Most commentators assume that Wilkie will support Labor. After all, the Howard Government was very critical of his actions as a “whistleblower” concerning the Iraq war. (It should be noted that Tony Abbott apologised to Wilkie for the vilification).
Anyhow, Wilkie’s principal policy interest is poker machines. He stood as an independent candidate in the 2010 Tasmania election on a platform of removing poker machines.
Labor is hopelessly conflicted on the issue of poker machines. State Labor Governments – NSW for example – are addicted to poker machines, not only for gambling tax revenue, but also for support to the Labor machine. The Labor Club in Canberra, for example, is a major donor to the Labor Party.
Clubs are a very powerful lobby group in the Labor fold.
The Coalition would be wise to adopt the recommendations of the Productivity Commission’s Gambling Inquiry which the Labor Government has effectively shelved. They are sensible recommendations and would act as a brake on the worst excesses of poker machine gambling.
That would be a powerful reason for Wilkie to support the Coalition, if not in a formal agreement, at least in guaranteeing supply and not supporting no confidence motions except in extremis.
Surely Wilkie has Katter’s problem in reverse. If he supports the Coalition, for whatever reason, his electorate will toss him out at the next election. He will be able to support individual bills over time, perhaps related to poker machines, but helping Abbott ascend to power would be anathema to the green moochers of Tasmania.
daddy dave
28 Aug 10 at 9:52 am
I’m not sure about that, dd. You might be right if Wilke split the Green vote, but its more likely he attracted votes from the two major parties and a few from the Greens. The other thing here is that what happened pretty much reflected what happened in Melbourne; two longstanding ALP members retired. Votes are likely to migrate back to the ALP in the next election anyway.
dover_beach
28 Aug 10 at 10:10 am
Wilkie doesn’t have the option of going back to the polls. He only just scraped in on preferences. He will side with whichever party it is that can guarantee 75 votes.
asf
28 Aug 10 at 2:42 pm
So basically the Coalition should compromise it’s support for free enterprise in order to pander to socialist independents?
Surprise! I disagree.
Yobbo
28 Aug 10 at 6:52 pm
Votes are likely to migrate back to the ALP in the next election anyway.
Wilkie got in as a fluke, but then again, so did Abbott in the party room last December. Flukes can have long lasting consequences. Depending on how he performs and what positions he takes, he might keep the seat.
daddy dave
28 Aug 10 at 6:56 pm
He’s mentioning pokies as one of his main issues, but I suspect the biggest is strong strong whistle-blower protection laws.
The pokies thing is problematic for both sides, since it’s a state issue – and more importantly, states are dependent on the cash.
But I agree with Yobbo – Libs shouldn’t take a less free-market position to appease any of these arseholes.
Fleeced
29 Aug 10 at 12:02 pm
He’s really pushing this heroic whistleblower crapola beyond the limits:
This is a lie:
And this is morally disgusting:
- The “peace” of the Taliban will emerge when foreign troops get out.
- Our troops just there needlessly killing folks.
- But he loves the troops!
What a mendacious douchebag.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/29/2996394.htm
C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 12:36 pm
Gillard seems to have agreed, or will formally agree to Wilkie’s demands.
She’s not exactly playing hard to get.
JC
29 Aug 10 at 12:49 pm
Jesus. Wilke was only sore at Howard, because he believed Howard lied about Iraq. That hardly makes him an illiberal, anti-material, socialist Green-bat.
Peter Patton
29 Aug 10 at 1:01 pm
No but what does make into numb-nut is taking his wife to a meeting with Gillard.
JC
29 Aug 10 at 1:03 pm
Wilke was only sore at Howard, because he believed Howard lied about Iraq.
…and Afghanistan. Look, opposition to Iraq is mainstream on the Left, so you can’t make too much of someone’s opinions on that score. But Afghanistan? The only people opposed to that war, it seems to me, are 9-11 Truthers and other far-out conspiracy theorists.
Frankly, his military/intelligence background notwithstanding, he’s talking out of ignorance on Afghanistan.
That hardly makes him an illiberal, anti-material, socialist Green-bat.
Hmmm. Let’s see.
he’s definitely against logging (ie Green), development (illiberal), gambling (materialism), military action (peacenik socialist), and the US alliance. Yeah, he’s a real mainstream, middle-of-the-road guy.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 2:12 pm
What is his military background exactly? Army, Duntroon etc – yes. Did he ever serve in a conflict in a forward area? Apparently no. He also did a stint with US defence company Raytheon – not exactly cleanskins.
C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 2:17 pm
I’m not sold on this idea of whistleblower protection either. Depends on the details I guess, but I wouldn’t want to see a new whistleblower in the news every week.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 2:27 pm
The only people opposed to that war, it seems to me, are 9-11 Truthers and other far-out conspiracy theorists.
I’m not a leftie or a troofer, Dad. I’m opposed to the Afghan war and have been for several years now.
What’s the objective there? Do you know?
No one has any fucking idea what we’re supposed to be doing over there and all we’re doing is putting young men in harms way.
It’s now become a leftie namby pamby war without any objective or even exit plan.
If we were serious about it, we should be going into Pakistan’s lawless provinces and doing some serious damage there.
We need to get the fuck out of there and do so quickly.
JC
29 Aug 10 at 2:42 pm
“It’s now become a leftie namby pamby war without any objective or even exit plan.”
