People said the indelible ink that was supposed to stain voters' fingers for 72 hours could be washed off. In some polling stations, observers said poll workers let people vote with obviously fake voter cards.
FEFA stated, 'Ballot stuffing was seen to varying extents in most provinces, as were proxy voting and underage voting.'
Hamid Karzai was proclaimed president two months after the August election when his last challenger dropped out of a planned runoff, claiming the vote would not be fair.
In addition to doubts about the legitimacy of elections, there have been repeated concerns expressed about the extent of corruption at all levels of government in Afghanistan.
In January 2010 a United Nations report stated that half of all Afghan adults paid at least one bribe to a public official over the course of a year to cut through red tape or get help with poor service. Bribes were requested and taken by politicians, prosecutors and tax officers.
An Age editorial published on November 1, 2010, stated that there is a 'network of corruption surrounding President Hamid Karzai, whose regime has at best dubious democratic legitimacy from disputed - and often, rigged - elections.'

4. The war has caused great suffering for the Afghan people
It has been claimed that the war has inflicted great suffering upon the Afghan people. It is estimated that between 2006 and June 2010 nearly 7,000 Afghan civilians have died as a result of the fighting.
Though a higher proportion of these deaths are said to be the result of the actions of the anti-government Taliban forces, the number of civilian deaths appears to be increasing.
A report published in The Guardian on August 10, 2010, stated, 'Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are getting worse, according to the latest statistics from the United Nations: the Taliban's increasing use of homemade bombs and political assassinations has been responsible for a 31% increase in the number of civilians who killed or injured in fighting in Afghanistan this year so far.'
In January, 2010, Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the director of operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) stated, 'The suffering of the Afghan population has reached levels that are frankly unbearable in many circumstances... our major concern has been that over the past two years the intensity of the conflict has increased.
The geographic spread of the conflict has grown also. So it's no longer simply confined to some regions of the south of Afghanistan, it has spread into the west, but also parts of the north of the country.'
Erica Gaston is a human rights lawyer representing the human rights group CIVIC. She spent much of 2008 in Afghanistan interviewing families affected by the war. In a report published in The Huffington Post on February 26, 2009, Gaston wrote, 'Families repeatedly told me their grief at losing a loved one, at suffering a disability, at losing their homes, or being uprooted from their communities by conflict - and their anger that they saw no recognition or concern from those international troops whom they blamed for these losses.
I spoke with one man who watched 47 of his neighbors and extended family killed in a US airstrike in July 2008. He was angered at the lack of basic respect demonstrated by the US military, who denied the loss of life.'
It has been claimed that children who live in Afghanistan are particularly affected every day by a multitude of wartime stressors which contribute to their developing post traumatic stress disorder: child labor, and family and military violence.
On a daily basis they are first-hand witnesses to the bombings, abuse, and the general upheaval of their home life and society as a result of war, including the effects of long-term poverty and familial turmoil.
Dr. Claudia Catani of the University of Bielefeld has stated that, 'The interplay of these stressors contributes to a higher vulnerability in the children.' Approximately half of the boys and a third of the girls are expected to work to supplement the family's income, sometimes working heavy labor jobs as carpet weavers for an average of seven hours a day. Girls in this situation were more likely to experience family violence.

