Oral - Australias involvement in the afghan conflict has not been worth it.

[bovawatkins]

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone would be able to give me their thoughts on my english oral on the Afghan conflict. Many thanks.




What do we, as humans, hope to accomplish through wars? Throughout history we've used war as a tool to settle disputes, but the victor of these disputes was only crowned after all of the opposition had been killed. It seems as though war isn't necessarily a tool of change, but rather a weapon for destruction that breeds hatred, violence, and lies. With Australia’s involvement in the Afghan war set to come to an end, it is time to review our involvement in a war where many lives were lost, homes destroyed and lives the will be forever tainted. It is time for the Australian government to realise, that a decade of fighting and intervention was not worth the toll taken on the millions of lives involved.
Initially, the Australian public were supportive of the intervention as they deemed it a necessary action against terrorism in the Middle East. However, in what was at the time in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, one wouldn’t have been wrong in arguing that it was a knee jerk reaction to a conflict in which given time, there may have been other ways to solve. Eventually, with the growing death toll, more and more Australians became at unease with what was unfolding.  Not just from the growing list of fallen troops, but the large financial costs estimated at over $7.5 billion. From this, it is clear to say that things were not beginning to fall as planned which caused the unease within the Australian public and then causing them to second guess the decision to go to war. Dr John Blaxland of ABC News made a strong point that "In 2001 it seemed like it was worth it. In 2002 it still seemed like it was worth it. In 2005 it still seemed like it was worth it, but year in year out, it's worn us down. Unfortunately, we haven't been very good in creating an alternate society in our image the way we'd hoped. What we've got in Afghanistan is a country that is not wanting to conform to a Western mould." In other words, what seemed like a good idea at the time was not what it turned out to be.
After the decision to end our involvement, a major question was posed by the general public, one that will linger long after the final Australian troops return home, what were we really doing in Afghanistan? The answer, no one really knows. For years, successive governments and Prime Ministers have steered clear of this question and have failed in their duty to give the Australian people what we deserve, and that is the truth and the precise reasons for the protracted involvement in Afghanistan. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard emphasised two points throughout her time in charge, with the main focus that Australia’s national interests remain intact, by one, to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists and two, to stand firmly by Australia’s alliance commitment to the United States. However, given that terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda are still yet to be defeated, and the fact that our troops will no longer be involved in a war that has not been won, how can the Australian government continue to justify their reasons for Australia’s involvement? At what point will the Australian government stop being so stubborn and admit, they got it wrong?
From what began as a mission to ultimately wipe out terrorist organisations and create a better place to live for the millions of Afghans, Australia's mission shifted to involve the rebuilding of infrastructure, including schools and roads in Oruzgan, considered Afghanistan's poorest province, with a goal to clean up the area and make it a better place to live. More Australian troops were committed in 2009 with a final mission to train and mentor the Afghan national army, ensuring it would be in a position to assume responsibility for Afghanistan's future security. So, Australians were there to protect Afghans, yet they continued to kill them. And whilst we managed to build 200 schools, where are we going to find the teachers willing to work in such a dangerous area? Security may be slightly better, but it is far from safe, and if it is not safe, how can a family, let alone a child survive in a place where they are forced to look over their shoulder every day to make sure they are going to be ok. And if they aren’t safe, access to basic human rights such as an education is simply not possible. Sadly as the Australian forces depart security remains the main hope to lasting development and a half decent way of life for the locals. The war might be over for Australian forces in the Oruzgan Province but for the 700,000 citizens of this poor, mountainous region in Afghanistan, the struggle for a decent life will last for generations.
With 40 Australian troops killed along with hundreds severely injured, not forgetting about the thousands of locals killed, the human cost has been absolutely devastating. Along with the billions of taxpayers’ dollars used for equipment and weaponry that has been wasted, Australians have every right to be frustrated at the outcome and failure to find a resolution. Prime Minister Tony Abbot stated after declaring an end of the war for our nation "not with victory, not with defeat, but with, we hope, an Afghanistan that is better for our presence here", one would not be blamed for questioning how Afghanistan is better and how the war has been worth it.

[literally lauren]

What do we, as humans, hope to accomplish through wars? Throughout history we've used war as a *tool* to settle disputes, but the victor of these disputes was only crowned after all of the opposition had been killed.not necessarily, try instead 'after so much carnage, bloodshe, and loss on all sides' or something. It seems as though war isn't necessarily a *tool*repetition of change, but rather a weapon for destruction that breeds hatred, violence, and lies. With Australia’s involvement in the Afghan war set to come to an end, it is time to review our involvement in a war where many *lives* were lost, homes destroyed and *lives* the will be forever tainted. It is time for the Australian government to realise, that a decade of fighting and intervention was not worth the toll taken on the millions of livesconsider synonyms: people, civilians, innocent victims/ "collateral" etc. involved.