You were making a fair bit of sense for a while there, but you just couldn’t help yourself could you?
“If we were serious about it, we should be going into Pakistan’s lawless provinces and doing some serious damage there.”
Serious about what? Ensuring the deaths of millions of people in a whole new quagmire, only one with nukes?
FDB
29 Aug 10 at 2:47 pm
I don’t have an issue with his wife attending a meeting with the PM. She was in the same bizzo as him and would be more qualified to have an opinion on sensitive matters than oh, I don’t know, and ex-AFP CPP expert… or even Julia.
Abu Chowdah
29 Aug 10 at 2:57 pm
FDB;
The Paki frontier provinces are where the Taliban take refuge and most their supplies and reinforcements come from. Unless those are destroyed to the point where those fuckers are begging for mercy there’s no point in this war.
So we need to get the fuck out of there, but not before we institute the Birdie “sheila plan”, which is to have open borders in the west to any women wanting to leave that shithole.
See this?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FsdjIBV0Rlc/TFffzKSr7GI/AAAAAAAABb4/-yW5kbYAEu4/s1600/AfghanGirl2010.jpg
They cut girls faces off with a freaking knife. The men there are barbarous animals. Look at what they did to this girl. She’s 16 and didn’t want to be married to a Taliban fighter.
Here’s a novel idea. Take over a large vat of acid and tell the male population that any of them threatening or caught doing this to girls will be slowly hoisted in a tub full of acid over a period of a week.
JC
29 Aug 10 at 3:02 pm
I’m not a leftie or a troofer, Dad. I’m opposed to the Afghan war and have been for several years now.
Let me clarify. Only those who question the original motive for going in to Afghanistan tend to be truthers and so on. Wilkie says that the war was based on lies. I’m guessing you don’t agree with that, unless you think 9-11 was an inside job.
But I was getting a coffee last week and a news item cam on the TV in the coffee shop about Afghanistan. The guy serving me coffee made a similar comment, about ‘what are we doing there?’
The problem is that our political leaders, especially Rudd, have not defended the war. They haven’t explained what we’re doing there or why. So of course it seems pointless when nobody tells you what the point is.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 3:04 pm
Dad:
Rudd or Gillard can’t explain the war because they really don’t know themselves why we’re there. It’s a sort of global left team up now.
It’s become the left’s “nation building” exercise extraordinaire. Consequently like everything the left touches they fuck up completely to the point where you’re asking questions about the original intent.
The Afghanistan objective is now so fucked and rooted we should close shop and get the fuck out like Holland has done. I totally agree with Wilkie on this point and if Abbott was smart- which of course he is- he’d give an undertaking that we’d get our troops out asap.
JC
29 Aug 10 at 3:11 pm
Interesting how the left’s Good War – Afghanistan – previously billed as a legitimate and honourable war of choice, is now a Bad War. But, of course, there’s no Liberal or Republican monster to kick around so it’s time to Move Forward.
Look JC, I’ve said similar thing and I tend to agree, I guess. It’s a worthwhile endeavour but we’re no longer serious about it. I’m totally sick of Abbott and Gillard and Houston and Gillespie involving themselves in these PR-driven mawkish funeral rituals when, the truth is, none of them have the balls to escalate our commitment to our Afghanistan to match their rhetoric about how important it is. Send in ballalions, Black Hawks, Hornets – the works – if you want Australians to kill these scumbags by the bushel. Otherwise, fuck it. Get out.
C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 3:15 pm
“…of them have the balls to escalate
ourcommitment to our Afghanistan…”C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 3:16 pm
Do’h!
“…none of them have the balls to escalate our commitment to
ourAfghanistan…”C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 3:17 pm
Third time lucky Lad
tal
29 Aug 10 at 3:18 pm
So are we there to catch the perpetrators of 9/11?
Not really, no. That horse bolted long ago. It was the original reason to go in – the reason that most people were okay with – but that’s not what we’ve been doing there for a very long time.
Are we there to protect Afghan women?
No. Women are mistreated shockingly in many parts of the world. The girl on the Time cover was mutilated by her own husband, with the full support of his family. Can you explain what kind of military action is supposed to end that sort of cultural barbarity, and how? Macho torture fantasies need not apply.
Are we there to destroy the Taliban?
That would be a wonderful outcome, but it will never happen while they have the support they do – which is partly a function of us being there in the first place.
I don’t have any particularly helpful ideas for solving Afghanistan’s problems. But when what you’re doing isn’t working, that right there is a sufficient reason to stop.
FDB
29 Aug 10 at 3:22 pm
It is one thing to overthrow a regime, another to build a new one.
Right. Lucky it wasn’t tried in Germany and Japan.
…western troops are now part of the problem.
Really? How so? If they leave, the Taliban will run Women’s Studies courses and swear off facilitating terrorism? Bullshit. They’ll return to their psychopathy like dogs to vomit.
…the government we are trying to prop up is dysfunctional and unpopular.
A lesson there for Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott.
C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 3:53 pm
Howard didn’t “lie.” And desk-jockey Wilkie ought not be celebrated for popularising this slander. Every intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMD, as did almost every leader with knowledge on such subjects – including Rudd and Beazley. The Iraq War Resolution – the most comprehensive statement of casus belli – listed many justifications for the war, of which WMD were only one.
C.L.
29 Aug 10 at 3:59 pm
Wilkie says this, a reasonable statement.
But he also says this, which seems to be indifferent to carnage in another country.
