Just as US soldiers and National Guards who’ve completed their tours in Iraq are being conscripted by stop-loss orders, recalls and the like, then sent back for a second round, Australia has received new orders. The New Europeans (Spain, Poland, Netherlands and so on) are all pulling out, and its up to us to fill the gap.
Of course, there’s no mention of the US in Howard’s announcement. Supposedly, this is a response to personal requests from the British and Japanese Prime Ministers. Older readers will recall that exactly the same farce was played out with our commitment of troops to Vietnam. Anyone who believes the government’s line might reflect on what kind of response Blair and Koizumi would get if they requested from Howard something the Bush Administration didn’t like, such as ratification of Kyoto.
There’s no strategy here, just hanging on and hoping things will change for the better. There’s no sign so far that the presence of 150 000 troops has done any good. The insurgency/resistance/terrorists are far more numerous now than they were a year ago. They gain legitimacy when they attack foreign occupiers, and lose it when they attack fellow-Iraqis. I hope that the new Iraqi government, when it emerges, will maintain its campaign commitment (watered down at the last minute) to demand a schedule for withdrawal, but if it doesn’t, Australia and Britain should be pushing the US to set one.
Tthe decision raises some other big issues for Australia that don’t seem to have been considered. In particular, there’s the possibility of war with Iran. Have we received assurances either that there won’t be any US military action against Iran or that, if there is, Iraq won’t be used as a base? To ask this question is to answer it.
John Quiggin 
“There’s no sign so far that the presence of 150 000 troops has done any good. ”
Apart from the removal and capture of Saddam, the rebuilding of schools , roads , hospital and other infrastructure and the first democratic elections in memory?
Sometimes the answer might be as simple as it looks ; Japan has requested protection for it’s engineers and Iraq is at a crossroads moment when international assistance might mean the difference between the establishment of a system with some respect for human rights or the return of a genocidal dictator.
The old “Australia as America’s lap dog” argument just doesn’t stack up when China , the ICC , free trade etc are thrown in.
Older Australians might also remember with shame how in the end we betrayed the Vietnamese people and left them to the brutal authoritarian government with a penchant for torture and executions.
We may also remember that great man of Australian politics
“Whitlam stuck out his jaw and, grinding his teeth, turned to Willesee and thundered, ‘I’m not having hundreds of fucking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious and political hatreds against us!”
So i hope that we go the distance with the Iraqis, and if they want our help we give it, and the help that they ask for.
Just a small matter of historical parallelism.
In 1965, after Menzies announced that Australian troops would be sent to save South Vietnam, it was discovered that, mortifyingly, the Australian Government had neglected to ask for an invitation from the South Vietnamese Government.
Now, in 2005 in Iraq, we’ve heard of pleas from the Japanese and the British (who did quite a good job of disguising their American accents) but NO invitation from the Interim Government of the sovereign state of “New Iraq”.
The Little Frigger hasn’t forgotten the past has he?
The historical parallels are striking, but they go further. It will all end in tears of course, but by then Howard will be long gone, just as Menzies was, and his successors will left to cop the blame and clean up the mess.
“There’s no sign so far that the presence of 150 000 troops has done any good. �
Apart from the dumping of 1,000s of tonnes of nuclear waste in the form of depleted uranium, Cluster bombs and napalm (yes the americans are still using napalm on cities).
Oh and the whole Islamic law being implemented in Iraq for the first time in 50 years?
Like pakistan, the US will not accept a democratic outcome that is not pro-US.
Its not about democracy – its about strategic positioning, wedgeing Iran and applying pressure to syria and saudi.
If you are right Katz then when Ibrahim al-Jaafari says go, I agree go we must including the troops that guard our embassy staff. He has made the point that security is his biggest task for without it the rest can’t happen. He may well agree with JQ that violence would be mitigated by the withdrawal of foreign troops sooner rather than later. Thus it is his and his interim government’s call. And we must do as they determine.