5. The war appears unwinnable
It has been repeatedly claimed that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. This point was made recently by the leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown, who in an interview on the ABC's 7.30 Report on October 18, 2010, stated, 'we have Australian experts who point out that the war cannot be successful, not on any current trajectory, in terms of a victory and the quelling ... of opposition from the Taliban in Afghanistan.' Senator Brown went on to claim, 'I have letters from relatives of troops who are in Afghanistan or going to Afghanistan who do not want their loved ones sent to what they see as a hopeless war, as a war where there isn't an exit strategy.'
A similar point has been made by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who in an opinion piece published in The Age on October 5, 2010, compared Afghanistan to Vietnam and argued both wars were unwinnable. Mr Fraser stated, 'Every new general who has been sent to Afghanistan has said: ''Give me more troops, with a change of strategy we will win.'' Every new general in Vietnam made exactly the same comment. Every general was wrong.'
It has been claimed that neither Australia nor the United States any longer believes the war is winnable in an absolute sense and that what each government is seeking is an acceptable way to exit the country.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on September 2, 2010, the newspaper's diplomatic editor, Daniel Flitton, stated, 'Winning in Afghanistan implies ... establishing stable democracy, ensuring respect for women's rights and the rule of law, and getting rid of the drug trade, things the West used to talk about.
Those goals are gone. That's the reason Gillard ducks any questions on whether it's a ''winnable'' war. She prefers a different formula - that Australia has a clear and defined mission and ''progress'' is being made. In this sense, a win in Afghanistan is better understood as finding the right way for the West to get out. Our mission now is to leave.'
It has been noted that the Taliban has been regaining strength since 2004. It has been claimed that in dividing its focus between Iraq and Afghanistan the United States has not devoted sufficient attention to the battle in Afghanistan to ensure victory.
In an opinion piece written David Rohde and Dabid E Sanger and published in The New York Times on August 12, 2007, it was stated, 'The Taliban had found refuge in Pakistan and regrouped as the American focus wavered. Taliban fighters seeped back over the border, driving up the suicide attacks and roadside bombings by as much as 25 percent this spring, and forcing NATO and American troops into battles to retake previously liberated villages in southern Afghanistan.'

6. The war has resulted in injury and death for Australian soldiers and is losing popular support
The number of injuries and fatalities suffered by Australian forces in Afghanistan is (as of November 17, 2010) 21 deaths and 160 wounded. These figures are concerning in themselves and perhaps even more concerning in terms of the trend they represent. Of the 21 deaths, ten occurred this year. Of the 160 injuries, 60 were suffered this year. This reflects a change in the nature of the deployment of Australian troops and suggests that Australian personnel may now be at greater risk.
The increasing number of fatalities and injuries suffered by Australian troops in Afghanistan has led many to question whether this is a war Australia should ever have entered or should continue to be a part of. The lack of a clear objective and the growing loss of Australian lives have seen support for Australia's involvement in this war dwindle.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on September 2, 2010, the newspaper's diplomatic editor, Daniel Flitton, stated, 'In the absence of a compelling rationale to explain the 21 Australians killed and nearly 150 wounded, no wonder the public mood has turned sour.'
Daniel Flitton went on to note, 'In the face of rising Australian casualties, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott preach the same message - it's a difficult and dangerous mission, they say, but necessary to fight terrorism and support the US alliance.
That is not the community view. More than half the Australian population believes the troops should be brought home.'
A similar point was made by Dr Marko Beljac on his online opinion site Nuclear Resonance. Dr Beljac stated, 'The recent multiple deaths of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan have reignited the debate on Australia's role in the conflict. Polls, according to media reports, suggest that public opposition to Australia's participation in the Afghan war is increasing as the human toll mounts.'

Arguments in support of Australia engaging in a war in Afghanistan
1. The war is a response to the September 11 terrorist attack
The war against Afghanistan has been justified as an act taken by the United States in response to the terrorist attack against it on September 11. The terrorist attacks were believed to have been orchestrated by an extremist Islamic group, Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. The Taliban-led Afghan government is claimed to have refused to hand over bin Laden.
On Sunday October 7, 2001, American and British forces began an aerial bombing campaign against Afghanistan, targeting Taliban forces and Al-Qaeda. The operation was originally called 'Operation Infinite Justice'. It has since been renamed 'Operation Enduring Freedom'.
The United States and Britain have operated in conjunction with the Northern Alliance, an Afghan group opposed to the Taliban, a militarized religious group which had taken control of Afghanistan in 1996 in the chaos which followed the Soviet withdrawal from their country.
At least 48 other nations, including Australia, have become involved with the United States in the conflict in Afghanistan.
Australian military forces were committed to coalition military operations against the Taliban government of Afghanistan in October 2001 as part of what became Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defence Force activities in Afghanistan since that date have been known as Operation Slipper
The then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, was visiting the United States when the September 11 attack occurred. He has repeatedly stated that the international response to terrorism, including the involvement of Australia, was triggered by September 11.
On September 11, 2006, five years after the initial terrorist attack on the United States, John Howard gave an interview on the ABC's current affairs program Four Corners. During that interview he stated, 'The world has changed since the 11th of September. I mean this was an unprovoked terrorist attack on civilians in the heart of New York and in the heart of Washington. There was no justification of any kind, there was no proximate act of the United States that in any way justified this attack and that's why I say that was the starting point of our consideration.'