Note to Andrew Wilkie: If we leave Afghanistan won’t won’t “find its natural politcal level.” It will be invaded by theocratic fascists (again), who will subject the population to a reign of terror.
If it was New Zealand, would we help? Do we care less because they are of a different culture?
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 5:32 pm
Wars can be won. This idea that we cannot win wars now is a sick joke
This line almost deserves a prize for being the most idiotic and hypocritical piece of rhetorical trash to have been vomited out of a ‘libertarian’.
How many dead would constitute a victory in Afghanistan? How many corrupt warlords ought the allies be supporting?
Gen Giap is on the record saying they couldn’t hold out much longer and only manipulation of Western media gave them a US withdrawal, which let them overrun the inept South Vietnamese
Whilst it’s true that the media was more forthright in the time of Vietnam, reporting a small fraction of the atrocities in which the US was engaged, it had nothing to do with US withdrawal. Again, one can only wonder how many dead Vietnamese it would have taken to have constituted ‘victory’ for the deluded sections of the paleo-right.
If it was an attempt to combat terror ‘with terror’ they would have targeted civilians, not the Taliban leadership. Your claim is factually false.
Dave, Allied forces have killed more civilians than the ‘Taliban’. This has occurred largely through airstrikes, which tend not to discriminate between civilian and ‘terrorist’.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 5:33 pm
THR,
Why do you know more about military affairs than Gen Giap?
If you do, I’m Marshal bloody Mannerheim.
.
29 Aug 10 at 5:38 pm
THR, indulge me as I’ll repeat myself:
If we leave, Afghanistan won’t won’t “find its natural political level.” It will be invaded by theocratic fascists (again), who will subject the population to a reign of terror.
I’d like anyone who says “let’s leave Afghanistan” to confirm that that they’re okay with that happening.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 5:39 pm
You’re particularly gullible today, dot:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm
THR
29 Aug 10 at 5:40 pm
“Dave, Allied forces have killed more civilians than the ‘Taliban’.”
This is prepostorous. UN estimates that 75% of civians have been killed by Taliban, and about 8% by colaitiion forces.
But even if it were true, attacks on the military resulting in civilian casualties is not terrorism.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 5:41 pm
If we leave, Afghanistan won’t won’t “find its natural political level.” It will be invaded by theocratic fascists (again), who will subject the population to a reign of terror.
There’s actually a range of groups who are responsible for terror, and these include the theocrats (of different stripes), drug dealers, warlords, government forces and Allies forces. Whether Afghanistan would lapse into theocracy upon the departure of the US is debatable. What is absolutely certain is that ‘humanitarian intervention’ at the barrel of a gun (or rather, through cowardly airstrikes) makes Afghanistan worse, not better.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 5:43 pm
“The cause with which we are allied is just. It is no simple act of revenge. It is no knee-jerk response to combat terror with terror in return. It fits completely within the measured guidelines advocated by the UN, that all nations should do their utmost to banish terrorism from the face of the earth, and that ‘the force we use to fight it should always be proportional and focused’.”
These, by all accounts are not statements of fact, but Howard’s opinions. They cannot be lies, even by definition. They can be opinions you and I may disagree with, but opnions cannot be lies.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 5:45 pm
“It is no simple act of revenge. It is no knee-jerk response to combat terror with terror in return.
Oh yes it is.”
Adrien, this is the most bizarre comment I have ever seen from you.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 5:47 pm
Smartarse who presumes I read newsmax and doesn’t read the whole article:
“We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]… not only in lives and materiel…. Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. … The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory….
The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion. ”
So the article concludes with the quote I was thinking of. “Another two more days” is clearly bullshit. The US hadn’t really had an intensive strategic bombing campaign or an outright invasion of the North planned.
I don’t read World Nut Daily or Newsmax.
.
29 Aug 10 at 5:48 pm
“If we leave, Afghanistan won’t won’t “find its natural political level.” It will be invaded by theocratic fascists (again), who will subject the population to a reign of terror.”
Sadly, this may be their natural political level. But regardless of terminology, the critical problem is that anothter 5 years of western troops may not make much difference.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 5:50 pm
UN estimates that 75% of civians have been killed by Taliban, and about 8% by colaitiion forces.
This was definitely false up to about 2007-2008, and is probably still false. The ‘Taliban’ do not exist. Instead, the insurgency consists of a range of groups, not all of whom are religiously inspired.
But even if it were true, attacks on the military resulting in civilian casualties is not terrorism.
To use a Stalinist analogy, this is on the same moral level as saying that purges against the families of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and co are merely perfectly legitimate collateral damage.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 5:52 pm
“our forces are inflicting disproportionate damage on the Taliban and securing the cleared areas against Taliban re-occupation.”
This may be so and it is commendable. But without a credible government in Kabul, all this is futile.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 5:52 pm
“Instead, the insurgency consists of a range of groups, not all of whom are religiously inspired.”
Name them.
“To use a Stalinist analogy”
Big surprise.
.
29 Aug 10 at 5:55 pm
“To use a Stalinist analogy, this is on the same moral level as saying that purges against the families of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and co are merely perfectly legitimate collateral damage.”
Nonsense. I have no sympathy for butchers like Zinoviev, Kamenev, or Radek, but they were targetted deliberately.