I don’t think you would find many Australians who wouldn’t be grateful to see our troops home. I also don’t think Australians want to leave Iraq without our assistance including military if the Iraqis haven’t built their capacity sufficiently and we were asked to stay
it is hard to imagine that the Iraqis would agree to be pulled into another war with Iran. This right winger would join voices with all who argued that it was not an option.
What to do though? March out now and in all likelyhood see a vast increase in anarchy and bloodshed? I’ve very much of the opinion that the whole thing was a big mistake, but it seems to me that to quit now would make the mistake even worse. We have to go at some point, but to do it before the Iraqi’s have even set up their own proper government and hopefully some sort of effective army is got to be better than leaving now. In the end it may not be successful but surely we still have to give it a try.
On the other hand Howard’s handling of this smacks again of his deceitfulness. He wouldn’t be honest before the election and say more troops could be sent if they are needed.
As for Ros’s comment about Whitlam, Howard has made it pretty clear he already has the same attitude minus the swearing. Another historical parallel?
Did someone say infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc?
Some quotes from Riverbend:
and
and
Three quotes from a wealth of material. And I haven’t even started on the deterioration of the status of women.
Sending more troops to Iraq is a good thing – we need soldiers with combat experience to promote to senior roles. In the absence of an opportunity like this, our defence forces would be run by individuals with little experience of war and its consequences. 😉
“It’s about strategic positioning, wedgeing Iran and applying pressure to syria and saudi.”
Ok, let me ask you this: if the end result is a democratic nation with ordinary Iraqis participating in a genuine and ongoing political process, does it matter that the US is only in it for themselves?
Cheers
alphacoward,
“There’s no sign so far that the presence of 150 000 troops has done any good ” isn’t the same as “haven’t made any mistakes”.
The fire bombing of Dresden/Hamburg/Tokyo were all morally indefensible but they didn’t invalidate the reasons for opposing Nazi Germany and Japan.
There’s no credible evidence that civilians in Iraq were deliberately killed by Americans. In fact there is evidence ( I recall particularly a reference to RAAF targeting parameters ) that considerable effort went into avoiding civilian casualties.
There isn’t a problem with an Islamic constitution for Iraq – if that’s what the people of Iraq genuinely want and if they retain the power to change it.
You’re right ab, but your if is an enormous if.
And let me add a but…
BUT if we are hoping for some unintended outcomes, why should Australia add even a teaspoon of the blood of its soldiers to the gallons of American Amercan blood spilled in pursuance of a fools’ errand?
I think some of the participants in this debate would do well to read an article in Slate by Christopher Hitchens who is one of the few on the left (or on any side of politics for that matter) to come out of the debate with any credibility and provide any insight besides the mindless anti-Americanism on one side and were with the yanks all the way on the other side. It is clear that these two events are completely different – the human rights violations of the Vietnamese government after the war can hardly be used to justify the view that American intervention was justified and that they should have stayed and finished it of like they should in Iraq. If the US had not intervened we might well have had a far more democratic Vietnam and certainly much suffering would have been avoided. Furthermore, as Hitchens points out the most appalling excesses were committed by U.S. forces, this is clearly not the case in Iraq. ‘In Iraq, the crimes of mass killing, aerial bombardment, ethnic deportation, and scorched earth had already been committed by the ruling Baath Party, everywhere from northern Kurdistan to the drained and burned-out wetlands of the southern marshes. Coalition forces in Iraq have done what they can to repair some of this state-sponsored vandalism.’
Not only is the situation completely different, I further note that little is said about the potential for democracy to spread throughout the region, the fact that Iran and other countries now start to worry more as a result of this example when the US starts to put pressure on them to reform or stop pursuing nuclear weapons (Iran), or about the US’s positive role in getting rid of the Taliban, stopping the Serbs murdering ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, and continually putting pressure on the Chinese to respect human rights (the Europeans and others only see china as a market). An obsession with Marxism among many on the left as now been replaced by cultural relativism and anti-Americanism – it is little wonder that the right of politics have been able to dominate so easily.
