Email

Fitzgibbon signals possible infantry combat role

Posted September 8, 2008 09:18:00
Updated September 8, 2008 15:17:00

On the ground in Iraq: But Australia's regular infantry has been kept out of combat (ADF: File photo)

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has not ruled out using Australian infantry in combat for the first time since the Vietnam war.

All Australia's offensive combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been carried out by elite SAS and commando units, but there are calls within the Army for regular infantry units to be given some of the combat burden.

The issue was raised in the autumn issue of the Australian Army Journal when two serving officers wrote that keeping the infantry out of the front line was having a negative effect on morale.

Mr Fitzgibbon says more than 1,000 Australian soldiers are currently in Afghanistan and he does not intend to increase that number.

But he says he will consider using the infantry in combat roles for the first time to ease the load on the Special Operations Task Group (SOTG).

"It is true that our Special Operations Task group - that is, our special forces people - have had to sustain rotations for a long, long time now," he said.

"We'll constantly look at how we can take the pressure off our special forces by constantly reviewing and potentially reconfiguring our commitment."

NATO's new commander in Afghanistan has renewed the call for more troops to be sent in to fight the Taliban.

Last week, Pakistan accused US forces in Afghanistan of mounting cross-border attacks on militants over the border in Pakistan's north-west.

Tags: defence-forces, army, unrest-conflict-and-war, afghanistan, australia

Comments (56)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Jonno:

  08 Sep 2008 9:54:47am

  Bring the troops home.
  
  Its time for us to stop fighting other peoples dirty wars

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mick:

    08 Sep 2008 10:18:03am

    It is our war Jonno. Whatever you may think of Iraq, Afghanistan is a very different proposition. It is a country systematically training and equipping terrorists who want to destroy western civilizations. You seem to have a very short memory.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Veronica:

      08 Sep 2008 11:16:33am

      If only all the effort had remained in Afghanistan instead of charging into Iraq like Don Quixote, we would not be facing such serious problems now.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • stj911:

      08 Sep 2008 11:33:22am

      Afghanistan is the biggest lie. The Taliban/ Al Qaeda was financially set up by the US government and supported by Pakistan and the ISI again financed by the CIA. The 911 Commission didn't bother finding out who provided the money for the 911 operation. When the US invaded Afghanistan they had to allow special flights out for the Pakistanis and Al Qaeda to escape. Iran/Contra was never fully investigated and this 911/Afghan/Iraq lie never get touched either. Withdraw all troops now and get expose the US criminals who fund these operations.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dom:

      08 Sep 2008 11:34:20am

      Yeah Mick, we want the US / West to be able to control the heroin trade as well as the oil. It is our war indeed, given we are allies with the country who trained the Taliban :-) .Australia is becoming more and more like the US, which is a real shame. My Uncle fought in Vietnam and said that it was a waste of time. Keep believing what the mainstream media say.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • AMuNRA:

      08 Sep 2008 11:41:23am

      So what is your answer - to destroy their civilisation first. How can you even define something as civilized if that "something" is using destruction and killing to define its existence. Your image of the world is very sad - us against them. Afghanistan war does not have to do with terrorists or saving the western "civilisation" - it only have to do with personal gain and economic interests.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • braddles:

      08 Sep 2008 11:47:07am

      The comment 'it is a country systematically training and equipping terrorists ' is very systematic of the level of hype surrounding these two 'conflicts' in discussion.
      
      Are the two countries mentioned by you at a government level really supporting the 'terrorists'?
      
      What makes you state that? Where is the evidence of this? heresay or factual evidence verified by 3rd party observers?
      
      Is this a religous or political confict or both? Does the same apply to the US and Australia?
      
      Where are the WMDs that prevoked the 2nd invasion of Iraq?
      
      So many unanswered questions with no clear path of understanding. Bring the troops home as we do not even really know why they are involved in the first place. Vietnam the second. People are still debating the hype that surronded that conflict and this will be the same in the long run.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Pen Pal:

  08 Sep 2008 9:56:26am

  If we believe the issue in Afghnistan is worth fighting (and unfortunaely dying) for, then don't let's prolong the battle and agree to deploy the troops who are best qualified to do the job.
  