I never said collateral damage is always justified. It must be minimised. It is still bad. But it is not terrorism. There is a huge difference.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 5:55 pm
I don’t read World Nut Daily or Newsmax
In your own words, you attributed Vietnamese ‘manipulation’ of the US media as the primary cause of the US not winning in Vietnam.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 5:56 pm
But it is not terrorism. There is a huge difference.
Okay. Let’s call is state-sponsored mass murder, if your sensibilities are too delicate for ‘terrorism’.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 5:57 pm
“The people the Americans and British are fighting in Afghanistan are mostly local tribesmen resisting foreign forces.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/afghanistan-experts-views-defence-troops
THR
29 Aug 10 at 6:00 pm
THR, you know very well that coalition forces are not targtting civilians. It is not murder any more than bombing of Berlin by allies was murder.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 6:07 pm
“Wilkie’s understanding of these questions is either so pathetic as to arouse wonder that he was ever employed in an intelligence agency or is simply tendentiousness deployed in the service of celebrity.”
Heh. I guess the solution is the arrogance and pitifully shallow view of international security you’re giving us with the likes of this:
“there exists now a pan-Islamist threat of different kinds and stripes in the world and where one incarnation of it can be engaged conventionally, it must be engaged.”
Never mind that by engaging in Afghanistan, we are very very clearly fucking things up even more. Of course that’s the Left’s fault when it is acknowledged, and usually it’s just not acknowledged.
FDB
29 Aug 10 at 6:51 pm
As for Wilkie, I think Samuel is correct to argue that we cannot assume that Wilkie will lean toward the ALP. His chief enemies wit the Coalition – Howard and Downer – have long since been consigned to history’s dustbin. Let us not forget, however, that it was actually serial defamer Andrew Bolt who launched a campaign against Wilkie, leaking info from Downer’s DFAT against him. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bolt continues on in this vein, and the smearing tactics may well drive Wilkie to the left.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 6:54 pm
“After all, the objections to the war were not principally that it was unwinnable, but that it was immoral.”
One is connected to the other. Had Americans won in the first year, the wouldn’t have been any protests. The objections were against the US casulaties, the draft, and the atrocities (such as secret bombings of Cambodia and Laos) after the US lost its nerve due to much stronger resistance than they expected.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 8:14 pm
The strongest evidence that you’re wrong is that our soldiers are almost unanimously of the opinion that they are doing good over there.
This is one of the weakest lines of evidence. Bureaucrats who want to monitor the internet for ‘harmful’ content no doubt believe that they are ‘doing good’. The rest of us have good reason to dismiss them. The same is just as true of an army of volunteer adventurers.
One is connected to the other. Had Americans won in the first year, the wouldn’t have been any protests.
You may be right about the protests, Boris. On the other hand, we know what it looks like when the US ‘wins’. It’s Pinochet and Somoza. It’s democracy protesters being tortured and killed in Uzbekistan. It’s the Contra doing exactly the same things that the Taliban are accused of, but doing it on the US dime. Let’s be serious here – US foreign policy is as brutal, if not more so, than that pursued by the USSR or China, and anybody who is honestly in favour of freedom and liberty ought to oppose the sorts of ‘wins’ the US military wants.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 8:48 pm
“Boris. On the other hand, we know what it looks like when the US ‘wins’. It’s Pinochet and Somoza”
Sadly, I partly agree with THR here. During the Cold War, the US’s main concern was to counter Soviet expansionism around the world. The problem was that to do this they had to support the opposing regime, which in many cases were no less brutal than those supported by the Soviets. This has created a lot of enemies of the US around the world. Not sure what they should have done though. Let the Soviets take over the world, country by country?
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 8:58 pm
Bureaucrats who want to monitor the internet for ‘harmful’ content no doubt believe that they are ‘doing good’. The rest of us have good reason to dismiss them.
I’m not sure that the parallel holds. sitting in a dark room in Canberra sees only the task. But the soldiers are over there, they see everything. They know and see as much as any journalist who visits Afghanistan.
So the question is, can soldiers provide a unique, insightful, and accurate account of what’s going on. Surely, being there for months, they can do that as well as a reporter who visits for a week.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 9:02 pm
correction. I meant to write “The censor sitting in a dark room…”
Somehow the word ‘censor’ got censored. weird.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 9:03 pm
Sorry dave, but this argument will never hold water. Plenty of armies throughout history have managed the dual tasks of maintaining high self-esteem and bayoneting babies. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are many reasons why soldiers might see their role in Afghanistan as basically good, and these reasons have little to do with the facts on the ground.
As for reporters – there has probably been no modern invasion with as little media coverage as Afghanistan. The Australian army is particularly controlling when it comes to visits by media. Afghanistan is easily the most stage-managed war in history, which is lucky for the invaders, since it means the nightly news is not filled with images of the victims of ‘humanitarian’ bombing campaigns.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 9:06 pm
“As for reporters – there has probably been no modern invasion with as little media coverage as Afghanistan.”
In that case, how come you speak so confidently about Afghanistan?
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 9:13 pm
“Interesting how the left’s Good War – Afghanistan – previously billed as a legitimate and honourable war of choice, is now a Bad War.”
Radical left have always opposed the invasion. The centre-left supported it. Many of them and still do, but less enthusiastically.
Boris
29 Aug 10 at 9:21 pm
In that case, how come you speak so confidently about Afghanistan?