Sorry this is the link – http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112895&
You’re right ab, but your if is an enormous if.
And let me add a but…
BUT if we are hoping for some unintended outcomes, why should Australia add even a teaspoon of the blood of its soldiers to the gallons of American Amercan blood spilled in pursuance of a fools’ errand?
Nobody knows the full extent of civilian deaths in Iraq because no-one is counting. Read this shameful report
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Alan-Ramsey/All-for-the-sum-total-of-nothing/2005/02/18/1108709431864.html
Why did we invade Iraq in the first place? Why should our troops or any troops die for the idealogical passions of the small group of useless neo-cons running the Whitehouse?
Honest John specifically said before we went that we were not interested in “regime change”. We were going to eliminate Iraq’s WMD The legal charter that was supposedly used to invade Iraq. did not mention ‘regime change’ This is from http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1130crime.html
“The resolution makes no mention of “pre-emptive strike” or of “regime
change” — phrases often repeated by US President Bush.
However, the resolution retains the wording demanded by the US and Britain
that Iraq face “series consequences” if it continues “in violation of its
obligations”.
This was its obligation to eliminate WMD which subsequent investigations have concluded that Iraq did comply making the invasion of Iraq totally illegal.
The beginning of hoWARd’s end.
Our troops are needed @ home! NOT@WAR!
We do need our troops here in Australia, protecting our own country and fellow Australians. That way if one life is ever lost in that process, we can all know it was worth it and for the right reasons. And the decision to send troops should only be taken by the parliament, not the irresponsible cabinet or the deceitful PM.
The rest are just excuses, excuses from hoWARd, excuses from the cabinet, excuses from the chicken hawks in these blogs, excuses to suck up and protect the USA, Japan, UK.
This decision will come back to haunt the Aust. gov. And just like our initial involvement, still no clear reasons for it, no clear benefits, no clear exit strategy, no honor, just deceit and no respect for our serving soldiers.
Only COWARDS with deceitful and wimpy excuses.
Carlos, it is cowardly and morally bankrupt to argue that we should only take an action if it is our own self-interest – tell that to the Rwandans who could have done with some western intervention (that is apart from the French who if I remember correctly initially supported those guilty of genocide because they were pro-French).
If we must send our army as mercenaries to Iraq and later Iran, surely we should get paid. I’m amazed how wimpy the Howard Govt. is about this. During the 17th and early 18th Centuries armies of smaller powers frequently fought as mercenaries in the pay of larger belligerents, the negotiation of numbers of troops, price and terms of payment occupying the relevant diplomats all through the winter before the campaigning season opened. Surely it is ridiculous to offer our army to the US without even negotiating for a couple of oil wells, deliverable on conquest, as the price!
Another piece of historical parallelism. Taking their cue from Gerard Henderson:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Gerard-Henderson/War-the-media-just-dont-get-it/2005/02/21/1108834727653.html
about how the contemptible elites “just don’t get it” when it comes to understanding the ordinary folk’s support for Howard’s foreign policy, Michael Burgess, among others observe “it is little wonder that the right of politics have been able to dominate so easily.”
Yep, the same thing happened during the 1960s as well. Whitlam himself blamed Jim Cairns for losing him the election of 1969 by banging on about Vietnam when Gough didn’t want to Mention The War.
But as Mickey Malthouse (Collingwood coach for all you outer barbarians) observed: “The plough is slow, but the ox is patient.” With enemies like Howard we lefties don’t need too many friends.
Perhaps Howard should have had his deaf aids installed earlier. No doubt beyond his inner clique Liberals are growing a little concerned about their electoral prospects.
“the US’s positive role in … stopping the Serbs murdering ethnic Albanians in Kosovo”
Which was bitterly opposed, by the way, by all the Republicans neo cons, including George W, and which led to derisory remarks about the folly of “nation building” by C. Rice and other senior officials – a view they would still hold if it hadn’t been so rudely interrupted by 9/11.
