We’ll fight Islam for
100 years: former army chief AUSTRALIA needs to prepare for an increasingly
savage, 100-year war against radical Islam that will be fought on home soil as
well as foreign lands, the former head of the army, Peter Leahy, has warned.
Professor Leahy, a leading defence and strategic analyst, told The Weekend Australian the country was ill-prepared for the high cost of fighting a war that would be paid in “blood and treasure” and would require pre-emptive as well as reactive action.
“Australia is involved in the early stages of a war which is likely to last for the rest of the century,” he said. “We must be ready to protect ourselves and, where necessary, act pre-emptively to neutralise the evident threat. Get ready for a long war.” Senior intelligence officials have moved to shore up public support for the Abbott government’s tough new security laws, including enhanced data-retention capabilities enabling agencies to track suspect computer usage.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general David Irvine said the proposed data laws, which require phone and internet companies to retain records for two years, were “absolutely crucial” to counter the jihadist terror threat.
The government’s security package also includes a $630 million funding boost to intelligence agencies and police to help prevent domestic terrorist attacks.
Professor Leahy — a former lieutenant general who ran the army for six years, from 2002-2008 — said the threat of radical Islam would require action on several fronts, including a strengthening of controls against biological, chemical and nuclear attacks.
It would also include greater protection for critical infrastructure and iconic targets against attack.
The Western withdrawal from Afghanistan did not constitute the end of the so-called war on terror, “nor, as was claimed by prime minister Julia Gillard, in January 2013, a transition from the 9/11 decade”, he said.
Michael Krause, a former senior Australian Army officer responsible for planning the coalition campaign in Afghanistan, said he agreed “absolutely” with Professor Leahy. “I have seen these people,” the retired major general said.
“I know how they think. I know how they fight. There is no compromise possible. “These long wars require long commitment to outlast radical ideas and provide viable, meaningful alternatives which require a whole-of-government response, rather than assuming the military can or should do it all.’’ Professor Leahy said politicians needed to “develop an honest and frank dialogue” with the Australian public.
“They should advance a narrative that explains that radical Islamism and the terrorism it breeds at home and abroad will remain a significant threat for the long term, it will require considerable effort, the expenditure of blood and treasure and it will, of necessity, restrict our rights and liberties,” he said.
Professor Leahy is the director of Canberra University’s National Security Institute and part of the Abbott government’s team carrying out a comprehensive review of Defence.
He said radical Islamists intent on a new world order were already a threat to the survival of nations in the Middle East and Africa.
If the declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq survived, bases would be established there for attacks on the West and that would embolden “home grown” radicals to attempt attacks in Australia. Military action would be needed to eliminate the threat.
Radicals saw the West as “the far enemy” and they were undoubtedly planning more attacks in Australia. Senior intelligence believes the view that the threat posed by radical Islam would pass was “optimistic”.
Mr Irvine, who took the unusual step of speaking to the media yesterday, said the current terrorism threat level of “medium” meant that a terrorism “event” in Australia was likely.
“Where our volume of work has increased is that this event could occur in a dozen different places now, whereas before it was in a small, refined area,” he said.
Professor Leahy said that when Australia did choose to be involved its aims must be measured and realistic, with nations under the greatest threat from radical Islamists supported while care was taken not to inflame local tensions.
The solution had to come from within the Muslim world, which so far seemed disinclined or unable to imagine a path to peace.
Professor Leahy said the threat was likely to worsen as radicals returned from overseas and the internet dumped Islamist propaganda into Australian living rooms.
Some efforts at deradicalisation had begun but a much greater effort must be made to engage Muslim clerics and Islamic thought leaders to debunk radical ideologies being offered to young Australians.
“Dual nationality must be reviewed and, where appropriate, terrorists and their sympathisers either expelled from Australia or denied re-entry,” he said.Professor Leahy said Australia must support moderate nations with radical Islamist problems, such as Indonesia and The Philippines. Sydney Morning Herald
Professor Leahy, a leading defence and strategic analyst, told The Weekend Australian the country was ill-prepared for the high cost of fighting a war that would be paid in “blood and treasure” and would require pre-emptive as well as reactive action.
“Australia is involved in the early stages of a war which is likely to last for the rest of the century,” he said. “We must be ready to protect ourselves and, where necessary, act pre-emptively to neutralise the evident threat. Get ready for a long war.” Senior intelligence officials have moved to shore up public support for the Abbott government’s tough new security laws, including enhanced data-retention capabilities enabling agencies to track suspect computer usage.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general David Irvine said the proposed data laws, which require phone and internet companies to retain records for two years, were “absolutely crucial” to counter the jihadist terror threat.
The government’s security package also includes a $630 million funding boost to intelligence agencies and police to help prevent domestic terrorist attacks.
Professor Leahy — a former lieutenant general who ran the army for six years, from 2002-2008 — said the threat of radical Islam would require action on several fronts, including a strengthening of controls against biological, chemical and nuclear attacks.
It would also include greater protection for critical infrastructure and iconic targets against attack.
