Let's face it: we're in for a long war May 17, 2003 THE terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia and the renewed warnings of al-Qa'ida terrorist attacks in southeast Asia hold several lessons of fundamental importance for Australia. The historic bargains that underlie the old order in the Middle East are breaking down independently of US action. The Saudi Government has for decades turned a blind eye to hatred, extremism and terrorist organisations within its borders so long as the extremists did not attack Saudi Arabia. But terror chief Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida group have shown that even the most cynical bargains with them buy only short-term comfort. The Saudis are now under the gun in a way they have never been. Their credit with Washington is shot after ignoring US pleas to upgrade security at the foreign residential compounds in Riyadh that were bombed by suspected al-Qai'da terrorists on Tuesday. Their domestic credibility is also shot. The population explosion, combined with the failure of the economy to produce anything but oil and the absence of political evolution, leave them with a patina of failure and illegitimacy. But from the ashes of this tragedy, the Saudi rulers have opportunity. The bombings have produced vast popular revulsion towards al-Qa'ida. And with US troops gone from the kingdom, there has never been a better time to begin evolution towards a more representative political structure as Saudi leader Crown Prince Abdullah has urged. The bombing starkly illustrates that al-Qa'ida is not dead. No one should underestimate the damage the US and its allies have inflicted on the terror group since the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. More than 3000 of its operatives, including many commanders, are in jail. Its training camps in Afghanistan have been eliminated. Pakistan has turned against the terrorists. All this is vast progress. But the Riyadh bombings, and the southeast Asian warnings, show us the war on terror is here for the long term. Defeating Saddam Hussein in Iraq was necessary, and a contribution to the war on terror, but it does not mean al-Qa'ida is defeated. The analogy is with the prolonged conflict of the Cold War. Intelligence analysts believe the centre of al-Qa'ida activity will swing to southeast Asia. Tragically, the region is almost designer-made for al-Qa'ida's purposes. It has porous borders, weak state capacity, large Muslim populations, pre-existing terrorist and separatist Muslim movements and proximity to south Asia, from where so many al-Qa'ida operatives have fled. Al-Qa'ida has transmuted into a more decentralised, hydra-headed beast. It is especially effective where it can link up with and provide strategic direction to existing separatist and religion-based violent movements, because it can co-opt existing capacities rather than building them up from scratch. Al-Qa'ida finds these circumstances in the southern Philippines and Indonesia. For Australia, this means a growing danger. We are a relatively easy Western target right next door. Australian interests in southeast Asia are at risk, as is the Australian mainland. Our response should be heightened intelligence and military co-operation with the governments in southeast Asia, heightened intelligence and other counter-terrorist efforts at home, and increased political engagement with mainstream moderate southeast Asia. There are insufficient resources for counter-terrorist intelligence at home, and Australia has not adequately pursued energetic and high-level political engagement with southeast Asia. We also need to change the orientation of our defence forces a path the Government is slowly moving along. There has been some misinterpretation of this week's defence budget. Critics see it as moving towards a greater emphasis on participating in distant coalition operations with the US rather than the traditional narrow defence of Australia doctrine. In truth, Defence Minister Robert Hill's speeches have emphasised mobility, flexibility and versatility. The point the commentators are missing is that the ability to deploy Australian forces at a distance gives the Government much greater options to deploy our forces in the region, as well as in coalition operations with the US. The debate over new tanks is emerging as a symbol for the wider argument. Tanks have no effective role in the defence of Australia doctrine because they would only come into play if an invading force landed in Australia and engaged our forces in a tank battle an extremely unlikely contingency. But tanks are classically of great use in coalition operations such as the war in Iraq. They are also of use in the region, in urban warfare, in peacekeeping operations and to assist regional governments in anti-terrorist operations. Reconfiguring our military to cope with potential regional and coalition requirements is one part of a huge emerging challenge arising out of this week's events. But the bottom line is: we're in for a long war. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6446194%255E25...