 |
| |
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:34
|
|
This would hurt Bush more than Spain- we're a much closer ally. It's Labor policy now to withdraw the troops if they win the next election - due by the end of the year.
quote:
Handful of troops caught in crossfire
By Alan Ramsey
March 27, 2004
Labor's Kevin Rudd looked at some of the excited newspaper headlines yesterday morning and said: "What crap!" He spoke to Mark Latham by phone. They agreed on the hysteria. Latham spoke to Laurie Brereton, too. Brereton, a Latham confidant, was unfazed by the Government's furious stoking of the story. Latham expected as much. John Howard needs an issue and thinks he's found one. It's keeping our troops in Iraq. Latham thinks he has one, too. It's bringing them home. Wonderful, isn't it? "Labor split," shrieked the Murdoch daily, The Australian. Most papers made a meal of the story but nobody else went that far. Despite some creative reporting the only people who have split are Howard and Latham.
The Labor leader insists the troops will come home by Christmas if he wins the coming election. Howard pretends he's horrified. What about George Bush and the alliance, he pleads. Australia "must see it through". Rats, says Latham, his resolve unshaken, despite The Australian's best efforts. We all get to vote before Melbourne Cup day on who we think is right. Seven months at most. Six, more likely. September or October.
Just think, Latham has wedged Howard at the same time Howard is desperately hoping he has wedged Latham. The Prime Minister now must argue why Australia should stay committed to a duplicitous military invasion most Australians opposed for reasons about which Howard and Washington lied shamelessly, and continue to lie. Latham offers the counter argument Australia should never have gone into Iraq, that the invasion had nothing to do with the war on terrorism and, once sovereign authority is returned to the Iraqis, our "forces" should come home.
Good luck, John Howard. You'll need it. Despite all the newspaper twaddle yesterday about Labor splits and wavers and dark warnings from anonymous "senior Labor figures" and the crude intervention of Bush's real estate development mate and Republican donor from Texas, Tom Schieffer, now Bush's ambassador to Australia, I know what argument is more likely to resonate with Australian voters. After all, the truth has never been Howard's long suit.
And what are we talking about, really.
In total, 250 "troops". That's how many Australian military people are in Iraq. Details: 60 "defence personnel" as air traffic controllers at Baghdad Airport; 90 military guards, with light armoured vehicles, including a bomb disposal unit, for "protection and escort" of "Australian Government personnel", that is, mostly bureaucrats involved in liaison with the Americans and the interim Iraqi authority; 60 soldiers "to assist in the training of the Iraqi Armed Forces"; 15 "analysts and technical experts" looking for those elusive weapons of mass destruction; a naval training squad of 12 sailors; and 13 "ADF representatives" attached to the US "provisional authority" in "control" of Iraq.
These are the Australian forces within Iraq Latham says he, as prime minister, would bring home if we elect him. Plus, he says, two other Australian military groups based outside Iraq but which operate into and over Iraq. They are 120 RAAF servicemen operating two Hercules cargo aircraft, and 90 "logistics and communications" specialists. Military headquarters has never disclosed where these two groups are based. In total, 460 military altogether would come home. Another 400 would stay there. They are the 240 crew on the frigate HMAS Stuart in the Gulf and 160 RAAF crew with Orion patrolling aircraft in the Gulf area - also based outside Iraq.
This what the political debate is about. And it is a political debate, not a military one, as the Government would have you believe. Australia is in Iraq purely as political symbolism for a headstrong US Administration which needs friends and has relatively few. That's why the Spanish commitment of some 1300 forces, sent to Iraq by the conservative government - ousted in elections a fortnight ago - had become so contentious. The new Socialist Government in Spain pledged to bring their troops home later this year, too. And it, like Latham, won't back down either.
Thus the angst in Washington, where Bush - in an election year going as badly for him as it is for Howard in this country - is under immense pressure on the economy as well as over his Administration's deceit and dissembling over the invasion of Iraq, the supposed war on terrorism and the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington of 2001. It is no surprise therefore that Schieffer sticks his nose into the domestic political debate in this country and repeats the Howard-Downer scaremongering about "a potential win for the terrorists". He should mind his own business.
Which, of course, when you think about it, is exactly what he was doing. What Schieffer is really concerned about is Bush's political interests, not Howard's. So when he injects himself into the local debate and intrudes into our domestic affairs on the side of the Government, he is doing so because the last thing Bush needs at this time in Washington is for another ally in Iraq, however symbolic, to say enough is enough.
Latham made the case in the Parliament two days ago. Then, in an uncompromising debate in which Latham showed no political fear in tackling the Government on an issue of its own making, he said: "Labor's position has always been clear and principled. We want our troops back as soon as possible after Australia has discharged its international responsibility. It is, of course, logical and right to use the change of sovereignty, the new Iraqi government [at the end of June], as the turning point. That is why a Labor government elected, say, in September will ensure, and certainly has the intention of, having our troops home by Christmas. That is the Labor position.