To all the cowards, M.Burguess, included:
Where were you when that happened?
Where were you when the kurds were being killed in Iraq? Where were you when the communists were killing dissidents in the ex USSR? When the Chinese occupied Tibet? When Indonesia invaded East Timor?
There are many who have been speaking out on ALL those occasions, consistently for peace and reason.
No more lame excuses
This one’s for you PUNK:
http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/curry.asp“
Katz said – “NO invitation from the Interim Government of the sovereign state of “New Iraqâ€?.”
I beg to disagree – there is a standing invitation for more help and the currrent government yesterday welcomed the announcement (unless the ABC Journalist was lying).
JQ – you opened yourself up with the good old – “What have the Romans done for us?”. I too, am a Monty Python fan. Something in common!
An interesting point for discussion, if the anti-American/Iraqi/Howard types want to discuss it is the fact that the soldiers being sent actually want to go. They are volunteers and this is what they joined and trained for. In fact there will be many disappointed by being left at home. It is a significant disconnect in the political discussion when those against a military operation think it shouldn’t occur and yet those who would do the job are more than happy to get on with it. I know that I was spitting chips when a good mate was deployed to Somalia straight out of Duntroon and we stayed behind. And then he got his mug on the TV when his Platoon was the first in a fire-fight since Vietnam.
I look forward to the next few rounds of polling and expect no significant negative impact on the Howard Government.
Well, no more excuses. Let’s do something about this bunch of cowards!
In Oz:
http://www.nswpeace.org/
http://www.vicpeace.org/
http://www.sydneyoperahousenowar.org/
http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/calendar/
http://www.active.org.au/sydney/calendar/?display=list&days=14
http://www.whentheworldsaidno.org
In the US:
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
http://www.moveon.org/front/
In the UK:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Well, no more excuses. Let’s do something about this bunch of cowards!
In Oz:
http://www.nswpeace.org/
http://www.vicpeace.org/
http://www.sydneyoperahousenowar.org/
http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/calendar/
http://www.active.org.au/sydney/calendar/?display=list&days=14
http://www.whentheworldsaidno.org
In the US:
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
http://www.moveon.org/front/
In the UK:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Of course, the ploy to send more Australian troops to Iraq is an attempt so ensure that there is more collateral damage, more infrastructure destroyed, more oil stolen, more soldiers killed, more pathetic right-wing justification, more irritating left-wing whinging, and more violations of international law.
All of these things are WAAAY more popular (and distracting) than a 0.5% increase in interest rates.
michael.burgess contributed Chris Hitchens comment that,
“In Iraq, the crimes of mass killing, aerial bombardment, ethnic deportation, and scorched earth had already been committed by the ruling Baath Party, everywhere from northern Kurdistan to the drained and burned-out wetlands of the southern marshes. Coalition forces in Iraq have done what they can to repair some of this state-sponsored vandalism.”
Along this same vein, it might be worth noting that in thi scurren tpahase in Iraq, it is the US/Coalition forces that are leading the race in the killing of Iraqis. Despite the terrible car-bombings and assasinations, the ‘insurgents’ are coming a distant second.
michael.burgess contributed Chris Hitchens’ comment that,
“In Iraq, the crimes of mass killing, aerial bombardment, ethnic deportation, and scorched earth had already been committed by the ruling Baath Party, everywhere from northern Kurdistan to the drained and burned-out wetlands of the southern marshes. Coalition forces in Iraq have done what they can to repair some of this state-sponsored vandalism.”
Along this same vein, it might be worth noting that in this current phase in Iraq, it is the US/Coalition forces that are leading the race in the killing of Iraqis. Despite the terrible car-bombings and assasinations, the ‘insurgents’ are coming a distant second.