2. The war is intended to reduce the threat of terrorism around the world
One of the key continuing justifications offered for Australia sending troops to fight in Afghanistan is that by so doing this country is helping to reduce the spread of global terrorism and so is making the world safer for all people, including Australians.
Central to this argument is the belief that Afghanistan is an important training depot for terrorists and that be removing it, the United States and its allies would strike a significant blow against the spread of terrorism world-wide.
Former Australian Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, put this position in June, 2010, when he stated, 'It is absolutely critical for the safety and security of Australians and Australia to help prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a training ground and operation base for international terrorists.'
Australian Prime Minister, Julie Gillard, stated during the Afghanistan debate in federal Parliament on October 19, 2010, 'If the insurgency in Afghanistan were to succeed, if the international community were to withdraw, then Afghanistan could once again become a safe haven for terrorists. Al Qaeda's ability to recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill would be far greater than it is today, and the propaganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enormous.'
Prime Minister Gillard went on to explain, 'The war has put pressure on Al-Qaeda's core leadership, killed some, captured others, forced many into hiding, forced them all on the defensive. Al-Qaeda has been dealt a severe blow.'
The leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, though stating that Al-Qaeda terrorists are more likely to be based in Pakistan or the horn of Africa, has gone on to argue, 'Even so, the return of Taliban government would swiftly restore that country to its former position as terror central.'
The current Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, stated during an interview on the ABC's 7.30 Report, 'We are in Afghanistan because it is in our national interests to be there... we're there because Afghanistan at the time was a breeding ground for international terrorists, a shelterer of al Qaeda...'
A similar point of view has been put by former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who has argued that were Australian troops to be removed from Afghanistan it would increase the likelihood of neighbouring Pakistan falling under terrorist control.
In an interview given on October 26, 2010, Mr Howard stated, '...contemplate ... the impact on the stability of Pakistan if the West is seen to have been defeated in Afghanistan...
Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state and if Pakistan through any combination of circumstances were to fall under greater terrorist influence or control just think for a moment. And I ask people who criticise our presence in Afghanistan to think for a moment of the consequences of that.'

3. Australia is involved in support of its ally, the United States
Australia has a long-standing strategic commitment of mutual support with the United States. The two countries are each members of the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty). This is the military alliance which binds Australia and New Zealand and, separately, Australia and the United States to cooperate on defence matters in the Pacific Ocean area, though today the treaty is understood to relate to attacks in any area.
America supported Australia when under attack by the Japanese in World War II and since then the military power of the United States has become central to Australia's defence strategies. As part of this reliance, Australian governments generally appear to believe that it is necessary that Australian forces must support the United States in major conflicts in which the United States is involved.
A 2006 parliamentary inquiry into Australia's defence relations with the United States stated, 'Evidence to the inquiry was overwhelming in its support for the value and relevance of the alliance, and the contribution that it makes to Australia's national security. It was suggested that the alliance remains as relevant if not more relevant than when it was first conceived to offset the insecurities that arose following World War II. Defence stated:
...the invocation of it on September 11 is testimony to the fact that it is relevant. In its first few years, of course, it was not called upon at all-it just existed. I think it is becoming more relevant as time goes on and is more relevant to us now as issues like the global war on terror and proliferation security and the range of things in which we cooperate with the United States on a global basis actually grow.'
In a speech given in the Australian federal Parliament on October 19, 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated, 'Australia will stand firm in our commitment to our alliance with the United States, the international community understands this, our friends and allies understand this, our enemies understand this too.'
It has also been noted that there are strong ties of sentiment and shared culture between Australia and the United States, which predispose each to come to the aid of the other. This point was made in a speech given by then Prime Minister John Howard to the National Press Club on September 11, 2002.
Mr Howard stated, 'To an Australian, an attack on New York or Washington is not an attack on a distant, unfamiliar place - and I don't say that unkindly or disrespectfully of any other city in the world - I simply state the reality that because of the commonality of so many features of our culture, an attack on New York and Washington was bound to be felt more deeply and bound to be linked more immediately to the Australian psyche, than attacks on just about any other cities in the world. Not only have many Australians been to both cities, some have lived there for lengthy periods of time. But of course on top of that, we almost nightly see images of both places.'