Initially, the Australian public were supportive of the intervention as they deemed it a necessary action against terrorism in the Middle East. However, in what was at the time in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, one wouldn’t have been wrong in arguing that it was a knee jerk reaction to a conflict in which given time, there may have been other ways to solve.kind of clunky, 'a conflict that we may not have fully understood' or' 'that needed something more strategic than blind military occupation' Eventually, with the growing death toll, more and more Australians became at *unease* with what was unfolding.  Not just from the growing list of fallen troops, but the large financial costs estimated at over $7.5 billion. From this, it is clear to say that things were not beginning to fall asgoing according to planned which caused the *unease* within the Australian public and then causing them to second guess the decision to go to warlong sentence, try to break it up. Dr John Blaxland of ABC News made a strong point that "In 2001 it seemed like it was worth it. In 2002 it still seemed like it was worth it. In 2005 it still seemed like it was worth it, but year in year out, it's worn us down. Unfortunately, we haven't been very good in creating an alternate society in our image the way we'd hoped. What we've got in Afghanistan is a country that is not wanting to conform to a Western mould." In other words, what seemed like a good idea at the time was not what it turned out to be. good para in that you establish the ambiguity and uncertainty of the times

After the decision to end our involvement, a major question was posed by the general public, one that will linger long after the final Australian troops return home, what were we really doing in Afghanistan? was worried you'd descend into conspiracy theories, but you actually handle this very well The answer, no one really knows. For years, successive governments and Prime Ministers have steered clear of this question and have failed in their duty to give the Australian people what we deserve, and that is the truth and the precise reasons for the protracted involvement in Afghanistan. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard emphasised two points throughout her time in charge, with the main focus that Australia’s national interests remain intact, by one, to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists and two, to stand firmly by Australia’s alliance commitment to the United States. However, given that terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda are still yet to be defeated, and the fact that our troops will no longer be involved in a war that has not been won, how can the Australian government continue to justify their reasons for Australia’s involvement? good, but Gillard is no linger in charge, in fact neither is her party, so consider shifting your focus to the govt. as a whole, rather than just her, like this --> At what point will the Australian government stop being so stubborn and admit, they got it wrong?

From what began as a mission to ultimately wipe out terrorist organisations and create a better place to live for the millions of Afghans, Australia's mission shifted to involve the rebuilding of infrastructure, including schools and roads in Oruzgan, considered Afghanistan's poorest province, with a goal to clean up the area and make it a better place to live. isn't this a good thing? More Australian troops were committed in 2009 with a final mission to train and mentor the Afghan national army, ensuring it would be in a position to assume responsibility for Afghanistan's future security. So, Australians were there to protect Afghans, yet they continued to kill them. need to back this up. preferably with stats, since Aussie troops primarily fought insurgents and terror cells, alongside Afghan troops. And whilst we managed to build 200 schools, where are we going to find the teachers willing to work in such a dangerous area? not sure this is a valid point, what more could the army have done? Security may be slightly better, but it is far from safe, and if it is not safe, how can a family, let alone a child survive in a place where they are forced to look over their shoulder every day to make sure they are going to be ok. And if they aren’t safe, access to basic human rights such as an education is simply not possible. Sadly as the Australian forces depart security remains the main hope to lasting development and a half decent way of life for the locals. The war might be over for Australian forces in the Oruzgan Province but for the 700,000 citizens of this poor, mountainous region in Afghanistan, the struggle for a decent life will last for generations. good ending
With 40 Australian troops killed along with hundreds severely injured, not forgetting about the thousands of locals killed, the human cost has been absolutely devastating. Along with the billions of taxpayers’ dollars used for equipment and weaponry that has been wasted, Australians have every right to be frustrated at the outcome and failure to find a resolution. Prime Minister Tony Abbot stated after declaring an end of the war for our nation "not with victory, not with defeat, but with, we hope, an Afghanistan that is better for our presence here", one would not be blamed for questioning how Afghanistan is better and how the war has been worth it. good set up, but the concluding line needs to be stronger.

Very good overall, your contention is clear throughout and it all flows naturally, your linking sentences are good.
There are some minor repetition issues at the start, though it gets better as you go.
The 3rd para is the only real problem. I can see where your argument began, and like I said the ending is well expressed, but your attacks seem unfounded to me. (The army may not have expected schools to start up straight away, but it's evidence of their forward-thinking for when they leave the country; at least the civilians have facilities in which to learn/ teach.) And correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been very few, if any, instances of Australian forces killing civilians they're protecting. Either restructure this bit for clarity, and ensure you substantiate your claims, or cut it altogether. Otherwise you risk your audience focusing on the flaws in your allegations and not the persuasiveness of your overall argument.
I'd say once you fix that you'd be looking at an 8 or maybe 9 /10. It seems a little on the short side but that might just be me; time yourself to make sure. Assuming your school gives the 3-5 minute recommendations, it's better to be closer to 5 than 3. Apart from that, just practice your oral ability and you should be fine
Hope that wasn't too acerbic, best of luck!

[bovawatkins]

thanks heaps, really appreciate your time and effort!
all advice is helpful and i will really take it on board and hopefully get the marks