The White House talks won't include a formal request from the US President for Australia to commit more troops to the fight in southern Afghanistan. The Prime Minister already understands with crystal clarity that Washington wants us to lift our game in Afghanistan together with the US's other close ally, Britain.
While the Rudd Government continues to publicly hold the line on Australia's 1090-strong military commitment, the reality is that our troop numbers are set to rise. By late next year they could easily expand to about 1600 to 1700 depending on how the US-led troop surge unfolds over the next 18months.
The Defence Department has been working the options for months following requests from top US military commanders for us to consider taking over the running of Oruzgan province from the Dutch late in 2010.
They range from offering a brigade headquarters of about 120 personnel for a command role in Oruzgan, together with the provision of up to two infantry combat teams to assist with security for Afghanistan's national elections due in August. The army is also looking at sending more specialised trainers to assist the fledgling Afghan National Army.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and his top military advisers are not considering a larger 2500 to 3000-strong brigade size force for Oruzgan; those numbers would be difficult for the army to sustain for a multi-year assignment. But a "brigade-minus" option with a lot of US "enablers" or supporting assets, including helicopters, fixed wing-aircraft, medical and artillery support, remains a possibility.
In Washington the broad outlines of America's future strategy are clear with deeply troubled Pakistan, as much as Afghanistan, now occupying the attention of policy-makers. Obama has appointed veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke as his key point man in the region. Holbrooke will work closely with central command chief, General David Petraeus, particularly on the extraordinary challenge thrown up by steady encroachment of Islamist terror across Pakistan.
For US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the safe havens on the Pakistani side of the border -- not just for al-Qa'ida, but for the Taliban and other like-minded groups -- are as much a priority as the security slide now occurring inside Afghanistan.
"They are separate groups, but they're all working together. And I think as long as they have a safe haven to operate there, it's going to be a problem for us in Afghanistan," Gates observed last week noting that senior Pakistani leaders were contributing to Washington's policy review.
"After all, 20 years ago I was on the other side of that border as deputy director of CIA fighting the Soviets, and we had the safe haven in Pakistan. And let me tell you, it made a big difference."
Now that the endgame is in sight in Iraq, Afghanistan is the US's greatest military challenge. Nobody talks much about a fully fledged democratic state any more. The fundamental imperative is to prevent al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and supporters from regaining a sanctuary in the country.
Detailed counter-insurgency plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan have been drawn up by Petraeus, and a broader strategic policy paper for President Obama, co-ordinated by former CIA officer and presidential adviser Bruce Riedel, is close tocompletion.
Announcing the 17,000-troop surge last month, Obama said the immediate military build-up, including the dispatch of a marine expeditionary brigade to southern Afghanistan, would not pre-determine the outcome of his strategic policy review.
"Instead it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfil achievable goals in Afghanistan. As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed," Obama said.
In Munich last month, Petraeus, now charged with overseeing the US military effort in South Asia, stressed there were no purely military solutions in Afghanistan. Arresting the downward spiral in the country would also require far greater civil aid contributions together with a new approach to address cross-border issues with Afghanistan's neighbours.
"Nonetheless military action, while not sufficient by itself, is absolutely necessary, for security provides the essential foundation forthe achievement of progress in all theother so-called lines of operation," Petraeus warned.
And then came the clarion call to all America's allies, including Australia: "l would be remiss if I did not ask individual countries to examine what forces and other contributions they can provide as ISAF (the NATO-led coalition) intensifies its efforts in preparation for the elections in August," Petraeus said.
On the military side Petreaus spelled out a long list of what ISAF needs in Afghanistan, including vital combat troops. Badly needed are more police, army mentoring, training teams, logisticians and civil affairs units, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, as well as more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms.
For Rudd, Washington's unfolding strategy in South Asia poses difficult policy choices. Our military is treading water in Afghanistan and there is unanimous agreement among security experts that success in the province will require a larger and much more focused military and civil effort. Washington wants us to take the lead but our military chiefs have no appetite for that task.
Does Rudd lift what has been a largely symbolic, US alliance-driven contribution to the war in Afghanistan to something more substantive? For US military experts preparing for a long counter-insurgency campaign it's time for Australia to either get on the train or get off. Whatever Rudd decides in response to Washington's call, he needs to redefine the way ahead for Australia in Afghanistan. Rudd, who used to describe Afghanistan as "terror central", must articulate a new political narrative that explains the extent of Australia's strategic interest in the Afghan-Pakistan war.
At a conference on Australia's strategy in Afghanistan convened by the Australian National University this week, there was a broad consensus among security experts that the Rudd Government should consider lifting its military and civil effort in Afghanistan, including the opening of a fully fledged embassy in Kabul.
Former defence chief Admiral Chris Barrie says the choices are hard but Australia must get behind the enhanced US effort in Afghanistan. "I think we can do better. We have been in a holding operation. I don't want to put real numbers on it. But its going to look something like five grand," Barrie told the ANU gathering.
Australia's leading Afghanistan expert Bill Maley agrees there is a need to lift troop numbers to achieve results in Oruzgan rather than simply remain in a holding pattern. Maley believes Australia has an important strategic interest in seeing the eventual emergence of a stable Afghanistan.
"If Afghanistan goes under, there is a concrete likelihood that Pakistan at some point will go the same way," Maley warns.
"Nothing could give a greater inspiration to radical extremist forces in Pakistan than a perceived failure of NATO and the Western powers to achieve their core objectives in Afghanistan. That would then create a very unsettling strategic environment in South Asia, from which it could be quite difficult to insulate Southeast Asia and even Australia.".
