General Molan said he supported federal opposition calls for reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan, including Abrams tanks.
Gillard may mock, but Abbott now in danger
Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 at 05:01amOPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott this week walked into an ambush on his road to Afghanistan.
Not only did Prime Minister Julia Gillard blow him up politically, she may have endangered him physically, too.
Want to know how brutally Labor now plays politics? Read on.
Gillard dropped in on our troops in Afghanistan and - deliberately? - stirred up speculation about whether Abbott would visit, too.
In fact, Gillard, unforgivably, went further. She mentioned she’d actually asked Abbott along, but he’d refused.
So kind of her, you’d think. So callous of him.
So Abbott was naturally asked by reporters why he hadn’t gone with Gillard to check on the men and women risking their lives for their country. After all, like Gillard, he’d been on his way to Europe, anyway.
That’s when he was caught - suddenly unable to tell a hypothetical truth, for reasons I’ll explain.
All he could say - and it was especially stupid, I agree - was that he’d wanted “to do justice” to his visit to Britain, where he’s meeting the British Prime Minister and attending the Conservative Party conference.
“I didn’t want to get here entirely in jet-lagged condition,” he said lamely.
Too tired to inspect soldiers in a war? Cringe-making stuff.
And how Gillard has exploited it, jeering that she’d managed to visit Afghanistan on her way to Europe without losing a moment’s sleep.
“I slept very well last night,” she smirked.
“I’ll let Mr Abbott work out his own sleeping patterns. For myself, obviously, as you know I went to Afghanistan, then to Zurich, then came here and did manage to get eight hours’ sleep last night and that prepared me for a very long day.”
But I must now speak hypothetically, and hope the full truth will emerge in some not-too-distant future.
Any politician or other VIP planning to visit our troops in Afghanistan is forbidden from saying when - or even if - they are going. The military does not want them to become an even bigger lure for terrorists there.
On both my own trips there, even I was forbidden from telling close friends and colleagues of my plans.
So if Abbott, hypothetically speaking, had already planned to visit Afghanistan on his own, could he say so?
And if Abbott, hypothetically speaking, was going to Afghanistan, wouldn’t the Prime Minister have known that full well, and made sure she got there first? She’d certainly have known it before she mocked him this week.
Now ask yourself the questions that a reasonably savvy terrorist would ask:
Does Abbott, the marathon man, strike you in the slightest as someone who’d be too tired to visit our troops in Afghanistan?
Does Abbott, the man who’s now arguing for more troops there, strike you at all as a man who wouldn’t want to check for himself the facts on the ground before going into Parliament to debate what should be done?
Our terrorist might then ask himself some further questions, particularly after hearing Gillard say Abbott had just turned down a visit to a country he was bound to visit reasonably soon.
What would that terrorist conclude, do you think? That he’d read Abbott all wrong, or that the reason Abbott had refused Gillard’s offer of a lift was that he’d had arrangements of his own?
Now draw your own conclusions about Abbott’s possible plans.
See how, by revealing her offer of a lift, Gillard has added to the security risk of any hypothetical visit that Abbott may have in mind?
Yes, Abbott spoke stupidly, realising he could not defend himself with the truth. And Gillard trapped him beautifully in her ambush.
But here’s the bottom line: what does this say about Gillard’s morals, that to make a political point she would risk exposing Abbott and the soldiers protecting him to greater danger?
Our politicians have told us this is the Parliament of “group hugs”. Of “the Age of Aquarius”. Of a “gentler politics”.
Let me know when you see it. Right now it seems bloodier than ever.
The great betrayal of our diggers in Afghanistan
‘Stop firing’ screamed the Afghan interpreter metres away from a suspected Taliban leader as he emptied his magazine towards a small band of Australian commandos. As the walls exploded the insurgent responded by clipping on a fresh magazine and unloading it at them. The Australians returned fire and lobbed a grenade into the dark room. The firing ceased. As they crept into the room they noticed a sight that will haunt them forever. The suspected Taliban leader lay dead amongst a human shield comprising women and children.
Three of the commandos in the raid, doing what they were sent to do by the Australian government, now face charges of manslaughter. These young men have been double-crossed by our political leaders who have exposed them to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Membership of the world court is a gold plated pass to the finer things in life for the international legal fraternity. First class travel, 5-star hotels, fine cuisine and vintage wine are standard fare for the elite in the justice system. The court provides a forum for eminent legal minds from Australia, Albania, Botswana, the Central African Republic, Romania, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Tajikistan and others to discuss a new world order for law and justice.
Our major ally, the United States, is not a signatory to the world court. Neither are China, India or any of the major Middle Eastern nations. The conventions of the court are not recognised by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The United States has enacted an American Service-Members’ Protection Act to protect their troops against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court. Australia has failed to offer the same protection to our troops.
We have also failed to provide them with a system of justice that recognises and respects the unique nature of their role in combat i.e. to close with and kill the enemy. The enemy has a similar role. This was reflected in General George Patton’s address to his troops in Europe in WW11. ‘You don’t win wars by dying for your country,’he urged. ‘You win wars by making the other bastard die for his country!’
Combat is not about group hugs and counselling sessions with your opponents. It’s about training, discipline, fear, courage, sacrifice, mateship and leadership. Only those who have experienced combat understand these human complexities. Strategies to prepare soldiers for combat operations have evolved over the centuries.
Soldiers also understand, better than most, that modern wars are not won on the battlefield. They are won within the hearts and minds of civilian populations.
The historic decision to charge our commando’s with manslaughter as the result of a night combat operation in Afghanistan is a shameless act of betrayal by the Australian government. The decision will have far reaching consequences on the command and control of combat operations which require split-second decisions to meet changing or unforeseen circumstances. Soldier’s lives will be at risk if commanders hesitate as they weigh up the implications of their decisions against the laws of the International Criminal Court or the prejudice of an all-powerful Director of Military Prosecutions.
The traditional system of conducting military prosecutions by courts martial allowed for servicemen and women to be judged by peers with an understanding of the complexities of combat in a hostile environment. This system was replaced by a botched Australian Military Court in 2007.
The botched system sought to institutionalise the betrayal of our servicemen and women by our political leaders who would have been subject to trial by a civilian judge without a jury. The decision to prosecute was delegated to a new supremo, the Director of Military Prosecutions, who is not answerable to either the military high command or Parliament.
Whilst the Australian Military Court was found to be unconstitutional in 2009 the Director of Military Prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade remains as a supreme independent authority. Whilst McDade was awarded the title of ‘Brigadier’ and gets to wear a uniform she has never had to earn the rank and has no experience in combat.
Her military-political sympathies were revealed in an interview where she believed David Hicks had been badly treated because he trained with terrorists in Afghanistan.
Uniform and rank are an integral part of the military system. Both have to be earned and respected. Soldiers are comfortable with specialist officers such as medical doctors, nurses and padres wearing the uniform because they enlist to save lives and souls. They are more sceptical of the legal profession who often use their association with the military to enhance their status within their own fraternity.
They have forfeited their right to wear the Australian military uniform with the decision to charge our combat soldiers with manslaughter.
The Australian government should move swiftly to disband the Office of Military Prosecutions and withdraw from the International Criminal Court to protect the integrity of our command and control system. If our political leaders do not have the will or the fortitude to do this they should be banned from attending military funerals and not bother with meaningless motions of condolence in Parliament.