  I do agree with Mr Fitzgibbon on this one.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Rekija:

    08 Sep 2008 12:27:43pm

    If the troops want to go, let them. This is what they signed up for. If it's worth having 1000 troops in danger then it's worth throwing everyone else that wants a shot. If it's not worth it then why are we even there?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• James McKinlay:

  08 Sep 2008 9:57:06am

  It's never an easy decision sending our troops into combat. I suppose the fair thing is to shoulder the burden in this critical fight against terrorism, by spreading the load onto our regular troops. I really do hope that they go with generous financial backing and every equipment advantage to give them the protection they need. As we all know, Vietnam was famous for "fighting with one arm tied behind our backs". Why don't we have APC's that can protect our boys from IED's and other hazards in this theatre? Surely the technology is available.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• larry from Burketown:

  08 Sep 2008 9:58:59am

  the blunders the military have made its a wonder the US and others want the Australian Army's help

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pen Pal:

    08 Sep 2008 10:31:29am

    Your one liner "larry from Burketown" is a disgrace. Our troops, no matter which service arm they belong to, have always held our country's pride at the highest levels and because of that, we are praised by countries around the world.
    
    I suggest, if you don't like what we do, you are free to leave as soon as you can!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • lay d boy:

      08 Sep 2008 11:13:13am

      "if you don't like what we do, you are free to leave as soon as you can!" really? your attitude is representative of the trigger-happy far right in this country. what gives your views more credibilty than 'larry'? Australia is built upon freedom of speech and views, he is free to believe what he wants. You'd do well to remember that instead of shooting off at the first person that doesnt share you views.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Skewer:

    08 Sep 2008 10:34:56am

    Blunders? Really? Name one.
    
    We are talking about Afghanistan here - where the UN-sanctioned mission is, where the Taliban ARE on the ground fighting back. For Australia this is a battle worth fighting and winning. It's not the no-WMD blood-for-oil Iraq basket case.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • BlzBob:

    08 Sep 2008 12:33:57pm

    Australian troupes have always proformed well.
    The only blunders that I heard about were the ones instigated by our previous federal government.
    We no longer face the the risks involved by the same management.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• hella:

  08 Sep 2008 10:07:06am

  Give them a go, mate. Let them have a crack at what they joined for. Remind the US that we are their allies, and that we're standing beside them where it counts.
  
  Goodonya to all our mates serving overseas.
  
  "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • twobob:

    08 Sep 2008 10:33:58am

    I knew a fellow who was very gung ho about this, until he realised that the foreigners shoot back. They are more dedicated than our fellows because this is their home, they dont have six months to wait they have forever. A few casualties might see our troops change their minds and what are they fighting for anyway? Have you any idea of the way the government that we are supporting treats women? We are just replacing one group of fundamentalist fruitcakes with another and we should really take no part in this, otherwise we will have to share the shame at the outcome.
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Cracker:

  08 Sep 2008 10:13:10am

  For those of you that were around when Vietnam was raging - HERE WE GO AGAIN! Do we never learn? We've been very lucky so far with this engagement, but when the body bags start arriving I suspect the tide of public opinion will turn.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pen Pal:

    08 Sep 2008 10:55:58am

    Do you know Cracker, nobody likes the idea of "bodybags", but I wonder where you would draw the line in the sand to safeguard our nation and your family. This conflict is nothing like Vietnam as this is a "problem" acknowledged by the United Nations and somewhere along the line, we have to have confidence in some of our international bodies. That is, unless you support the Taliban and their ilk and then I can understand why you have written what you have written.
    
    Our troops need our support whether they are in the field or in their barracks - it does our nation very poorly when we are prepared to verbally foresake these members of our community.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Nesko:

      08 Sep 2008 11:35:38am

      Hey Pen Pal, that line in the sand that you speak of is the Australian border. Why be so combative? Your patriotism seems to be quite unquestionable, but an empty bucket rattles the most Pen Pal. If you feel that strongly about this issue, join up mate! Might give you perspective.
      
