On the other hand, perhaps not.
The point is we don't know, as this column seeks to make clear . . .
PS ON THE DAY THIS COLUMN WAS PUBLISHED STEPHEN SMITH ANNOUNCED AN INQUIRY WOULD BE CONDUCTED INTO THE KILLINGS OF THE TWO AFGHANS.
MULTIPLE AGENDAS AT WORK
Increasingly, the War in
Afghanistan is no longer about anything that’s happening on the ground. Instead
it is about managing political perceptions and appeasing the many different
interest groups with a stake in the war, while the Allies rush for the exits.
This is the week a young
Australian is being laid to rest here in Canberra. His death is a tragedy.
Nothing should detract from his sacrifice. He was attempting to do the right
thing in an honourable cause – training Afghan soldiers to support the rule of
law. His actions displayed the wonderful, honest openness we’ve come to expect
from the ordinary digger.
His cause was noble. What a pity
his sacrifice was immediately betrayed by others with their own axes to grind,
who used his murder as an excuse to embark on vengeful activities of their own.
Last week began badly for Defence
and massive letters splashed why. President Karzai was demanding a ‘full inquiry’
into why a 70-year-old Imam and his son were killed during a search for
Sergeant Hekmatullah, the killer of the three Australian soldiers. Our soldiers
then seized others, including a woman. No evidence has ever been adduced
linking the raided compound to the murders. It’s not surprising Karzai wanted
more information.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith
was quick to front the cameras. He announced the operation had been authorised
in accordance with normal procedure. “Two people” he continued, “who have been
confirmed as insurgents, were killed”.
Pardon? How can an ageing
religious leader be “confirmed as an insurgent”? Where’s the proof? Despite
continued requests Defence has refused to provide any further information about
the raid.
In a country where only 2.4
percent of the population makes it to the age of 65, someone who’s seventy
acquires a degree of respect, particularly if he’s an Imam. Was it really
necessary to kill the old man? How did doing so help the fight for democracy? What,
specifically, were the circumstances leading to his death and why did Smith
describe him as an “insurgent”? Was he armed and firing at the Australians? Had
he just witnessed his son’s death? Was he reaching for a gun, as we were
earlier told Bin Laden was? Or was he, like the al Qaeda leader, surprised
unarmed?
The informed guess in Kabul is
that Matiullah Khan, the Australian-backed and notoriously corrupt provincial
police chief, apparently provided the tip-off. You may not have heard of Matiullah,
but your taxes have made him an Aussie dollar multi-millionaire. How? Well, his
‘Road Police Brigade’ collects regular bribes for keeping the route to Kandahar
open. That’s the main supply route for our forces. The illiterate former
taxi-driver’s managed to do pretty well out of the war. He also enjoys a
special relationship with the US and Australian military. He identifies the bad
guy’s and we eliminate them. Unfortunately it sometimes turns out that the dead
‘insurgents’ weren’t actually Talib after all. Sometimes they seem to have just
been his personal rivals.
So what actually happened? The
Afghan President has accused our forces of acting without authorisation. They
deny it but nothing Smith has said rebuts Karzai’s central allegation of recklessness
– unless you are prepared to take at face value the Minister’s blithe assertions.
Unfortunately other observers,
people who posses a detailed understanding of the human terrain of the
province, furiously question the ADF’s interpretation. We don’t know what’s
happening but the odds are Karzai does. The President spent time in the
province as a young man. He comes from the same Popalzai tribe as the dead Imam
and may well have known him personally. He may suspect that Matiullah’s duping
the Australians into fighting an internecine war that’s seeing most of his
rivals eliminated while the “road police” receive training from the ADF, paid
for by the Aussie taxpayer.
We’ll never know the truth about
what’s happening in Afghanistan because too many people want to push facts to
the side. Let’s start with Karzai. Perhaps his anguish is very genuine. He sits
in the palace in Kabul courtesy of a rigged election, but he understands the
enormous anger surging around the country at what appear to be ‘targeted killings’.
The Afghan people heard his fury.
Smith, on the other hand, is
worried about Australia. He wanted to shut down the bad headlines. That’s
exactly what he did. It’s possible he believes what he says, although I
personally doubt he’s that naivĂ«. We want to trust our forces are doing the
right thing and I’m sure most are attempting to bring peace and stability to
the country. But in order to achieve this we need to follow the correct
strategy. At the moment we’re not. These killings are making Australia
detested. But it’s not working. No matter how many are eliminated, the
insurgency isn’t being beaten.
That’s other point. Few Afghan media
outlets would have carried Smith’s denials. At one time we were waging a war
for the hearts and minds of the locals. Today only Karzai’s engaged in that
particular war. Smith’s words didn’t carry very far across the broken, rocky
ground of Uruzgan.
It’s difficult to know what to
make of the opaque noises coming from Kabul, but Karzai does, apparently, feel
personally affronted by the death of the Imam. We’re not playing happy families
any more. Until now it has always been assumed that when our trainers pull out
in 2014 that the special forces would remain for as long as was necessary to
prop-up the regime.
The SAS and commando’s are happy
to stay. They want to. The money’s good and, although the work’s hard and
dangerous, it’s exciting. It’s what they signed up for. Now, however, it seems
as if some question-marks are finally being raised about this continued
deployment.
Karzai’s finally beginning to
weigh up all the assistance he’s receiving and deciding he might actually be
better off without some of it, after all. It’s increasingly difficult to see
what, if anything, our forces are achieving in the province.
A lost war like the others before it Russian, British, Macedonian.......
ReplyDeleteOne other point in Mr Stuart's column also intrigued me.
ReplyDeleteThat was that a recent academic survey has apparently found the military officers who had the most frequent dealings with the media were the ones who held journalists in the greatest contempt.
I wonder why?
David Ellery
david.ellery@canberratimes.com.au
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/blogs/in-your-defence/claim-adf-non-representative-needs-to-be-challenged-20120904-25bit.html#ixzz268juRqMp
Stephen smith has today announced there will be an investigation into this incident. I assume you're aware of the survey from Uni WA, David. It's because many journo's have never worn a uniform or been on operations. Fortunately I've been on operations as both a journo and a soldier.
DeleteOne would hope not many journos go on operations as they only get in the way.
ReplyDelete