What exactly are we aiming for in Afghanistan?

---

The Greens might not have the balance of power in the Senate until next July but one of Bob Brown’s proposals, a parliamentary debate on our military commitment in Afghanistan, should be indulged well before then.

Nine years into a war that has recently grown much more dangerous for our troops the two major political parties have fallen back on a bit of a “just because” argument for why we should remain in such a Hell hole.

It’s an accepted reality that both sides are in unanimous support for our mission. But as public unease with the growing Australian toll intensifies, our leaders have failed to properly articulate much beyond championing our training role and that “progress is being made.”

People on the ground in Afghanistan, such as journalist Chris Masters who wrote in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, say that something has indeed changed.

He wrote:

A common presumption is the spike in casualties is an indicator of a surge in Taliban strength. This is not the view of Australian soldiers who are more inclined to share US General David Petraeus’ position that this is what happens when you attack Taliban strongholds.

Australian soldiers mentoring the Afghan National Army have reached deeper into Taliban territory, now occupying former no-go zones in Oruzgan’s remote valleys. Special Forces soldiers have taken the fight beyond Uruzgan, attacking Taliban and inflicting heavy casualties.

Analyst Hugh White and Jason Thomas, who has just returned from Afghanistan on an aid mission, both said the political rhetoric inadequately addressed the complexity of the situation.

White said: “I think the objectives that we’ve set ourselves are quite unachievable; that we will leave Afghanistan in a few years with Afghanistan looking very much the way it does today.”