4. An oppressive theocracy has been removed in Afghanistan
A theocracy is a governing group that centres on religious belief. The Taliban were a theocracy. The Taliban is an Islamist political group that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001.
The Taliban, though they gave relative political stability to Afghanistan, were oppressive and denied personal freedoms to many groups within the country.
The United States Department of State makes the following remarks in relation to the Taliban, 'Afghanistan under the Taliban had one of the worst human rights records in the world. The regime systematically repressed all sectors of the population and denied even the most basic individual rights. Yet the Taliban's war against women was particularly appalling...
The Taliban first became prominent in 1994 and took over the Afghan capital, Kabul, in 1996. The takeover followed over 20 years of civil war and political instability. Initially, some hoped that the Taliban would provide stability to the country. However, it soon imposed a strict and oppressive order based on its misinterpretation of Islamic law.'
Then United States President George W. Bush during his remarks to the Warsaw Conference on Combating Terrorism, on November 6, 2001, stated, 'Women are imprisoned in their homes, and are denied access to basic health care and education. Food sent to help starving people is stolen by their leaders. The religious monuments of other faiths are destroyed. Children are forbidden to fly kites, or sing songs... A girl of seven is beaten for wearing white shoes.'
The Taliban were removed from power as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. As a result of the Talibans' removal it has been claimed that the civil rights of many Afghan people, especially women, have been better observed.
In a speech given in the Australian federal Parliament on October 19, 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated, 'In primary education, enrolments have increased from 1 million in 2001 to approximately 6 million today. Some 2 million of these enrolments are girls. There were none in 2001. Nothing better symbolises the fall of the Taliban than these two million Afghan girls learning to read.'

5. An elected government has been put in place
In interim government was put in place by Operation Enduring Freedom. In November 2001, after the Taliban government was toppled a new Afghan government under Hamid Karzai was installed and in December 2001 the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established by the UN Security Council to help assist the Karzai administration and provide basic security to the Afghan people.
In 2004 there was an Afghan presidential election which went relatively smoothly and saw Hamid Karzai win in the first round with 55.4% of the votes. The 2009 presidential election was marked by a lack of security, low voter turnout and widespread electoral fraud. The vote, along with elections for 420 provincial council seats, took place in August 2009, but remained unresolved during a lengthy period of vote counting and fraud investigation.
It has been claimed that accusations about electoral fraud are need to be put in context, as although such fraud doubtless occurred, it is only to be expected in as young a democracy as Afghanistan, where there are no democratic traditions and where the country is impoverished and has been devastated by war for generations.
An Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) spokesman, Noor Mohammad Noor, has noted that press outlets and some international observer groups 'have been quick to imply the electoral process is unsuccessful based on allegations of fraud and misconduct.'
Noor Mohammad Noor admitted such cases 'are inevitable in the current security climate' but that their impact was being reduced through the Electoral Complaints Commission process, in which serious examples of fraud are investigated and corrected.
An editorial published in The Washington Times on September 21, 2010, stated, 'Regardless of the results of the 2010 election, the fact it was carried off with less violence, a respectable turnout and more accountability shows that Afghanistan continues to make progress along the path to sustainable democracy.'
A similar position was put by the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in a speech to the federal Parliament given on October 19, 2010. Ms Gillard stated, 'Although we know democracy remains rudimentary and fragile, Afghanistan has a free press and a functioning parliament.
Last month parliamentary elections took place - elections with real and widely publicised problems - but elections did take place.'

6. Australian troops are not in Afghanistan to win a war but to hand over to Afghan forces
It has been argued that neither Australia nor the other foreign forces fighting in Afghanistan should have a simplistic view of what victory in Afghanistan would constitute.
It has been claimed that Afghanistan should be preparing for a transition to political and military independence, where the foreign forces will leave and Afghanistan will maintain its own security.
For this to happen the Afghan military and national police have to be trained to take on the role of independently protecting their country. This role of supplying military training in Afghanistan and helping to stabilize the new Afghan administration is a key element of the Australian mission.
In a speech given in the Australian federal Parliament on October 19, 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated, 'Our AFP contingent has trained almost seven hundred Afghan National Police at the police training centre for the province. It has also contributed to the successful targeting of corrupt officials and the tackling of major crimes. We are helping build local services.'
The Prime Minister went on to say, 'That is the beginning of transition...with the assistance of Afghan and Australian forces...
Gizab now has a local police force and a new district governor, and the provincial government is beginning to make its presence felt. Again, a place where progress is painstaking and incremental, where there will be new setbacks and where consolidation is needed. Again though, a place where the seeds of transition are being sewn...
There is a new international strategy in place - focused on counter-insurgency, designed to enable transition. Australia's commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended.'