Two reasons. The first is from general principles. We know that pretty much every state, when in war, tends to lie. This isn’t unique to the US or Australia. It’s universal, and we should therefore be skeptical of ‘official’ reports. We know also that occupation is almost always utterly brutal, and detested by the occupied. An Australian soldier/official can no more speak on behalf of an Afghan than could a plantation owner speak for a slave.
Finally, the very fact of a media blackout ought to make us a little more skeptical about the nature of the ‘good war’ that is happening in Afghanistan. The ‘war’ itself has consisted largely of aerial bombings. The ‘democracy’ that is currently in place makes Iran look enlightened. Security and food are non-existent for Afghan citizens, and the allied forces kill with impunity, and simply label the corpses ‘Taliban’.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 9:21 pm
Close air support. Do you know what that means?
Look, dickhead, I have friends and family there right now. Your fantasy idea that Australian troops are killing indiscriminately, from altitude and not in skirmishes, is false.
Abu Chowdah
29 Aug 10 at 10:02 pm
It could be my browser, but a whole chunk of comments seem to have been excised.
Your fantasy idea that Australian troops are killing indiscriminately, from altitude and not in skirmishes, is false.
Okay. I’ll qualify my statements by conceding that it’s not Australians who are dropping the bombs themselves. They’re part of the same overall effort, but not actually flying the planes. That said, dropping a few hundred bombs a month is not ‘close air support’. The numbers I cited exclude helicopters and a number of other things.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 10:11 pm
THR,
I had a comment that was culled. Fortunately so, because it had a rather unintentional callous tone.
The fact is that the bombing rate you describe can be done by less than a squadron of figher planes and up to a fighter wing, out of 160 000 + US and “other” coalition (some US make this up) forces. The air component might be led by a Group Captain and have 500 personnel under their command.
This would infer that the war is not primarily a bombing campaign, and most often, low intensity warfare between ground troops.
Or you’re making up facts as you go along.
.
29 Aug 10 at 10:11 pm
Your comment (now excised) cited the number as being for close air support. That effectively negates your claim that it is a bombing campaign with no ground contacts.
Dropping a few hundred bombs a month IS close air support – unless you get your knowledge from Hollywood movies and believe every bomb dropped ends an engagement.
Abu Chowdah
29 Aug 10 at 10:16 pm
“That said, dropping a few hundred bombs a month is not ‘close air support’. ”
Let’s call it between 0 and 1000. 500 per month.
500/30 = 16-17 per day.
17 bombs per day. The Taliban number 25000 full time fighters.
Not really strategic bombing, is it?
I also mentioned interdiction in an excised post.
.
29 Aug 10 at 10:17 pm
Here’s a pr-war source, that uses weasel words such as ‘close air support/precision strikes’ to describe the bombing, and even it concedes that 2,926 such bombing raids occurred in 2007:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071213_oif-oef_airpower.pdf
The point here isn’t that there are no troops on the ground, simply that so much of the war consists of bombing that nobody can seriously claim this to be ‘humanitarian’.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 10:23 pm
Some comments have definitely gone. For example THR and Boris both quote things I wrote earlier, but the comments of mine that they are quoting have disappeared.
daddy dave
29 Aug 10 at 10:27 pm
10 missions per day out of a force of 160 000 fighting 25000 full timers plus reservists in a counter insurgency operation?
You really think this is indiscriminate?
“weasel words such as ‘close air support/precision strikes’”
Weasel words? You realise precision weapons were made in order to make force multipliers cheaper?
The US invented/successfully reapplied laser guided bombs/electro optronic guidance as to destroy the Thanh Hoa bridge, which they had wasted a lot of missions, fuel, munitions etc on to destroy. 800 sorties beforehand – before a first LGB strike and a EO guided walleye bomb strike to finish it off.
.
29 Aug 10 at 10:31 pm
Why bother inventing gear like this if you just want to carpet bomb civilians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb
.
29 Aug 10 at 10:35 pm
These ‘precision weapons’ have been responsible for killing anywhere from 30-110 people in one go. The civilian casualties are not accidental, by the way – military commanders seek approval from the President when needing to slaughter more than 30 civilians. So, obviously, there is nothing humanitarian or emancipatory about this war. It’s senseless from the point of view of self-defence, and is now just an unending cycle of pointless violence.
THR
29 Aug 10 at 11:02 pm
…
Abu Chowdah
29 Aug 10 at 11:21 pm
Now we’ve changed tack from “the war is carpet bombing civilians” to “these wepaons can kill 100+ plus people at one time if people are standing should to shoulder”…thus the Americans are not engaged in close air support which is actually a weasel word…thus once again, “the war is carpet bombing civilians”.
A whirling dervish of circular reasoning.
.
30 Aug 10 at 12:23 am
“The problem is that our political leaders, especially Rudd, have not defended the war. They haven’t explained what we’re doing there or why. So of course it seems pointless when nobody tells you what the point is.”
They and their allies have had lackluster commitment and terrible leadership, undefined (and admittedly some defined) goals; and as C.L would say, mawkish tendencies with personal attendance at so many funerals, which for most allies, whilst unfortunate, are historically very low for any armed conflict.
.
30 Aug 10 at 12:28 am
If they went in harder and quicker it could have been over now. Ditto for Iraq (earlier).
.
30 Aug 10 at 12:28 am
“If they went in harder and quicker it could have been over now. ”
Hard to tell. It isn’t just a function of military conflict. Success requires a stable central government. From the start, karzai government was a loose coalition of war lords and corrupt politicians. Economic and social progress has been at snail pace. No wonder many people oppose this government, and support their opponents.