Carlos, in response to your comments about where I was when China invaded Tibet and the Kurds were being murdered by SH etc, well actually for the past 30 years I have been a very active member of Amnesty International and other organisations concerned with human rights. I resigned from Amnesty last year when I could take no more of the fact that they now spend more time criticising western countries and Israel than they do real human rights violators. So where were you?
Razor, South Vietnamese Premier Phan Huy Quat (remember him?) also stated in 1965 how pleased he was to host an Australian contingent, when told they were coming.
These niceties are really neither here nor there in the broad sweep of military/diplomatic history. Such ventures succeed or fail for reasons far more profound than punctilio.
Nevertheless, given that we all know what the destination and fate of this involvement will be, we may as well enjoy the scenery on the way.
I was opposed to the initial decision ot invade Iraq. I remain convinced it was a supremeely foolish and possibly criminal act which has crippled America’s military capacity and undermined its credibility by dividing it from the majority of its European allies.
However, having actively supported that decision and formally declared itself to be an occupying power for the pruposes of international law, I believe that Australia is morally obliged to do whatever it can to assist.
MichaelH, that is moral accounting at its worst. Whether or not you think it wise for the US to go into Iraq (or that they should have only gone in with sufficient troops), the insurgents are clearly the ones responsible for the loss of life that is taking place – if they wanted the US and their allies to leave all they would have to do is stop their atrocities – but of course the last thing they want is a democratic Iraq – I am also coming round to the view that is the last thing many so called social progressives want. As for the negative comments regarding the so-called neo-cons above and elsewhere on this blog site – well traditionally moderates on the left and right of politics support the spread of liberal democracy and western enlightenment ideas such as free speech and universal human rights – the fact that many on the left have now fallen victim to the cultural relativist/post modern/political correct virus (albeit one that seems to effect them inconsistently) and are now more concerned than not offending the sensibilities of so-called minorities than they are in highlighting issues such as the plight of women in Muslim communities does not automatically mean that those who still subscribe to spreading liberal democracy are raving loony right wingers (although one might certainly quibble with their methods). Oh, I am still waiting for someone to say something nice about the US getting rid of the Taliban and stopping the Serbs committing further genocide.
iangould, the Interim Government of Iraq is the sovereign power in that country. The US terminated its status as “occupying power” at the promulgation of the Interim Government.
You’d be forgiven for missing this signal moment in world history, seeing as the “Coalition Provisional Authority” relinquished its occupying status three days early, under cover of darkness, by tossing it out of a moving car.
So I guess the US set a pretty demanding moral standard in its handling of the sensitive issue of national sovereignty, a standard that Howard seems determined to emulate.
Katz – Yes! Old Quaty, reme,ber him fondly.
Then you’d already know that Old Quaty died in a political reeducation camp at the hands of the Communist Vietnamese Government because it was inconvenient for the US Government to save him when they decided to draw a line under their Vietnam adventure.
Leaders of the present Interim Government of Iraq may be well advised to peruse Old Quaty’s abbreviated biography.
Pr Q gets halfway through a good analysis and then, getting us all to hang on the edge of our seats, leaves the conclusion dangling in mid-air:
…..
Its certainly true that Suuni attacks against the US are more popular than Suuni attacks against the Shiites. But if the US left then the insurgency would be free to turn the full fury of its onslaught onto the relativelly weak Iraqi National Guard. This might well reduce the insurgencies legitimacy but not necessarily its chances of victory. THere is a good chance that this would turn Iraq into a full scale failed state at civil war.
What does PrQ think of the chances of the ING going head-to-head with the insurgents? The evidence shows that they would be a poor bet. They are less than one-sixth required strengh, under-equipped, under-trained and under-mined:
.
That means that any US withdrawal would prompt the Shiite Iraqi govt, wishing to survive, to fall back on support from fellow Shiites militants in the region. In practice this would mean the Shiite clerics in Iraq would become beholden to the Shiite clerics in Iran. (Who may have been behind Chalabi’s INC from the git-go.)