      If diggers want to fight, let them. May the grace of Lord be with them and let them come back and tell the likes of you, Pen Pal, that all wars are the same.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • John O:

        08 Sep 2008 11:45:40am

        If the line is on our border it is too late.
        
        I joined up, I served and would do so again if needed. I bet the same can't be said for many who comment on these forums.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Dave:

  08 Sep 2008 10:17:32am

  Lambs to the slaughter, the reason they are Special Forces is that they have been highly trained in this area.
  Regular Army wont cut it which isn't their fault. All we will see is a higher body count.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Zed:

    08 Sep 2008 10:58:29am

    Not sure if your aware but all our Allies are using regular soldiers to preform the job in Afghanistan that our special forces are doing (are they therefore "special").
    
    The equipment that our special forces are using is standard equipment in our allies regular forces.
    
    How can we justify a "Special Forces" Tag when our peer use regular. We are dumbing down or forces.
    
    Lets get with the times people and spend dollars to get our forces back to a reasonable standard rather than rely on a reputation that is decades old and which hasn't been reinforced since.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John O:

    08 Sep 2008 10:59:49am

    The only real special forces over there are the SAS. The Commadoes don't qualify - the Regular infantry are just as good.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • zef:

      08 Sep 2008 11:51:35am

      
      
      Difference between SASR and 4RAR is the scope of operation they do. Very broadly speaking the SASR are more geared towards long range reconnaissance and small unit warfare. Whereas the Commandos are more geared towards larger scale operations and could be considered assault troops primarily.
      
      That said our regular infantry are also damn good, I say let them fight. Unless they get the chance they will look for it elsewhere (I know I would).

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Nesko:

    08 Sep 2008 11:38:51am

    I think the issue might be about training. SAS gets their personnel from infantry and give them special tactics training. What that training is, i honestly dont know, but if SAS officers lead the infantry then it may just be ok.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Merlin 23:

    08 Sep 2008 11:47:06am

    Dave,
    
    The Regular Army (indeed especially the Australian Regular Army) can cut it. SAS have been deployed to date for thier logistic 'light' footprint and ability to conduct a wide variety of missions. I agree with John O - infantry are just as good - they will simply be employed differently

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • pete:

    08 Sep 2008 11:59:39am

    Yeah mate i agree. regular forces just will not cut it! The taliban were to well trained by the US Special Forces back in the late 80s when they were engaging the Russians and muhajadean. their elite training, plus its their home country and a regime they fervently believe in makes them a very formidable enemy.
    
    there's a reason they have only sent in special forces, the US have done the same, most of the fighting on the ground is done by the elite.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Robert2:

  08 Sep 2008 10:18:32am

  Fitzgibbon is in danger of confirming to the Australian public he is nothing more than a mere puppet, not only to international warmongers but to the Stauffenburg types on his team who advise him.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • 60+:

    08 Sep 2008 10:55:39am

    Robert,
    
    Not withstanding the concept that most defence ministers act largely on the advice of their senior military chiefs Colonel Von Staffenburg was hardly providing advice when he placed a bomb under the conference table to try to kill Hitler.
    
    Precisely what end state he envisaged and what might have been achieved is open to speculation but I would hope the ADF would never emulate this act.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Robert2:

      08 Sep 2008 11:14:44am

      60+, given that the image portrayed and history of the heirarchy of the Australian military is one of incompetance, popinjays, servile and obsequious forlock tuggers (one only has to observe Angus recently), does not the "sippenhaft law" also have some relevance in this formula?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pen Pal:

    08 Sep 2008 11:16:02am

    Rober2 - You have misunderstood what part Australia is playing in Afghanistan. It's a United Nations exercise and consequently, I would see it as in order for Mr Fitzgibbon to liaise with other forces in that theatre of war.
    
