Kevin Rudd wants to be best mates with Barack H. Obama. But be careful what you wish for, writes Michelle Grattan.
IT'S all very fine having Australian PMs build special relationships with American presidents but, as we often see, they can lead us into quicksand.
Harold Holt's "All the way with L.B.J." took Australia deeper into Vietnam. The Howard-Bush bond guaranteed we'd join the Iraq force, even while the Coalition government was saying no decision had been made.
Now there's strong speculation that Barack Obama, whom Kevin Rudd would like to make a special mate, will put the weights on for extra Australian effort in Afghanistan. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to give Afghanistan a higher priority, with more forces, as US troops come out of Iraq.
In a speech a few days ago, the former Opposition leader Kim Beazley had no doubts that "pressure will be forthcoming from the new American administration for us to do more in Afghanistan, despite the Government's current determination that what is being done now is the totality of our military commitment".
Not that anything substantial has been said so far; Obama doesn't take over until late January. Rudd's Friday morning conversation with the president-elect seems to have touched only on generalities about Afghanistan, with Rudd again promising Australia would be there "for the long haul". Rudd reiterated to journalists the Government feels the present contribution of more than 1000 troops is "about right". But there's wriggle room.
"We have got no plans to increase in the future, but there is going to be plenty of time to discuss the new administration's plans on Afghanistan in the period ahead," he said.
The Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, is also leaving space to manoeuvre. In Friday's comments, he implied Australia's opposition to increasing its force wasn't about numbers as such. "We are the largest non-NATO contributor and we don't want to find ourselves in a position where we're making a bigger commitment just so some European nations can do less."
The Government remains deeply disappointed at what it sees as the lacklustre effort by various NATO countries. Rudd went to the April Bucharest NATO summit backing George Bush's push for more commitment from these countries, but the outcome was limited.
With Australian troops in the dangerous southern areas, the Government is also critical of the strict conditions some European countries put on what they do and where they go.
The former foreign minister Alexander Downer, now out of Parliament, is equally unimpressed with many NATO countries. He says if Obama asks for more from Australia "the answer should be no - not till the European NATO countries make a stronger contribution" - that is, a bigger and more active one.
Australia should say this to the US "right now, so they don't come and ask. If NATO is prepared to increase and change the nature of what countries do we should be prepared to make a proportionate increase in our contribution."
Beazley, who has returned to his academic specialty of defence, comes from a different angle and says: "If Obama requests additional Australian forces in the context of the withdrawal of forces from other countries previously associated with the Australian deployment - especially the Dutch - we should respond positively."
Meanwhile, he says that Australia should put in place an effective battlegroup there so we have the option of increasing our troops. A battlegroup, which moves away from the traditional battalion structure to a force of combined arms, "would require a heavier punch in terms of military equipment than we have in Afghanistan or experimented with in Iraq".
After the short, sharp and immediately successful attack of 2001, the situation in Afghanistan looked clear cut, albeit not simple. Secure the country, get rid of Taliban remnants, foster democratisation and people's rights, help build a viable economy.
But it wasn't long before security worsened; the Taliban regrouped, the warlords consolidated their grip, opium drugged the economy, and war, almost a natural state for this unfortunate country, was raging.
Afghanistan has now become a bog with no end in sight and "victory" increasingly defined in rather different ways from previously. Things have become so bad that some experts are now saying there needs to be a political settlement that accommodates "moderate" Taliban.
Pressed last month on whether he thought the war was winnable, Rudd made a wider argument, emphasising the importance of "strategic denial" of an operating base for al-Qaeda and the like.
Beazley says when we talk of victory we have to ask what we are trying to achieve. "A democratic, stable Afghanistan? Maybe that is impossible. Sufficient space to operate through the country and over the border in pursuit of the Taliban and al-Qaeda? Probably what Obama is proposing (in terms of a greater effort) will give us that."
A recent report from the partially Government-funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute leaves us with a bleak picture. The assessment says the security situation is gradually deteriorating, the Karzai Government has greater legitimacy in the West than at home and Afghanistan's security problems can't be solved without dealing with Pakistani sanctuaries, while Pakistan itself is a strategic problem.
"Western security analysts continue to differ about whether we're 'winning' or 'losing' the war in Afghanistan. In truth, it's a difficult thing to measure with accuracy," the assessment says.
When you're not sure whether you are winning or losing, it's a fair bet you're losing. Whether Obama has any better answers will be tested in the next four years.
Source: smh.com.au