Thus a US withdrawal from Iraq would prompt an Iranian-Badr Brigade power move in Iraq. Just as a US withdrawal from Lebanon prompted an Iranian-Hezbollah power move in Lebabon.
That is why the US cant leave Iraq. Its not out of concern for Iraqi security or sovereignty. Premptory exit strategies would hand Iraq to Iran on a platter. The main axle of evil would then be in control of the better part of Gulf Oil, with a shot at spreading Shiite militants into Saudi Arabia’s oil rich Shiite eastern provinces.
What a nightmare for strategists.
“What a nightmare for strategists.”
Exactly Jack. You’d think that by now these highly-paid strategists might recognise that the offer of Australian help is the Kiss of Death.
With a little beefing up, the Iraqi armed forces should be strong enough to control Baghdad and keep some kind of order in the Shiite cities, as long as the new government has legitimacy in those areas. And the key to legitimacy is the the departure of the occupying forces. With the population on side and a big injection of non-military aid, the Shia-led government should be able to establish itself as a stable authority and nurture some kind of economic recovery. Even if the force is increased sixfold as Jack suggests, the Sunni triangle will remain a no-go area presided over by warlord Zarqawi.
But what crdebility do I have? Since I’m not a neo-con and I don’t agree with Christopher Hitchens either, I must, by a process of elimination, be just a mindless peddler of anti-American poison. I’d better go and write Bin Laden another fan letter.
Agreed,
Michael Burgess seems to caught in his own infinite loop of anti leftism – self inflated hatred driven by propoganda makes his comments as laughable as the anti american comments *SOME* leftists make.
Well poor old Iraqis never is there any good news.
I think that it is good news that the non Al Qaeda backed insurgents are having back-channel communications with the Americans and releasing it to the press. That they are seeking to have a political face and put their views to the people. It may be because they are feeling the pinch in attrition rates and resources, it may be because the Association of Muslim Scholars are publicly condemning their murder of Iraqis and their attempts to incite hatred amongst them. It’s good anyway.
That Sunni spokesmen are seeking a place in the political process and the future of Iraq’s democracy. That Iraqi bloggers talk of reconciliation. That , Ibrahim al-Jaafari is both acceptable to the political players and talking about the security and therefore the progress of Iraq. That they had successful elections and are up and running.
That despite all the worst wishes that come their way this smart gutsy lot are getting on with it while we armchair heroes argue about morality.
Maybe the Iraqis are pleased at how they are going after all their pain and difficulties. They leave me with the sense that they are optimistic.
And that for the time being our troops are useful and required.
Just as a debating point was listening to Neil James and he said he had been carefully through the transcripts and Howard said prior to the election that it was not “planned� to send any more troops. From James point of view that it was you do in a campaign expect change and respond accordingly. I heard Laura Tingle also and even she is of the view that the liar liar is getting a bit tedious.
Alphacoward, like most contributors to this blog you desperately need to take politics 101. Given that I support income redistribution policies, more aid to the developing world, and gay marriage etc I am hardly an anti-leftist or a conservative. However, just as in the cold war era when I (along with a very small number of others) objected to those mindless ideologues on the left who dominated debates and jobs in academia being more critical of the US and other western governments than they were of the Soviet Union, I certainly make no apologies for being critical of those who think many of the current crop of western leaders are a greater threat to human progress than Islamic fascists, or who seem to think its cool to join with hate filled and corrupt Palestinian officials such as Arafat, neo-Nazis and mad mullahs and gang up on Israel. Oh and if people think I am being somewhat hysterical again, I suggest you revist the UNs recent anti-racism conferance which turned into the biggest anti-Jewish hate fest since the Nazi era.