    What do you expect him to do? Set up an Australian battle plan independent of all other forces and do a "Stauffenburg" on his own. Let's give the man some credit here before you bury him!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Robert2:

      08 Sep 2008 11:38:21am

      Pen Pal old matey, I would expect he would have the backbone to withdraw the forces located there after recognising the endeavour for what it really is.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Glenn:

  08 Sep 2008 10:34:55am

  Mick,
  
  The facts speak for themselves. The people training the terrorists in Afghanistan are in Pakistan. Up until the fall of the Taliban, the Pakistani secret service provided significant logistical support in Afghanistan. More recently, they have lost control of the creatures they have created and are now paying the price for their support. By playing the game in Afghanistan, we become involved in a regional game played by Pakistan, Iran and other middle east players.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Fin:

  08 Sep 2008 10:38:00am

  The problem I have with bringing our troops home is simply this: We made the mess, we cannot, in good conscience, walk away from that.
  
  We have to do everything in our power to rectify the situation we helped create. If that means keeping troops in the Afghanistan, well, that's something we have to live with.
  
  As much as I disagree with the reasons we went to war in those countries, and as much as I wish we never had sent troops over there in the first place, we, as a nation, have an obligation to all the lives we've ruined over there to fix our mistake.
  
  It's unfortunate that our troops are caught in the middle of this, but to be honest, their withdrawal would cause massacres. Every afghani who helped or worked for the australian effort would suffer repercussions upon themselves and their familes. And until such time as the country being able to police itself to stop such things occuring, I don't believe we should withdraw our commitment.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Nesko:

    08 Sep 2008 11:44:07am

    Fin, well said. But i would disagree on one thing: USA made the mess, not us. They had to act after 9/11 or loose face and their empty rhetoric about democracy etc got all these leaders emotional and today we have what we have. Still, i agree, the mess must be fixed and we went there so its on us to fix it. Unfortunatelly, fixing the mess means killing a whole bunch of people to save a whole bunch of people...Let us hope for the best.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• p.jordan:

  08 Sep 2008 10:43:07am

  Send them all...that's what they signed up for...being trained at tax payer expense..easy... job for life....let them go and earn it....shoot, kill and attack....with there mates dying around them...what better way to open there eye's about the waste of war...we never learn

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• dragon:

  08 Sep 2008 10:43:57am

  Pollies fighting wars will only end up with more soldiers being killed !
  Give the field coomand what they want ! They are the ones with the best overall picture of what is required to win ! They are the ones with objectives that are not clouded by hypocracy, red-tape and diplomacy !

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Alfaspyder:

  08 Sep 2008 10:53:46am

  'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
  Nobody since Alexander the Great had successfully invaded Afghanistan and controlled the country.
  Great Brititain sent a force of up the 50,000 to subdue the country in the 1840's and they captured Kabul. The defenders retreated into he hills when the British turned up.
  Six month later they were forced to retreat and ONE person returned. All the rest were killed. The Afgahanis let a doctor return as a lesson to future invaders. The Russians gave up, and so will we eventually.
  Trouble is there will be many dead young Aussies as victims of politicians egoes. How many more dead Aussies will be needed to prove the the ones dead already didn't die in vain?.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Cato:

    08 Sep 2008 11:40:43am

    You are very right Alfaspyder. Why politicians do not understand that this war is destined to be lost. Afganhis are fearless fighters and the modern western armies lack their commitments. It is their land and the only way for the West to win this war is to nuke Afganhistan. Being this impossible it is in our interest to move away as quickly as possible before more innocent lives are lost.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • W. Brydon:

    08 Sep 2008 11:42:43am

    Technically Dr William Brydon escaped, and he wasn't the only one. It was initially a retreat, agreed to by an incompetent British commander - Major-General William Elphinstone - who had risen above his station, and never truly understood his adversary. He died, and a pair of more competent generals went back and retook Kabul.
    