The Western withdrawal from Afghanistan did not constitute the end of the so-called war on terror, “nor, as was claimed by prime minister Julia Gillard, in January 2013, a transition from the 9/11 decade”, he said.
Michael Krause, a former senior Australian Army officer responsible for planning the coalition campaign in Afghanistan, said he agreed “absolutely” with Professor Leahy. “I have seen these people,” the retired major general said.
“I know how they think. I know how they fight. There is no compromise possible. “These long wars require long commitment to outlast radical ideas and provide viable, meaningful alternatives which require a whole-of-government response, rather than assuming the military can or should do it all.’’ Professor Leahy said politicians needed to “develop an honest and frank dialogue” with the Australian public.
“They should advance a narrative that explains that radical Islamism and the terrorism it breeds at home and abroad will remain a significant threat for the long term, it will require considerable effort, the expenditure of blood and treasure and it will, of necessity, restrict our rights and liberties,” he said.
Professor Leahy is the director of Canberra University’s National Security Institute and part of the Abbott government’s team carrying out a comprehensive review of Defence.
He said radical Islamists intent on a new world order were already a threat to the survival of nations in the Middle East and Africa.
If the declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq survived, bases would be established there for attacks on the West and that would embolden “home grown” radicals to attempt attacks in Australia. Military action would be needed to eliminate the threat.
Radicals saw the West as “the far enemy” and they were undoubtedly planning more attacks in Australia. Senior intelligence believes the view that the threat posed by radical Islam would pass was “optimistic”.
Mr Irvine, who took the unusual step of speaking to the media yesterday, said the current terrorism threat level of “medium” meant that a terrorism “event” in Australia was likely.
“Where our volume of work has increased is that this event could occur in a dozen different places now, whereas before it was in a small, refined area,” he said.
Professor Leahy said that when Australia did choose to be involved its aims must be measured and realistic, with nations under the greatest threat from radical Islamists supported while care was taken not to inflame local tensions.
The solution had to come from within the Muslim world, which so far seemed disinclined or unable to imagine a path to peace.
Professor Leahy said the threat was likely to worsen as radicals returned from overseas and the internet dumped Islamist propaganda into Australian living rooms.
Some efforts at deradicalisation had begun but a much greater effort must be made to engage Muslim clerics and Islamic thought leaders to debunk radical ideologies being offered to young Australians.
“Dual nationality must be reviewed and, where appropriate, terrorists and their sympathisers either expelled from Australia or denied re-entry,” he said.Professor Leahy said Australia must support moderate nations with radical Islamist problems, such as Indonesia and The Philippines. Sydney Morning Herald
The WEST’s War Dead Deserve Better than this!
ReplyDeleteWhen a war-weary America decided “I’m out of here”, it left Iraq in an insoluble mess, exhibiting the stupidity of invading a country, killing its tyrant, installing a new government and simply pissing off.
Every country it has touched in the Middle East and northern Africa is now in turmoil due to a basic lack of knowledge of how Arab power structures function.
The reason wars are now flaring up everywhere is that Obama is an absent pussy cat and now the mice are playing. He no longer has an economic or an electoral taste for a full-on war and is content to scout the perimeters supplying arms to the “goodies”.
The US is abrogating its responsibility to over 4,500 dead American boys (and 10,000 injured) who did its bidding for the better and it cannot simply walk away from this ISIS slaughterfest it created.
Let’s be honest here, the ISIS is a conglomerate of Al Queda Islamic extremist offshoots who were supported by the US in the Syrian war to overthrow the Russian supported tyrant, Assad. But because Obama refused an active involvement, it failed, with Assad the only tyrannical enemy of the US to withstand a coup.
The ISIS was defeated but with all its US supplied military equipment, moved South East to a weakened Iraq that quickly surrendered its US supplied military equipment. In a well-planned attack it immediately took Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, consolidated, then moved on the oil fields to finance its onslaught before capturing dozens of other cities.
But all is not what it seems. The ISIS is very good at shooting a thousand people in the back of the head and raping little girls, but it’s not the potent military force it claims to be.
Iraq’s 80 per cent Sunni majority, after handing over their US military equipment, assisted the ISIS in the slaughter of their neighbourly Shias. In many cities they were welcomed as “liberators”.
Now the ISIS is mass murdering Kurds in the north (those remaining who Sunni Saddam Hussein didn’t gas) and smaller ethnic groups, while Turkey assists with humanitarian packets of Weet Bix.
If Obama doesn’t act now it will be too late. The ISIS is no more than a mob of hoons in utes and is only a threat because no-one is there to oppose it, so stand by for some limited US action.
The ISIS is now a mere 60 mile from Baghdad and the use of its airport is critical. Iraq’s inept minority Shia government of a blustering Maliki will not withstand an ISIS attack simply because there will be wholesale Sunni desertions to the ISIS led forces.
How, after 10 years of fighting, could the US have left Iraq so vulnerable to such a rag tag murderous bunch of Islamic terrorists?
Why in the name of God did the US ever go there in the first place?
But it must go there now, the US should realise if it doesn’t immediately swoop on the ISIS it will likely be facing a prolonged war on two fronts... the other in Eastern Europe.
Pickering Post