EMAIL DETAILS

> Wanted: a clear message on war
> Peter Leahy From:The Australian October 14, 2010 12:00AM
> Increase Text Size
> Decrease Text Size
> Print
> Email
> Share
>
>
>
> An illustration by Jon Kudelka. Source: The Australian
>
> THE long overdue review of our Afghan deployment must yield a
> coherent strategy.
>
> THE federal government should be commended for the decision to
> conduct a review of our commitment to Afghanistan. As the head of
> the cabinet's national security committee, the Prime Minister should
> lead what must be a whole-of-government effort. Giving Defence or
> another agency the responsibility would potentially restrict the
> debate and limit the matters discussed and solutions offered.
>
> Strategy, according to soldier and theorist Basil Liddell Hart, is
> the calculation and co-ordination of ways and means to achieve ends.
> Australia's national security interests, or ends, are clearly stated
> in the 2008 national security statement: freedom from attack,
> maintenance of territorial integrity and political sovereignty,
> preservation of our hard-won freedoms and economic prosperity for
> all Australians.
>
>
> RELATED COVERAGE
> NATO blamed for killing Afghan children
> Adelaide Now, 27 Aug 2010
> Afghanistan war turning: defence chief
> The Australian, 10 Feb 2010
> Civilian surge is key in Afghan war
> The Australian, 6 Dec 2009
> Obama boosts troops, pledges fast exit
> The Australian, 2 Dec 2009
> Rudd endorses Obama Afghan surge
> Herald Sun, 2 Dec 2009
>
> These ends can be achieved by using diplomatic, economic, military
> and soft power. Increasingly Australia can also call on the
> Australian Federal Police, AUSAid and the Australian Civil Corps.
> The timing, methods and combinations of the elements of power we use
> shape the strategy.
>
> The first task must be to provide a definitive link between
> Australia's national security interests and our presence in
> Afghanistan. Only after the reasons are clear can a national
> strategy be developed: what elements of power to use, in what
> combination, and to achieve what ends.
>
> So far successive governments have offered only tasks: destroy al-
> Qa'ida, remove the Taliban, deny terrorists sanctuary, assist the
> people of Afghanistan, stabilise the nation and train the Afghan
> security forces.
>
> The second task of any review must be to provide a compelling
> narrative for the deployment. If we send soldiers and civilians to a
> war zone, they need to know why they are going. At the moment, more
> Australians oppose the deployment than support it. This is damaging
> for the government and divisive for the nation. It is also
> unacceptable to have the military caught between government policy
> and public opinion.
>
> The third task is to articulate what we want to achieve. If our
> objective in Afghanistan is a society resembling ours, forget it. We
> are unlikely to get a society free from corruption and violence,
> with a fully representative government and high-performance security
> forces. The achievement of a predetermined set of conditions becomes
> our exit strategy.
>
> The fourth task is to provide guidance for a whole-of-government
> mission and introduce new elements of power. As the surge bites and
> the security situation improves, we must accelerate reconstruction,
> improve governance, support economic development and assist the
> expansion of the Afghan National Police.
>
> Afghanistan is a counterinsurgency campaign and the key to success
> is political legitimacy. In counter-insurgency campaigns the ratio
> of civil to military effort should be in the order of 80 per cent
> civil and 20 per cent military. We are a long way from that now. The
> announcement of an increase in the AFP deployment is nowhere near
> enough. Now is the time to enhance our civil response in
> Afghanistan. This will support the Afghan people and help legitimise
> the Karzai government. We may not like him but he is the elected
> representative of the Afghan people.
>
> Reasons for the deployment to Afghanistan could include: maintaining
> a rules-based system of global law and order; denying terrorists a
> haven; ensuring instability does not spill over into the region and
> eventually to Australia; supporting the country's elected government
> and the Afghan people in their time of need; and making a credible
> commitment to the US-Australian alliance.
>
> Australia's national strategy should be a balanced civil and
> military effort to support the Afghan government in Oruzgan
> province. There is no urgent requirement to adjust the military
> numbers or force mix. Priority should be given to increasing the
> civil effort. Disengagement should be phased and based on
> conditions, not time. We should anticipate a lengthy deployment:
> military for at least four years and civilians for considerably
> longer.
>
> The decisions to go to war and stay at war are among the most
> important a country makes. They are matters for the parliament and
> the people. A prime minister may exercise the crown prerogative in
> an emergency, but the decision to go to war, and to stay at war,
> must quickly be reaffirmed by parliament. We have waited too long
> for this review. Now we must develop an agreed and comprehensive
> strategy. Our soldiers will do what they are told. The challenge now
> rests with parliament to tell them to do the right things for the
> right reasons.
>
> Peter Leahy, director of the National Security Institute, University
> of Canberra, was chief of army from 2002 to 2008.
>