Seven years and counting. As Australia sends more forces to Afghanistan, it's time for some straight answers on why they're there, when they might get out and how much the whole mess is going to cost. This week, we got one out of three.
After months dancing behind veils, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced a further 450 troops. Having started out last year saying our commitment was ''about right'', Rudd, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith have been shifting the collective rhetoric.
Confidence that the United States wouldn't ask for more gradually became conditional agreement not until some bigger countries within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (the mob actually running this war) did more themselves.
This week there has been no mention of any undertakings which might have prompted our change of heart. Whether any have been secured in return for our commitment is not clear. What remains the case, though, is that our commitment carries no caveats. We are still doing some of the most dangerous work.
Member countries of the International Security Assistance Force are allowed to place caveats on participation, the source of extreme frustration for the US and Britain, who carry the greatest burden. It also infuriates the Australian Government and exasperates its military, as does the fact that our significant contribution is frequently overlooked.
The caveats on some other countries' troops include no night-time combat or fighting after snowfall (inappropriate equipment) and no transportation by helicopter. Apparently, helicopters are too dangerous for some soldiers although it's a bit hard to cover significant distances or reach serious hot spots in such a country without them (which, of course, is precisely the point). The German forces have copped particular criticism for caveats that include confining their forces to their armoured personnel carriers during patrols and to their bases after nightfall. They are also stationed in the north where there's little action anyway.
In an essay in the January-February edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, United States Defence Secretary Robert Gates quotes America's Civil War hero, General William T. Sherman: ''Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.''
There's nothing safe or easy about fighting insurgents in Afghanistan. This is a creeping war. Vietnam was longer (so far) and much bloodier (God forbid this should ever outdo that) but Afghanistan is a slow burn.
Gates writes that it poses ''an even more complex and difficult long-term challenge than Iraq''.
Unlike the Iraq conflict, somehow Afghanistan has become the acceptable war. Whereas protesters filled Australian streets over involvement in Iraq, there's been nary a peep about Afghanistan. Why not? It's probably because the Afghan conflict was linked directly with the September 11 attacks.
Australia's been toiling in the feudal state now for seven years and with 10 coffins to show for it. In harsh, statistical terms, that's a good average. But do Australians still think it's so acceptable?
Rudd is well aware that as casualties increase, this is becoming, as he puts it, ''progressively, an unpopular war'' and one Australia is now in up to its armpits. The troop boost takes our commitment to about 1540 plus 10 Australian Federal Police putting us near equal eighth place among 42 countries with forces in Afghanistan. Pound for pound, based on country size and type of commitment, Australia's doing more than its fair share, along with the Dutch forces who head up Regional Command South. (They, incidentally, are leaving next year. What happens then?)
Rudd's reasons for involvement in the Afghan conflict are the same as those of John Howard: to ''deny sanctuary'' to those who have killed Australians in terrorist attacks; and to fulfil our commitment to the US under the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty.
In March, US President Barack Obama outlined his new Afghanistan strategy, including a newly defined mission to disrupt, defeat and dismantle al-Qaeda. Actually, that was the old mission too that, and getting Osama bin Laden. Now, however, it's not just aimed at Afghanistan but at Pakistan too. That's a crucial and much-needed change. But it may make things very messy indeed.
Australia has defined its own mission and is justifying sending extra troops by linking their deployment to an exit strategy.
The mission, as Rudd outlined it, is: to deny insurgents Afghanistan as a global terrorism training ground; stabilise the Afghan state; and train enough Afghan National Army and police on our assigned turf, Uruzgan province, that they can take over local security themselves.
''Realisation of the third element of this mission statement would create the basis for the withdrawal of Australian combat units,'' Rudd said.
But (and there's so often a but) we don't have enough trainers there to make good on part three. So we are sending more in order to bring them home again.
And Rudd has now specified how much training they will be doing. They will train enough local soldiers to raise a brigade of 3300. As part of that, Australia is committing $55million a year towards a ''trust fund'' for the Afghan National Army.
Asked what this would fund and whether it would pay for such things as hardware and soldiers' salaries, Rudd replied ''all of the above''.
It's no clearer how long we will be paying the Afghan National Army's wages than it is how long it will take to train them. And while the budget on May 12 may contain some clues, the real bottom line is, they just don't know.
Karen Middleton is chief political correspondent for SBS Television.
Email a friend