This piece was first published in the Sun Herald today.
G’day. Whatever you think of the merits of Mark Latham’s decision to pull our soldiers out of Iraq by Christmas, it sure has Australians focused on the war and whether John Howard should have ordered an Australian invasion of Iraq without the support of the Australian people.
Webdiary readers were split on Latham’s policy and on whether it would hurt or enhance Labor’s cause. I’m angry with Latham for making Labor the story instead of nailing Howard on his appalling judgement in sending us to war and his unforgivable deceit of the Australian people about why. Still, Latham has created a political flashpoint.
David Redfearn in Melbourne wrote: “Howard is a high roller and now, for the first time, he is up against another one. I met Mark Latham and am enormously impressed. This is a very high stakes game and the only way to play it is to take some risks; something the ALP failed to do last time. My team is up six points at half-time but there are still another two quarters to go. It’s going to be a bloody long year.”
Susan Metcalfe in Byron Bay thought we should ignore the politics and concentrate on the substance. “It is bleeding obvious that Iraq is a fiasco and we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Whether a few hundred men stay or go is hardly going to help or hinder the reconstruction of the country.”
Guido Tresoldi noted my fear that Latham’s momentum against Howard had stalled since his “troops out” stand, “but this is the risk you get with Latham”.
“His positive energy placed the Howard Government under pressure, but the flip side is that making statements on the run can bite him back. That is in his character, and it’s likely to happen again.”
Tony Dummett in Beecroft agreed: “Latham is setting the agenda, not letting Howard continually spook him from behind in the race. Most importantly, Latham is refusing to blink. Few on either side of politics have stared back at Howard lately, and it’s about time somebody did.”
Ben McDuff said Latham had deliciously wedged Howard on a security issue “and ensured Howard can’t pull a swiftie just before the election and welcome home our troops. Heaven forbid, the odds must be relatively high that this year there’ll be either deaths to Australian troops in Iraq or some kind of terrorist strike here in Australia. If the former occurs, where does that leave Howard? He can’t bring them home because that would show we’ve been ‘cowed by terrorists’?”
But Wesley Folitarik thinks Latham’s made a big mistake. “Even right-wing Australians now realise we were duped into Iraq by the US on weapons of mass destruction. But Australians collectively have a strong sense of taking responsibility for their actions; hence, most Australians support the Liberals in staying put and helping clean up the mess. Latham put security and terrorism back on the agenda then handed the microphone to Howard! Political suicide.”
Shaun O’Brien agreed: “Latham has taken a stance on the troops, and giving excuses such as the defence of Australia is not much different to the Coalition saying: ‘We are going to invade Iraq because of WMD’. Both were lies covering the real reason for their actions. Howard lied to keep the US on side and the alliance intact. Latham is doing it to keep the polls in his favour and get the ALP into government.”
Andrew Prentice was frustrated that The Sydney Morning Herald pollsters found that 61 per cent of Australians believed our soldiers should stay ‘until the job is done’.
“What exactly is ‘the job’? Capturing Saddam? We got him. Finding WMD? You can’t find what was never there. Preventing terrorism? Exactly how will occupying Iraq do that?”
Max Phillips thought the poll was seriously flawed. “A fair poll would have asked: ‘Should Australian troops continue their deployment in Iraq?’
“Asking an emotive, loaded question like should they stay until the job is done makes the answer meaningless. I’m surprised only 61 per cent said yes. If the SMH had asked, ‘Should Australian troops be cannon fodder for American imperial conquest?’ you’d get an equally meaningless answer.”
Max is right. The dispute of substance between Howard and Latham is about WHEN the job is done. Is our job done when the US gives us the nod, as usual? When Iraq is secure? After the Iraqi people elect their representatives? Stay tuned.