From the world view of people like you John Howard expressing, as he did in the past some fairly mild (but certainly misguided and worthy of strong criticism) concerns about the extent of Asian immigration to Australia is a far worse specimen of humanity than Islamic fascists who are responsible for the deaths, murder and torture of massive numbers of fellow human being in countries such as Sudan and Iran – and for a sickening level of abuse against women in western countries (and if you don’t believe me look at the comparative stats from countries such as Holland).***Does standing up for the rights of women make me an anti-leftist-
I do concede however that individuals such as yourself appear certainly in the majority at the moment both on the pseudo-left and among international policy elites – how else does one explain the fact that Israel gets routinely condemned at the Un while the likes of Sudan, Libya and Cuba get on to its human rights committees. So called social progressives and leftists joining with Islamic fascists to take on democracies, Karl Marx and other such as George Orwell and Arthur Koestler must be turning in their secular graves. A final question for the peace in our time crowd – should the US have intervened in Rwanda – or is it simply tasteless and anti-leftist to mention this country given that one group of non-whites murdered another group – lets get on with criticising Howard instead.
Katz – absolutely agree with you – we stay until the job is done. You are obviosly a fan of JFK then – “No Price to Great. . .No Burden to heavy. . etc” (I paraphrase).
Welcome aboard the RWDB train to freedom from tyranny.
JQ—Iraq is not at the tipping point as John Howard claims. The real tipping point you touched on is whether or not the US attacks Iran and if so, whether they use Iraq as a base.
I would posit that Iran would use Iraq as a base to to hunt the US out of Iraq—50,000 trained Iranian infiltrators, some with Strella missiles and the other gear would bog the US down and kick a lot of arse, making the current insurgency look like a picnic. This doesn’t include the use of Russian Sunburn missiles (mach 2.5, sea skimming and violent end manouvres to avoid Phalanx and its AMM replacement) which could make mincemeat of a carrier group bottled up behind the straits of Hormuz, the closing of which would hurt fellow M.E. oil exporters but cause lots of damage to the US economy as collateral damage.
If one must debate an Iraqi tipping point, it is that only a political solution can detach the Sunni insurgency from the Zaqawi crazies enabling the new government to isolate the latter in the event of quick US and coalition (of unrepresentative swill) which would then require minimal forces to deal with that remnant. Some dialogue is proceeding with some of the insurgent groups (non Zaqawi insurgents) and the US military right now, to the dismay of the neo-cons one presumes.
Legitimacy of the new government of course would be markedly inproved with US withdrawal.
Arguments on this post that Oz should persevere on the basis that we were involved from the beginning holds as much water as Italy sticking with Germany when the writing was on the wall in the latter part of WW2, as it is NOW in Iraq.
450 of our troops in a safe area bordering Saudi Arabia (as Paul McGreogh notes this morning—SMH) is pathetic in its overall influence but serves as a wake up call that John Howard may get Oz sucked in, Vietnam style, when George Bush attacks Iran and may cause our troops to have to defend themselves against Iranian wrath as well.
What people don’t understand is that neo-con strategy is to widen the conflict to give more excuses for the US to stay and build up bases and military infrastructure in the M.E., even to the extent of provoking Iran into all out war so that if the latter creamed a US carrier fleet, the US would, by its stranglehold on the media for propaganda purposes, and unique ability to bullshit a majority of Americans in these sorts of situations, justify itself in nuking Iran.
This is what’s at stake: Iraq is in reality a side-show compared to what the neo-cons have as , dare I say it, a ”final solution.”
Peter Kemp, your views are even sillier than many of the regular commentators – So it is the US that is conspiring against Iran – Silly me, I thought it was the fact that they are in the process of building a nuclear bomb. Even the ‘peace in out time’ European policy elites are scared shitless by this – although their approach is essentially that of trying to scare Iran with the equivalent of a dead sheep – talk tough but run a mile when the going gets tough and hope that the Yanks or the Israel’s step in and step in and do the dirty work and then after breathing a sigh of relief express outrage at their actions.
Hey Michael Burgess – well argued stuff. Completely agree with you.