Boris
30 Aug 10 at 12:55 am
Andrew Wilkie has got a lot of attention
Boris
30 Aug 10 at 1:04 am
Boris,
The US was given such advice by military and economic advisers they needed bigger forces to stabilise post invasion but they ignored it.
.
30 Aug 10 at 7:05 am
The sword not used grows rusty. The war is an excellent training and testing tool for our armed forces. To say that we should withdraw because our boys are in harms way is to carry nannyism too far. “Boys” compete strongly to enter the SASR exactly because they want to be put in harms way. From time to time one must let slip the dogs of war lest they grow too fat and comfortable.
Timothy Can
30 Aug 10 at 8:20 am
What a morally repugnant thing to say, Timothy.
We must continue killing so The Boys don’t get out of practice at killing. Brilliant.
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 10:40 am
Speaking of Wilkie (!) he has released his 20-point list of priorities. As someone on twitter just put it: “He wants to change the nation…oh, and a bigger office”
Fleeced
30 Aug 10 at 10:56 am
Seems I stuffed up the link: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/wilkie-releases-20point-list-of-priorities-20100830-13y87.html
Fleeced
30 Aug 10 at 10:57 am
20 points! Well, I thought he’d best the seven points promulgated by the three Maoist bunyips but topping Woodrow Wilson is a smidgen vain.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 11:21 am
No more morally repugnant than your argument that women shot in the head by the Taliban in soccer stadiums had it coming, FDB.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 11:22 am
Wow, you’re a really terrible person, aren’t you CL? I suppose you’re hoping that nobody reading this also read the exchange you refer to – but honestly why bother?
Your track record means that only people who don’t give a shit for the truth will believe you – you might as well just say I eat babies and shit Greens HTV cards.
Seriously, why bother? Do you like looking like a miserable piece of lying shit?
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 1:49 pm
Tim,
I’d rather peace and stability like the most part of 1870 to 1914.
Tim’s right FDB. It’s part of the reason why we did so much peacekeeping from the end of the cold war til 2001.
.
30 Aug 10 at 1:59 pm
FDB, I don’t see you getting so worked up when THR misrepresents the Australian Army in Afghanistan.
Suck it up, princess.
Abu Chowdah
30 Aug 10 at 2:32 pm
Jesus. Wilke was only sore at Howard, because he believed Howard lied about Iraq. That hardly makes him an illiberal, anti-material, socialist Green-bat.
Perhaps not. But combined with his list of demands? Yep, the science is in. The guy is most definitely an illiberal, anti-material, socialist Green-bat.
Peter Patton
30 Aug 10 at 2:34 pm
The old BLF would blush at Wilkie’s chutzpah. That’s not an ambit claim. Now, this is a [20 point] ambit claim.
Peter Patton
30 Aug 10 at 2:43 pm
Abu – for me (and I doubt I’m alone on this) there’s a difference between what somebody says about a third party and what they say about me.
Whatever THR has ‘misrepresented’ about the ADF, CL has lied outright about me.
Do you get the difference?
Of course you do – or you would have defended what CL said, instead of bringing up something completely and utterly irrelevant.
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 2:48 pm
Wow, you’re a really terrible person, aren’t you CL?‘
No, you are, FDB for suggesting a woman mudered in a soccer stadium by the Taliban had it coming.
Which you’re now denying like the cur that you are.
You also suggested the Taliban was no different to US justice system.
And, by the way, your “terrible person” schtick is getting dated.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 2:50 pm
I am so fucking disappointed with myself for being so weak, but here for readers to compare and contrast:
CL – “your argument that women shot in the head by the Taliban in soccer stadiums had it coming”
My argument thus referenced – “Women are mistreated shockingly in many parts of the world. The girl on the Time cover was mutilated by her own husband, with the full support of his family. Can you explain what kind of military action is supposed to end that sort of cultural barbarity, and how?”
You are a low, low person. So low, you don’t even know what the truth is any more. I don’t envy you mate.
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 2:55 pm
Utterly shameless.
Yesterday, I posted a picture of this woman being murdered by the Taliban in front of 30,000 spectators (themselves there under pain of execution).
FDB’s turd-worthy response: hey, she murdered her husband anyway and it’s no different to what TEH Americans do.
Zarmina (her name) was in fact beaten by the Taliban for two days with steel cables until she ‘confessed’ to killing her husband – who was a well-known homicidal psychopath.
Many comments above (as others have noted), have disappeared for some reason – FDB’s disgusting one amongst them.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 3:01 pm
FDB, I get the difference. I’m just so pissed off at THR’s knee-jerk misrepresentation that I couldn’t help myself.
Abu Chowdah
30 Aug 10 at 3:01 pm
FDB – it’s a long term thing and not part of the mission, incidentally fighting Shar’ia loons, but also having the right to vote, have a job, drive, etc, will change those things.
.
30 Aug 10 at 3:02 pm
Bombing people hasn’t achieved anything but I think Bird’s strategy is promising – open borders for the sheilas, but strict bans on the fellas.
Michael Fisk
30 Aug 10 at 3:07 pm
Yeah, because the fellas will be totally OK with the sheilas rolling their swags and heading for the border.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 3:17 pm
Hopefully Andrew Wilke will get the same Tasmanian treatment that the uppity Richard Butler got.