    "...the Afghans surrounded Jalalabad, intending to follow up their victory. This lasted for some five months, before the garrison commander General Sale rallied his troops. They counterattacked, and succeeded in routing Akbar Khan's troops. In retaliation for the massacre inflicted on the British retreat, Generals Pollock and Nott proceeded to reinvade Kabul, defeating the Afghans, and burning the great Bazaar...."
    
    That's not the point however. The point is the Taliban grow the majority of the world's opium, interpret the Koran in a way that makes our existence unforgivable, and wish to maintain a status quo that is an affront to basic human rights. And they're currently much stronger than the Afgan government. The current power-mongering in Pakistan isn't helping.
    
    It's a dirty little war, but it's an important one. We need to make hard decisions. Do we fight insurgents with our professional soldiers in the middle east, or do we fight drugs and terrorism with our police force at home? Sorry if I sound like a nationalist, but we're in a tight spot, and no amount of peace and politics is going to fix this. On the other hand, peace and politics is exactly what Iraq needs right now.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Robert2:

      08 Sep 2008 12:25:50pm

      W.Brydon, interesting bite on history, but when in Australias own history, are we going to be able to read with satisfaction and pride that "...
      
      THE ENEMY OF MY FRIEND IS NOT NECESSARILLY MY ENEMY".
      
      Our history shows we have fought and then embraced enemies depicted as Nazis, Communists and now for the want of a better clarified word Terrorists.
      
      Australias independant identity has been consistantly and constantly marginalised.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Nesko:

    08 Sep 2008 11:55:18am

    Alfaspyder, well said. But I would like to know why everyone failed? What did Alexander the Great do to win? Lets learn on other's mistakes and not mess up the same way. Respect for this formidable enemy is the key. Also, we have to try and understand their psyche to fight them, but this must be done without passing judgements and prejudice and unfortunatelly, this hasnt been done. Still, I hope for the best for our boys.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Stuart:

  08 Sep 2008 10:58:35am

  The regular troops over there should have some combat roles. Morale is unquestionably suffering and we are breeding a generation of soldiers that have no infantry fighting experience, as it is all being given to SAS/commandos.
  
  In the short term there may well be some increased Australian casualties, but the experience our troops gain now will save lives in future confrontations.
  
  They are a professional fighting force, trained and willing. Let them do their job.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Main Man:

  08 Sep 2008 11:01:14am

  A very real reason why the allies want control of Afganhistan is because of it's location. The Caspian Sea is believed to have billions of barrels of oil beneath it, but the problem is finding a safe route for a pipeline. If we control Afganhistan then there is the safe route. War against terror is a good excuse to be there.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Stuart:

  08 Sep 2008 11:02:54am

  Why don't we stay on topic here, and debate the question raised by this article, rather than the endless rhetoric from both pro and anti afghanistan conflict crusaders.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • renn:

    08 Sep 2008 12:34:24pm

    The story IS about conflict in Afganistan and whether Australian troops should be expanding their operation to combat (the firing line)!
    Australia is a large dry island with a small population per head per area.
    We cant afford to lose more lives or have more injuries considering how many have been lost or injured recently.
    I would like to say bring the troops home.
    We need to see infastructure and economy rebuilt in Afganistan. If Australia can help achieve a new Afganistan, with out being cowboys and then we will have done all that is necessary.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• muzz:

  08 Sep 2008 11:31:00am

  I agree with alphaspider. History is against us in this region. It is not a war to be won. It a region to be held until they overwhelm us or we tire of the grind and the loss of life.
  Whoever dies will be a waste. Not the SAS or the Infantry should be up there.
  The saddest part is that the politicians , led by the Amerikan war rhetoric, has dragged us in to an unwinnable fight. The country needs stable politics not a stable military force. The region remains afire as a result of meddling outsiders who are interested in themselves and not the local people.
  Only the local people will solve the issues here which all arise from poverty and oppression. Use the funding to support the development needed. The Aussie forces have bought into a fight that was never theirs, never will be and does not need us in the first place. Closer to home we could focus upon repressive regimes who need our support. The way of the warrior only ever brings short term stability until the next winning warrior group arises. Bring them all home as soon as possible.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Martin:

  08 Sep 2008 11:34:16am

  Whether you agree with this or not, no invading force has ever prevailed in Afghanistan.
  