Further implications
On November 21, 2010, it was announced that the nations of the NATO-led force currently fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan had negotiated with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to begin putting the battlefield under his control in early 2011 and to move Western troops to a support role by 2014.
(NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, a mutual support alliance of nations of which the United States is a prime member. NATO formally became deployed in Afghanistan in 2003.)
This is no absolute timeline as the United States and some of its NATO allies have declared that implementation will depend on the readiness of the Afghan forces to assume control of the military security of their own country. The Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has indicated that the allies would stand by Kabul after its combat mission ends.
However, the coalition's second largest troop provider, Britain, has set a 'firm deadline' of 2015 for withdrawing its fighting force, and Spain has indicated its own involvement could be over by 2012
The United States' position has been somewhat ambivalent as President Obama has stated, 'But my goal is to make sure by 2014 we have transitioned Afghans into the lead, and it is a goal to make sure that we are not still engaged in combat operations of the sort that we're involved with now.
Certainly our footprint will have been significantly reduced.'
A top White House aide was reported as saying individual NATO countries would choose when to end combat operations but that the United States had not yet taken that decision.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that no date has been set for the handover of power to Afghan police and army officers in Oruzgan, the province where about 80 per cent of Australia's contingent of 1550 troops are located.
Prime Minister Gillard stated, 'It is important that when we start the process of transition in an area of Afghanistan, we are confident that the Afghan local forces can take the security leadership and sustain it...
[However] we do believe that we are on track to complete the training of the Afghan national army in Oruzgan in two to four years.'
It is true that developments on the ground in Afghanistan will have a large part in determining the rate at which the coalition forces withdraw from the country. However, another factor will certainly be the extent of political and voter support for the war in the countries concerned. If Australia's troop losses continue along their current trajectory, the war is likely to become a very unpopular one in this country.
Despite this, it is difficult to imagine Australia withdrawing from Afghanistan while the United States still asks for Australian support. It is even less possible to imagine Australian forces remaining after the United States forces have withdrawn. Whatever the other justifications for Australia's involvement in Afghanistan maintaining the alliance with the United States is pivotal.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age:  August 7, Insight section, page 9, comment (photo of woman with mutilated nose) by Priamvada Gopal, `Simplistic moralism sells Afghans short'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/simplistic-moralism-sells-afghans-short-20100806-11ofx.html

The Age:  August 6, page 13, news item (photo of Bibi Aisha, whose nose and ears were cut off by her husband), `Picture of brutality stirs Afghan debate'.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/picture-of-brutality-stirs-afghan-debate-20100805-11kn2.html

The Age:  August 30, page 3, news item (photo) by Daniel Flitton, `Afghan women "depend" on foreign troops'.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/afghan-women-depend-on-foreign-troops-20100829-13xml.html

The Herald-Sun:  August 26, page 3, news item by Mark Dunn, `Like Vietnam quagmire, says Fraser'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/afghanistan-like-vietnam-quagmire-says-former-prime-minister-malcolm-fraser/story-e6frf7lf-1225910154679

The Australian:  August 26, page 13, analysis (photos) by Brendan Nicholson, `Diggers treading a trigger wire'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/diggers-treading-a-trigger-wire/story-e6frg8yo-1225910111812

The Australian:  August 26, page 3, news item by Mark Dodd, `General queries army tactics'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/general-queries-army-tactics/story-fn59niix-1225910119748

The Age:  August 26, page 18, editorial, `Australia needs honest debate on Afghan war'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/australia-needs-honest-debate-on-afghan-war-20100825-13s4l.html

The Age:  September 2, page 15, comment (with Spooner cartoon) by Daniel Flitton, `Finally, an Afghan debate'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/finally-an-afghan-debate-20100901-14ngw.html

The Australian:  August 30, page 6, news item (photo of Andrew Wilkie) by Mark Dodd, `Troops should pull out: Wilkie'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/troops-should-pull-out-wilkie/story-fn59niix-1225911613654

The Age:  August 29, page 19, comment by Tom Hyland, `Let's debate Afghanistan, but give us the facts first'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/lets-debate-afghanistan-but-give-us-the-facts-first-20100828-13wsg.html

The Herald-Sun:  August 27, page 38, comment by Andrew Bolt, `No time for weakness'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/no-time-for-weakness/story-e6frfhqf-1225910639058

The Herald-Sun:  October 5, page 30, comment by Russell Robinson, `Troops are in for the long haul'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/troops-in-for-the-long-haul-in/story-e6frfhqf-1225934048786

The Age:  October 5, page 13,  comment by Malcolm Fraser, `Libs fail to learn from past wars'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/libs-fail-to-learn-from-past-wars-20101004-16487.html

The Australian:  October 1, page 6, news item by L Vasek, `Afghan presence based on a lie, says Wilkie'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/afghan-presence-based-on-a-lie-wilkie/story-fn59niix-1225932559399

The Australian:  October 14, page 12, comment by Peter Leahy, `Wanted: a clear message on war'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wanted-a-clear-message-on-war/story-e6frg6zo-1225938377453

The Herald-Sun:  October 13, page 34, comment (photo of Bob Brown) by Andrew Bolt, `Brown must visit Diggers'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/greens-leader-bob-brown-must-visit-diggers/story-e6frfhqf-1225937851978

The Age:  October 11, page 5, news item by P Hartcher, `Now is not the time to get cold feet, warns general'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/now-is-not-the-time-to-get-cold-feet-warns-general-20101010-16e0b.html

The Age:  October 8, page 2, news item by Dan Oakes, `Self-reliance a long way off for Afghan province'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/selfreliance-a-long-way-off-for-afghan-province-20101007-169qs.html

The Australian:  October 21, page 13, editorial, `The case for a just war well made in Parliament'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-case-for-a-just-war-well-made-in-parliament/story-e6frg71x-1225941399906

The Age:  October 21, page 16, editorial, `Speeches mask the reality of Afghanistan's war'.
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/editorial/speeches-mask-the-reality-of-afghanistans-war-20101020-16u2w.html

The Age:  October 21, page 9, comment by Michelle Grattan, `Gillard in a snake pit, and it doesn't look good'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gillard-in-a-snake-pit-and-it-doesnt-look-good-20101020-16u8c.html

The Age:  October 21, page 9, news item (ref to parliamentary debate) by Michelle Grattan, `Crossbenchers lone voices against Afghan war'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/crossbenchers-lone-voices-against-afghan-war-20101020-16u8b.html

The Australian:  October 20, page 4, comment by Brendan Nicholson, `Plenty of risks in the plan to stay the course'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/plenty-of-risks-in-the-plan-to-stay-the-course/story-e6frg6zo-1225940915993

The Age:  October 20, page 1, news item by Michelle Grattan, `Gillard talks tough on Afghan war'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-talks-tough-on-war-in-afghanistan-20101019-16sjh.html

The Age:  October 17, page 7, news item by Tom Hyland, `Troops "overwhelmed and cannot defeat Taliban"'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/troops-overwhelmed-and-cannot-defeat-taliban-20101016-16odk.html

The Age:  October 16, Insight section, page 9, comment by Hugh White, `Afghan campaign is not worth the price'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/afghan-campaign-is-not-worth-the-price-20101015-16nok.html

The Age:  October 26, page 6, news item (photo of Senator Bob Brown in debate) by Michelle Grattan, `Brown wants exit line from Afghan "stuff-up"'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-wants-exit-line-from-afghan-stuffup-20101025-170y7.html

The Age:  October 23, Insight section, page 4, analysis (photo - ref to training of Afghan army) by Rafael Epstein, `Engaged on the ground'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/engaged-on-the-ground-20101022-16xvw.html

The Age:  October 22, page 21, comment by Scott Burchill, `Shifting reasons for being at war'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shifting-reasons-for-being-at-war-20101021-16vxb.html