"This builds on the announcement made by the shadow minister for foreign affairs [Rudd] on 14 November last year: 'The early establishment of an interim Iraqi government would also provide Australia with an appropriate exit strategy from its current formal responsibilities as an occupying power. At present we do not have such an exit strategy ...'
"Well, Australia does now. Australia does have such a strategy. It is Labor's strategy of having our troops home by Christmas. What we are doing is holding the Government to their original position when they said 'months, not years', when the Prime Minister said he did not believe in a commitment that ran into years, that would not go beyond two years ...
"As for all these Coalition MPs accusing me of being on the side of al-Qaeda, we know that slur. We have heard it before. It is the same thing the Foreign Minister said about the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty. It is their standard slur. When someone does not agree with them, they do not argue the point in the national interest. They put the slur out about al-Qaeda. I don't care too much what they say about me. It washes over me, really ... If all the effort, time and resources that have gone into the war in Iraq actually went into targeting the terrorists, then the world would be a safer place, the world would be a better place ...
"If they say [they are] a Government taken out of context, we know the truth. It is a Government out of time. It is a Government that are an absolute shambles when it comes to good national security policy. Yet the Tories have the hide to say, 'Trust us on national security, we're the only ones who can handle it.' Where in Australian history was that proposition ever proven or valid? Not prior to World War II. Not during the folly of Vietnam. The Tories have a shocking record on national security. It is only ever Labor that gets it right in the defence of Australia.
"So it is time for the Australian people once more to look to Labor. We have no time tunnel we can go down to undo the Government's mistakes, but we have a positive agenda for this nation's security ... You cannot trust the Howard Government. They are always playing politics, always looking for the spin. It is time for them to go."
All this was said after Schieffer had been on ABC radio that same morning moaning about Latham's pledge to quit Iraq. He was not in the Parliament to hear Latham repeat his pledge that afternoon. Schieffer already had "cut and run" and flown overseas for a fortnight's holiday. Unsurprisingly, Howard did not speak in the debate. He walked out of the House before Latham began and left Downer to answer for the Government.
Yet during question time, Howard had pleaded: "I still hope the Leader of the Opposition will change the very unfortunate position he has taken on this issue. I think it is regrettable. I would ask [him], very genuinely, to think again. On December 15 last year I said: '[Our troops in Iraq] will stay while they have a job to do ... We don't intend to pull those troops out until they have done their job.' The Government's position is right. It is [Labor's] position that is wrong and sending the wrong signal at the wrong time to the wrong people."
Neither will bend, whatever the silly headlines say.
|
A majority of Australians believe we should never have gone into the Iraq war in the first place. It's not our fight, right out of our region. And the Opposition is looking very good to win the election right now.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Who cares? It's 250 non-combat troops. Japan is contributing more, for christ's sake. |
Hmm... "Coalition of the willing" becomes "mixed bag of deceived fools".
It doesn't make the Islamic counter-insurgency programme look like it is getting better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:34
|
|
quote:
They may just be a penal colony, but that doesn't mean they haven't learned anything from the 'roos. |
Don't start trolling; I was being serious.
Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 26-03-2004 at 19:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
I'm not trolling, and how dare you accuse me of it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
You act as if the US is to blame for the faulty intelligence of most significant countries for the past decade. |
Absolutely not.
I act as if the US ADMINISTRATION is to blame etc etc etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
What most Bushboosters here ignore utterly is that in most of the 'coalition of the willing", the public was never willing, and the governments in general did not join becuase of anything having to do with Iraq, but instead they heard Bush's "with us or against us" and decided their interests were being friends with this admin. Again, Iraq meant nothing really-it was all about thier relation to the US and the admin. that mattered. Well, that relation has not borne fruit. What do any of the coalition of the willing have to show for supporting a war their people's did not? ZIP.
As for the arguement that, having gone to Iraq, people now HAVE to stay to make it better-honestly, bull. People can argue long term it is in their benefits, but just as people here argue sometimes you can;t ban smoking becuase of perosnal responsibility, well, democratic states have their own interests, and Iraq may return to not being one, just as it wasn;t one before Bush begun to demand support in exchange for friendship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
I wonder whether stating this policy so early in the campaign has some downsides for Labor. The situation in Iraq is fluid, and may continue to get better. The US is going to be putting a lot of money in there in the next year and the rebounding Iraqi economy will make headlines that won't be drowned out by the nattering nabobs of negativity.
Why didn't they wait a couple of months to see how the situation is turning out? Are they in a desparate situation?
Last edited by DanS on 26-03-2004 at 21:17
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2004 18:39
|