Peter Patton
30 Aug 10 at 3:19 pm
Yesterday, I posted a picture of this woman being murdered by the Taliban in front of 30,000 spectators (themselves there under pain of execution).
It’s nice to know there’s someone else helping to keep the Catholic Artistic tradition alive. From Boticelli to Scorsese: the fine art of horror.
When did you first start making noises about the Evil Taliban and the plight of Afghani women CL? Lemme guess: two weeks shy of nine years ago?
Adrien
30 Aug 10 at 3:20 pm
Yes Fisk. Credit where credit is due. Birdie’s “shiela policy” is a goer in more ways than one.
———–
No they’ll get pissed all right, CL. So what? As they say in inner city latte drinking places.. Fuck’em.
JC
30 Aug 10 at 3:22 pm
just don’t put Bird in charge of implementing his own policy as he can’t tell the difference
jtfsoon
30 Aug 10 at 3:24 pm
“FDB – it’s a long term thing and not part of the mission, incidentally fighting Shar’ia loons, but also having the right to vote, have a job, drive, etc, will change those things.”
Yeah Mark – that’s the response of someone who was actually paying attention to what I was saying, and who gave any credence at all to acting honourably in argument.
CL – I feel sorry for you. To inhabit such a world as yours must be a hateful ordeal.
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 3:24 pm
Does anyone know what Adrien is talking about?
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 3:33 pm
Utterly shameless.
Yesterday, I posted a picture of this woman being murdered by the Taliban in front of 30,000 spectators (themselves there under pain of execution).
FDB’s turd-worthy response: hey, she murdered her husband anyway and it’s no different to what TEH Americans do.
Zarmina (her name) was in fact beaten by the Taliban for two days with steel cables until she ‘confessed’ to killing her husband – who was a well-known homicidal psychopath.
Many comments above (as others have noted), have disappeared for some reason – FDB’s disgusting one amongst them.
I can see why you live with a cat, FDB. You’re an extremely angry, dishonest and erratic person. You’re the Matt Newton of the blogosphere.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 3:35 pm
Adrien’s compassion in these situations was famously exhibited after the Mumbai massacre when he argued here passionately that the drugged perpetrators were brave.
Their butchery of that pregnant Jewish woman was especially courageous, right Adrien?
Enter one or more of Adrien’s usual three responses:
1) The Beavis and Butthead:
Heh-heh, heh-heh – CL said ‘Mumbai’
2) The Bird:
No, you’re lying.
3) The Keysar Trad:
I was taken out of context.
C.L.
30 Aug 10 at 3:43 pm
I suppose you’re hoping that nobody reading this also read the exchange you refer to – but honestly why bother?
FDB, I read it and have to side with CL on this one. We were discussing reasons for staying, or not, in Afghanistan, and the possibility of the theocratic fascists, aka the Taliban, re-invading the country and subjecting them to a reign of terror. In that context, CL posted a picture of a woman being executed by the Taliban.
Your comment was dismissive. “She murdered her husband” you said, and then added that it was no different than would happen in the US, except the execution would be conducted differently.
I tried to call you on it by seeking a direct answer: are you drawing moral equivalence between the taliban and the US. Probably you intended to denigrate the US with your comment, but it was mostly offensive for a different reason – on the flip side, it exonerates the Taliban, by making them out to be nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary in a global context.
They are out of the ordinary. They’re a psychopathic party. At risk of being deafened by shrieks of “Godwin’s Law!” they are pretty much as bad as the Nazis, except with less power. They got control of a third world shithole instead of an industrial superpower. Sucks to be them, huh.
daddy dave
30 Aug 10 at 3:48 pm
“just don’t put Bird in charge of implementing his own policy as he can’t tell the difference”
Zing! …and do I mean ZING!
.
30 Aug 10 at 3:51 pm
A soldier doesn’t get to choose his deployments. The point is he volunteered. The other thing is that some conservatives might be holding a mental taint over Mr Wilkie, since the position he took was immediately claimed by the mindless leftist momentum of the time. I think we ought to judge him with a clean slate, because his call was likely, at least in part, the result of what he experienced personally, through the looking-glass of the secret-service bureaucracy.
Howard didn’t lie. But for all we know it may have seemed that way through the bureaucracy prism Wilkie was looking through at the time.
karl
30 Aug 10 at 3:57 pm
“Probably you intended to denigrate the US with your comment, but it was mostly offensive for a different reason – on the flip side, it exonerates the Taliban, by making them out to be nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary in a global context.”
You were right the first time. The death penalty is barbaric, and if anything having the honesty to do it violently in public is morally superior to making it some ghastly parody of a medical procedure.
The procedure for establishing guilt I don’t know much about, and would be unsurprised if CL’s steel-cable-beating scenario is true. Support for torture as a means of gathering evidence was never a hobby-horse of mine though, so I have no problem with loudly denouncing it if it did occur.
“They are out of the ordinary. They’re a psychopathic party. At risk of being deafened by shrieks of “Godwin’s Law!” they are pretty much as bad as the Nazis, except with less power. They got control of a third world shithole instead of an industrial superpower. Sucks to be them, huh.”