Cheers
Roberto
http://americaisnottheproblem.blogspot.com
Peter I would agree with you that the shift in the non Al Qaeda insurgents could represent a tipping point.that is the one dramatic moment that could change the insurgency all at once.it may be the little cause that has big effects, that it will be contagious and we will know soon enough because a tipping point doesn’t occur gradually but at one dramatic moment. The tiiping point’s cause could be the postion of the Association of Muslim Scholars because they may be the few who have the influence that is critical to a epidemic of resistance to the insurgents. They may be the salesmen who do it. Or maybe the Baathist Sunnis who are maybe looking to stop fighting and move to political outcomes. While Z may be committed to fighting for the rest of his life it does not seem likely that these individuals are looking to do that. They may be changing direction and they may have the salesmen skills to dramatically change things. The young men they currently pay to kill Americans could be as open to change as those in Sadr City. Or Ibrahim al-Jaafari and his coolleagues may have the skills to create a political environment to counter the violence environment, that their ideas will move iraqis to action. And of course that the contextual environment is right for a tipping point. The disgust of the Iraqis with the violence, particularly the murder of Iraqis may be the context and the disgust may stick. There is I believe most certainly an changing environment that could deliver for the Iraqis. One can only hope.
I don’t follow your US attacking Iran with Iraq as a base as a tipping point though.
Michael Burgess, where’s your proof that Iran is building a nuke? Because Dick Cheney said so? Same American standard of proof as with Iraq dare I ask?
You obviously know nothing of EU methods of international relations and public policy culture, and your supposition that their ‘policy elites’ are ‘scared shitless’ does not qualify as rational thought let alone argument.
Why don’t you present some rational argument to dispute my points instead of mouthing off like the neo-cons?
michael b – Yes, there is a moral accounting going on. Saddam killed loads, so anything we do is lesser and therefore acceptable. This was Chris Hitchens point wasn’t it?
The ‘insurgents’ are killing innocent people which can’t be condoned, but discussion of the killings by the Coalition forces has an air of ‘killing them to save them’ about it. The Iraqi deaths at the hands of the ‘good guys’ is worth it in the quest for democracy – this is utilitarianism at its worst.
As well I find it a curious notion that the ‘insurgents’ are responsible for all the deaths in Iraq, because they have responded to the US led invasion.
Michael.b wrote,
“are now more concerned than not offending the sensibilities of so-called minorities than they are in highlighting issues such as the plight of women in Muslim communities �
As has been pointed out, in the new democratic Iraq you’ve alluded too, womens’ rights are diminishing not improving.
An aside – the quote above came from a 130 word sentence. Can anyone beat that!
“Welcome aboard the RWDB train to freedom from tyranny. ”
Keep working on your sarcasm Razor. One day you may achieve irony.
Peter Kemp, you ask ‘where is the proof that Iran is building a nuclear bomb’ – are you serious – What about Khan’s nice little earner in selling Pakistan’s nuclear technology – a fact that he was pardoned for rather put up against a wall and shot as he deserved. Also, the Europeans have offered Iran a deal by which they could pursue peaceful nuclear energy but not develop peaceful nuclear weapons – this has been rejected. Finally, call me naïve and overly concerned with the human rights of non-western people, but I simply do not trust a regime that has a history of extensive murder, torture and rape. And, according to reports from dissidents much of this atrocity took place in cells while religious music was being played – I suppose it beats being murdered while listening to rap music.
MichaelH are you really suggesting that the Americans are primarily responsible for diminishing women’s rights and the deaths that are occurring and not the insurgents. This is a bit like arguing that the allies were the bad guys or just as bad as the Nazis at D Day because innocent French were killed in the landing. Sorry I can’t now resist the temptation to point out that the Americans were very heavily involved in the second world war (I hope this does not shock too many people), kept Europe and Australia safe in the Cold war (although some developing countries did not come out of it so good), and prevented massive starvation and political unrest in South Asia with their support for the green revolution. Unlike the French and Austrians (and I am keeping an eye on the Belgium’s), they have also not recently come close to electing an extremely racist party.