Troops 'understand combat role' in Afghanistan

JULIA Gillard's pledge to keep an Australian security presence in Afghanistan for the next 10 years is unlikely to affect troop morale.

JULIA Gillard's pledge to keep an Australian security presence in Afghanistan for the next 10 years is unlikely to affect troop morale.

Her pledge will not worry the troops currently serving there, according to the Australia Defence Association.

The Prime Minister's commitment to a long-term stay in Afghanistan drew sharp criticism yesterday from independent MP Andrew Wilkie, Greens MP Adam Bandt and Liberal backbencher Mal Washer, but the executive director of the ADA, Neil James, said those on the front line understood Australia's combat role would "not drag on" indefinitely.

"I don't think there are concerns by the soldiers on the ground because they know how these things are going, and the soldiers on the ground have a better understanding than most people in Australia," Mr James said.

"The point is that elements of it might drag on, but the whole thing isn't likely to.

"It is not as if we are going to have to keep a huge force there until 2020.

"We might have to keep elements there for civil and military for that long, but it certainly won't be the whole effort."

But Mr James said it was also impossible to put an exact deadline on an ongoing war, after Ms Gillard pinpointed 2014 as a possible end point for Australia's combat role.

"Any proper strategic plan or exit strategy has to be dependent on the circumstances at the time," he said.

"You can't lay down strict deadlines. Timelines should never become deadlines.

"You have got to allow for the dynamics of warfare."

Australia's commitment to the war in Afghanistan has had bipartisan support since troops were first deployed there in 2002. But Liberal backbencher Dr Washer broke ranks with his party yesterday when he called for an end to "irresponsible" military engagement there.

He said Australia had gone to Afghanistan to fight al-Qa'ida and the terrorist organisation was now "virtually non-existent" there.

Dr Washer has urged those with similar views to lobby politicians.

Mr Bandt yesterday reiterated his party's opposition to Australia's ongoing presence there and questioned the wisdom of supporting the US effort.

"The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader failed to outline any clear markers for success or a coherent exit strategy from Afghanistan," he said last night. "The Australian people are unlikely to be persuaded by their arguments that we should continue to follow the United States in this war."

Mr Wilkie, who criticised Australia's military commitment to Afghanistan during his maiden speech to parliament last month, said yesterday there "won't be any enduring peace in Afghanistan until foreign troops are withdrawn". In the days after the election, he called for a parliamentary debate "about why we're there".

"And one of the great lies, one of the big lies of this federal election campaign -- a lie told by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party -- is that we have to be there to fight terrorists for Australia's national security.

"And that became a lie years ago, once the global extremist Islamic threat morphed into a network around the world."

Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie will address parliament today on Australia's presence in Afghanistan.