No Godmin’s violation as far as I’m concerned. In control of economic machinery like Germany’s in the late ’30s, I have no doubt the Taliban would be worse that the Nazis (which puts me in the firing line for a reverse-Godwin, I guess). Let’s thank our stars they’ve only got their paws on a poxy smack farm in the middle of nowhere. The thing is – I don’t feel the need to constantly point out the evils of the Taliban and similar groups. They are self-evidently and completely repugnant on every level (well, maybe they’ve got some enlightened policies I haven’t heard about, but I feel okay about doubting that in light of what I do know).
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 4:05 pm
FDB, I get the difference. I’m just so pissed off at THR’s knee-jerk misrepresentation that I couldn’t help myself.
Abu, you somehow seem to think that you knowing people in Afghanistan changes the fact that ADF troops are there supporting a corrupt warlord, or the fact that the US airforce is ‘liberating’ Afghans by mass bombing raids.
THR
30 Aug 10 at 4:26 pm
The thing is – I don’t feel the need to constantly point out the evils of the Taliban and similar groups. They are self-evidently and completely repugnant on every level
Okay, fair enough. The question really is then twofold. What is the real threat of the Taliban, or a kindred organisation, seizing control again (THR believes that it is not likely – I note that this is a factual, not a moral position).
Second, if such an event is likely, how much effort should we go to for those poor bastards to stop it happening?
daddy dave
30 Aug 10 at 4:30 pm
What is the real threat of the Taliban, or a kindred organisation, seizing control again
But a ‘kindred organisation’ is in control. In Karzai’s regime, ex-Taliban people are appointed to positions of power, and apostasy is punishable by death. The authorities are so corrupt that locals have turned to parallel authorities on the ground.
THR
30 Aug 10 at 4:33 pm
Yeah, Karzai’s government is not good. That’s a big problem.
daddy dave
30 Aug 10 at 4:40 pm
“how much effort should we go to for those poor bastards to stop it happening?”
As THR points out, it (the ‘Taliban’ resuming control) is already happening, and arguably it was never really lost.
FDB
30 Aug 10 at 4:46 pm
THR,
What “mass bombing raids” are you talking about? The B52s have not been carpet bombing there since the Taliban stopped using fixed positions (the only things that are militarily worth carpet bombing) about 8 years ago.
These days they are using precision guided munitions that do, occasionally, go astray or get mis-aimed, but nothing that you could be justified in calling “mass bombing raids”.
Andrew Reynolds
30 Aug 10 at 4:47 pm
These days they are using precision guided munitions that do, occasionally, go astray or get mis-aimed, but nothing that you could be justified in calling “mass bombing raids”.
Firstly, these so-called accidents, as you portray them, have resulted in scores of deaths each time.
Secondly, those doing the bombing know perfectly well in advance that civilians will be slaughtered – as I said above, the commanders seek approval from the White House if the number of dead civilians is likely to exceed 30.
The cartoonish good guys vs bad guys analysis of Afghanistan is redundant, and we should assess things more honestly and realistically.
THR
30 Aug 10 at 5:49 pm
Your Krokodil analysis is from literally two centuries ago.
.
30 Aug 10 at 5:50 pm
The problem of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is that deaths arising from our adventures are reported … we hape. We have no idea how many die at the hands of the Taliban and I suspect no-one does. The impression, and it could be true, is that we are killing more “civilians” than the Taliban. That’s a huge problem and one not easily solved.
John H.
30 Aug 10 at 5:58 pm
What “mass bombing raids” are you talking about? The B52s have not been carpet bombing there since the Taliban stopped using fixed positions (the only things that are militarily worth carpet bombing) about 8 years ago.
Somehow an afghan carpet takes on a whole new meaning.
JC
30 Aug 10 at 6:01 pm
“The cartoonish good guys vs bad guys analysis of Afghanistan is redundant, and we should assess things more honestly and realistically.”
Yep but you can still make a case for fighting on. I tend to think the fight is worth it if there is a realistic prospect of keeping the medievals in their holes. But you need to feel the locals will take up the fight within a reasonable period. I’m sure glad I don’t have a kid in line to fight. I bet I’d have a different view then. I’m not sure I’d want to bury a son so an Afghan girl can go to school.
pedro
30 Aug 10 at 6:03 pm
Gross JC!
pedro
30 Aug 10 at 6:03 pm
FDB I wonder why you think we equip the SASR with guns and train them how to use them. To win the Olympic trap shooting contest perhaps? Killing and avoiding getting killed in combat conditions is what they are trained for.
Timothy Can
30 Aug 10 at 6:45 pm
Enter one or more of Adrien’s usual three responses
To CL’s three standard rhetorical instruments:
1. Lying. 2. Mumbai 3. Butthead.
Adrien
30 Aug 10 at 7:13 pm
Oh and the fourth one, recently developed by the good folks at CRM-114™ Pty Ltd, honesty!
Usually expressed as ‘Duh I don’t know what you say. Please explain.’
Adrien
30 Aug 10 at 7:14 pm
“FDB I wonder why you think we equip the SASR with guns and train them how to use them.”
As a deterrent, and to use them with lethal force if and when it becomes strategically necessary to do so.
Your utterly hideous suggestion that “strategically necessary” situations in which to shoot and kill people would include “when the boys are getting rusty” remains as utterly hideous as the first time you made it.
You suck.
FDB
31 Aug 10 at 9:50 am
Clauswitz 200 years ago said that a military at peace for too long gets to be bloody useless.He was right then and is right now. Hideous maybe, but reality often is.
Dennis
5 Sep 10 at 7:40 am