  Those that forget history (or choose to ignore it) are doomed to repeat it.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • zef:

    08 Sep 2008 11:58:59am

    There was a time when no one had succesfully climbed Everest and it was thought impossible.
    
    I am sure that Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay did not succesfully climb Everest with that kind of Defeatist attitude.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• TeddySea:

  08 Sep 2008 12:07:08pm

  Let's take one step back.
  The reason we are at war is related to our close relationship with America and it's foreign policy. To me their attitude is that other countries are there for America's benefit.
  A number of countries around the world disagree.
  America doesn't like to be disagreed with.
  They send in troops under the guise of 'bringing democracy'
  I don't want to be seen as agreeing with America's view of the world.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Roy:

  08 Sep 2008 12:08:13pm

  Why is that all the people who make and support the decision to go to war never go themselves?
  The clear evidence that Al Qaeda was financed, equipped and trained with US support has been consistently ignored by the media and our patriotic politicians. The aim was to weaken the Russians in Afghanistan.
  The Russians were there for...was it twelve years? Did they win? What makes the US and Australia believe that they will have things easier?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Rob:

  08 Sep 2008 12:16:45pm

  If you really want to find out whether a war is worth fighting and dying for, ask a politician to go, fight and possibly die for their country.
  
  Peace will come quickly.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• braddles:

  08 Sep 2008 12:22:47pm

  I am little shocked by the number of people happy inflame a conflict by sending in more fighting personal.
  
  Just what the world needs! More troops fighting in a country already suffering from a long history of conflict. Yes, more death and destruction! Wonderful. Lots of support for more suffering. When will it end?
  
  It will do NOTHING to help anyone but the arm chair supporters pride. Wake up and stop the fighting - not provoke more suffering, distrust and risk of yet another generation of gun loving fools on boths sides of this prolonged conflict based on misinformation.
  
  To all those who support this greater involvement of troops, you can become support workers for the locals who live in these places whose lives have been destroyed by the conflict. I would put money on the fact the the locals in these areas would like nothing more than for the fighting to STOP. What about them? do they count?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• CHERIE L CURRAN :

  08 Sep 2008 12:24:23pm

  Jonno,
  
  Unfortunately it is 'all our war', the terrorist movement is not the way to resolve differences.
  
  War is merely, a much more grander form of simple assault and the right to defend oneself.
  
  First of all, accept that the 'World is One' and that I am telling you that this is so.
  
  The United States of America seldom goes into bat unless, there is at first, a recognised onslaught to a bereaved nation. It is only cowardice to withdraw or as you put it "its time for us to stop fighting other peoples dirty wars".
  
  Mick: I agree.
  
  It is difficult to see someone or a nation under attack from another. It is almost inhuman to resist deployment of troops.
  
  Pen Pal, 'our troops, no matter which service arm they belong to, have always held our country's pride at the highest levels and because of that, we are praised by countries around the world. I suggest, if you don't like what we do, you are free to leave as soon as you can"!
  
  I agree.
  
  It is all in the simple terms of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't want to fight, don't start the War.....don't pull the first punch.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• David L:

  08 Sep 2008 12:37:21pm

  This is, by neccesity, a very emotive subject.
  
  I would prefer it if humans didn't have wars and didn't need a defence force, but that isnt going to happen in my life time. I am very grateful we have people who are willing to serve and die for this country, they have my respect, just as cops, teachers, fire fighters, nurses, etc have my respect.
  
  Regardless of whether you or I believe our initital involvement in Afghanistan was warranted, Australia now has a moral obligation to see it through as best we can. We also have an obligation to see we provide the best troops for the job, so it can be completed as soon as possible, and look after the troops our government, which collectively we voted for, chooses to send, on their return. Best, in this case, might not be elite but battle weary troops who have spent so long away from family.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator