DUCKPOND

Professor Hugh White, ABC Online reports says that “the West” cannot prevail militarily in either Afghanistan and Iraq. In his view their are insufficient boots on the ground, which is to argue that coercion can solve political problems. The interview is here. Implicit in these observations is that methods of violence can solve problems, rather than as we observe creating further and bigger problems. Nevertheless, it is the dominant paradigm and the touchstone for acceptable commentary.

Operating within that paradigm and set of assumptions, he perceives, doubtlessly correctly, that in the case of Afghanistan, that publics in the respective NATO and associated governments, will successfully apply pressure to withdraw, as the costs outweigh the benefits. The fundamental premise that by removing the Taliban Government – regime change – was essential to removing sanctuary for Al Qaeda was, and is, fallacious. They simply move, as he says, somewhere else (or they simply stay in Pakistan).

The strategic situation in Iraq is different he argues. Because of fundamental strategic interests meaning oil supplies and the looming bogeyman of Iran, regardless of the change in Administration, the United States will not be able to withdraw from Iraq. What Hugh White does not say, is that by remaining, and becoming more entrenched in their strategic footprint of bases, may be facing greater long terms problems.

The Howard view seems to be that Australia, no matter what, must support the Bush Administration. Labor and Rudd, as far as I know, are committed to keeping the Australian presence in Afghanistan, which seems to be a combination of civil reconstruction and SAS counter-insurgency roles. Both Iraq and Afghanistan do not appear to me to have received too have been given sustain attention during the election.

Despite what Hugh White says, some presidential contenders, notably Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have called for the US to withdraw from Iraq. They might be seen as peripheral candidates, but strangely they may at the same time be closer to the majority of public opinion.

Secondly, Iran is not going anywhere. By virtue of its size and location, as it has been historically it is going to be a key player. At what point does the regime change with its attendant atrocities and failure to nation build with compliant governments stop.