A matter of conviction

Today's paper has one cartoon called "The Politician". The interviewer is pushing a microphone in the mouth and asking "Do you have any convictions that we don't know about?"

The Politician answers... 'Not sure which way you mean it. Either way, No!'

It is an interesting joke, I have oft times bemoaned how many politicians seem to be headline driven rather than principle-driven. It leads to poor policy and the sort of tedious politics that we seem to be experiencing at both a national and state level just at the moment.

The curious reporting of the visit to Afghanistan by both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition in the last week is a case in point. Both seem to have handled this poorly.

Julia could have just chosen to note that Abbott was unable to go at the time and that he would have been travelling later. And why did Tony have to be so stupid as to say he wasn't going going to avoid being jetlagged, allowing the PM and others to at least suggest that troops in Afghanistan were less important than the Conservative party conference.

Then this morning he cries "bastardry", but at least he gets his gun-toting picture in the paper (I wonder if and indeed why he might have had training to use such a weapon). He said he wanted to be 'embedded' with the troops.

How crazy is that? Any fool can see that that is essentially a risky proposition. (At Least Prince Harry who presumably is a similar sort of risk is a highly trained combatant), and it's not that Abbott is endangering himself but he is endangering soldiers who are already at high risk.

Both of them should be ashamed of the way they have attempted squeeze the political advantage out of this.

What are the indicators?

While, by and large, I am convinced by the argument that the presence of Australian troops in Afghanistan is part of (and probably necessary for) the 'war against terrorism'; the question that keeps being asked and seldom (if ever) answered is:when we will know that it is time to withdraw our troops?

Clearly there is a range of indicators that could, and perhaps should, be adopted. Not the least of which is the question of the cost in human life.

Let us also not forget that this cost is on both sides.

I do not pretend that there is any easy answer to this question. I would, however, like some assurance that this question is being grappled with.

I am not always convinced that this is so.

Accidently smelly feet

You know the National Press Club addresses are wasted on the likes of me. Too few people with too little to do at midday on a Wednesday.
Today's was particularly good.David Kilcullen: Author And Guerrilla Warfare Expert giving us some pretty incisive analysysi of what is really going on in Iraq, Iran adn Afghanistan. I am not sure if you can see it on the web but it's worth tracking down.
(here's a former interview on Lateline)
His book The Accidental Guerilla (reviewed here) offers piercing critique, or so it seems to me, of the difference in warmongering policy and the policy of reasserting stable governance. Is it likely, he asked, that American lawmakers are going to to move to scale down war efforts when thousands of jobs in their electorates are dependent on weapons manufacture. He at least is askign the questions. I hope they get more airing

Counting Cost

An Australian who joined the British Army to do 'real soldiering' has been killed in Afghanistan (here). It serves as a reminder that the cost of 'real soldiering' can and will be at the cost of lives. It is a bit disturbing, I find, that both his parents and the British Army trot out the line that he died doing what he loved. That is as may be, but at what point do we say enough is enough and the cost is too high.
An interesting story too about the costs of flights to Antartica (here) half of which had to be cancelled and/or rescheduled because of the need to fly an injured person back to Tasmania taking up resources.I suppose this can't be held, though there is a tradition, surely, that saving human life takes priority over anything.
Though I must admit to having a certain ambivalence about the rescue of lone sailors (here). I mean who pays for this indulgence of adventurers. It's all well and good if nothing happens, but costs a bomb when the balloon goes up.