Too many pieces deserving attention, but with a chapter due in soon I should be doing other writing:
Hal G. P. Colebatch in The Australian argues the contradictory evidence that some countries went communist in 1975 (Cambodia, Laos) and some countries didn’t go communist (Everywhere else in SE Asia) proves the domino theory. From here he proceeds to resurrect the theory for fighting Islamic extremism, and claim that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan will somehow lead to great chaos in Indonesia. I guess we should call this the zombie domino theory, considering the Taliban has already ruled Afghanistan (well as much as anyone can) from 1996 to 2001 whilst Indonesia was slowly moving towards secular democracy….
Speaking of ignorance: The Australian now seems to think random grabs from punters who don’t actually follow politics counts as serious commentary. I love democracy as much as Churchill, but 3 voters ignorantly whining is not news or even an ‘insight’ into the Australian political psyche. There is a reason pollsters cost money and regularly argue over methodology, this kind of analysis should not be done in such an amateurish fashion.
Then again, maybe they come from Barnaby Joyce Tech where Joyce teaches that “universities were not just learning factories but had a role to “develop the person as a whole”. Sport was sufficient to achieve this, he said.”. And so Joyce is supporting a mandatory $250 student fee, but the money can only go to Uni sporting groups. Anyone needing anything else on campus (like communal services, advocacy, child care, health services, or non-sport social groups (movies, debates, or degree based) can pay for their own needs and subsidies the sports. I see students free’s as a very localised form of taxes, where everyone pay a little bit to ensure the health of the community. Labor shouldn’t accept Joyce’s demand which would be a worst of both worlds for all but a small few (And speaking of which, Labor should take some of the heat out of the issue by allowing the fees be charged to students HECS debt (ideally along with essentials like text books), rather than forcing already cash poor students to cover it today)
And finally Chris Bowen is making seriously smart use of his regular SMH column. He is definitely one to watch. Is it too early to doom him with the anchor of ‘future PM’ ?
MC
/ May 22, 2009I’m not sure Colbatch’s conclusion is as far off the mark as you imply. Its true that the Taliban was gained control of significant portions of Afghanistan between 96 and 01, but they never secured the entire country. If they had things might have been different.
The Islamist ideology advocated by the Taliban is expansionary, as current events in Pakistan demonstrate. Likewise several incidents around the Afghanistan/Iran border during their period of supremacy were cause for alarm and indicative of an agressivly confrontational foreign policy.
Andrew Carr
/ May 22, 2009An area under Taliban control in Afghanistan certainly aids their efforts in Pakistan. However, like much of this debate talk of “victory” is pretty redundant. Just as we never will be able to truly declare victory in Iraq, the Taliban wont be able to in Afghanistan. (And clearly Obama is pretty committed to preventing even an impression of that being gained).
The domino theory falls down because it is a purely psychological view of trends, that tends to vastly over-inflate the unity of a threat at the expense of on the ground circumstances. Whilst clearly the Soviet humiliation in 1989 and the 9/11 attacks provided great encouragement for Jihadists, the picture is much more murky since then. The west has had some successes and some failures (some self-inflicted ie Iraq which was an effort at our own democratic dominos. Which clearly arn’t falling). The debate is better served by talking specifics and details (where you are right that the expansionary nature of the Taliban would have an impact), instead of generic and ideological ones like “dominos” and “victory”.
MC
/ May 25, 2009Andrew,
We are debating semantics here. The Islamists ideology is expansionist; likewise, history demonstrates that when the Taliban Islamists secure ground they tend to aggressively move against their neighbours. Analysed critically these two factors suggest that a Taliban with a secure base (in Pakistan or Afghanistan) however small, will attempt to expand into contiguous regions, in order to further their control. This is the heart of the ‘Domino Theory’ and call it what you like; this is what happens.
In order to prevent further expansion of this conflict, a range of approaches must be taken including diplomatic, economic etc… But aggressive expansion must also be resisted by a credible military response.
Regards,