Debate on Iraq is seriously rocking Canberra. Is Latham�s high-risk confrontation on the troops a winning card or a losing hand? Has Howard come a cropper by leaning on public servants to improperly finger Latham?
Webdiarist Max Phillips points out that the SMH poll question was seriously flawed. The question, Should our troops stay in Iraq �until the job is done�, begs the question in dispute: When is the job done?
Max writes:
�I don’t know what the agenda of the Herald editors is exactly, but that poll they commissioned was rubbish, bordering on push-polling. A fair poll would have asked “Should Australian troops continue their deployment in Iraq?”. Asking an emotive and loaded question like “should they stay until the job is done” makes the answer meaningless. I’m surprised only 65% answered yes to that question. If the Herald had asked, “Should Australian troops be cannon fodder for American imperial conquest?”, you’d get an equally predictable answer that would tell you very little about people’s real attitudes.�
I�m surprised that neither Latham nor the media has yet pressured Howard to define what he sees as �the job� to be done. After an election in Iraq? When Iraq is secure? When the Yanks give permission for our troops to come home?
Good stuff from Webdiarists today, including complaints that Webdiary is off the rails and overrun by men, and some big hits on my opposition to pulling out our soldiers when transitional �sovereignty� is transferred to U.S. appointed Iraqi �representatives� on June 30.
My favourite email so far is from David Redfearn: in Northcote, Victoria:
Howard is a high roller and now, for the first time, he is up against another one. I have now met Mark Latham and I am enormously impressed. This is a very high stakes game and the only way to play it is to take some risks; something, for better or for worse, the ALP failed to do last time. To use a footy metaphor, 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.
And here’s a request for info from Tamas Calderwood in London:
You have written another provocative piece, which I much enjoyed reading, however, there is a point which I must take you up on. You say: “And remember 1975, when, according to some, the CIA played a part in ousting Gough Whitlam?”
That is an outrageous comment. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Do you suggest President Ford ordered this or was the CIA acting alone (under the leadership of George HW Bush)? Are you saying the 1975 election did not represent the will of the Australian people? And what would the consequences have been if America was found to be interfering with a key democratic ally in the midst of the Cold War?
I lived in America for over three years and found it a wonderful, deeply democratic society. An imperfect one, to be sure. But I know Americans would have been just as outraged as Australians if their government had tried to interfere with an Australian election. Do you really think the government of the most democratic country in the world is so out of control – and has been for so long?
***
NOTICEBOARD
John Boase writes: �I have just encountered the work of Jessica Stern of Harvard University � brilliant. See her articles on al Qaeda and Pakistan at The protean enemy and Pakistan’s Jihad Culture. Anyone reading them will see that Iraq is a sideshow and that ‘Whack and thump’ won�t work. Her message is not the one the Bushies or John Howard don�t want to hear, more’s the pity.�
I recommend Globalisation and terror by Helena Norberg-Hodge, a director of a fabulous NGO called the International Society for Ecology and Culture. She writes:
�To really understand the rise in religious fundamentalism and ethnic conflict we need to look at the deep impacts of what might be described as the jihad of the global consumer culture against the diversity of living cultures on the planet. Doing so not only allows us to better understand the September 11 tragedy, but to see a way forward that lessens violence on all sides.�
Tony Kevin has reviewed the play on the unthrown children inquiry at See this play. It�s on in Sydney at the Performance Space, 199 Cleveland Street, Redfern, until April 11. Bookings 02 9698 7235, inquiries 0411 330 654.
***
WHAT�S WITH YOU BLOKES?
Susan Metcalfe
After trying to read Latham’s troops recall: your say I�m feeling disconnected, alienated and unable to contribute to Webdiary within the parameters of this and many of your recent debates.
I�m not entirely sure why, but I suspect the reasons are also connected to Webdiary having fewer contributions from women.
Why we are having this debate at all? 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.
Where are our priorities? The creation of a more peaceful Iraq does not hinge on Australia’s continuing military presence or absence. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone noticed us pulling out of Afghanistan.
Why are the contributions from our media and on forums like this one so reductive and reactionary? It�s such a waste of time for the media and politicians to engage in endless debate and opinion pieces on the subject, elevating such crap to a level of such �importance�. Thousands of words take us further into the mire of superficial political manoeuvring.
Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade? When the politicians shout we don’t always have to jump. Where is the vision?
Why do we need a military presence in Iraq? What is the issue here? If we are genuinely concerned for Iraq to get back on its feet, then our contribution and our responsibility to Iraq is surely not measured by the numbers or presence of our military. Peace building and reconstruction have a far wider scope than the employment of military resources.
I’ll keep checking Webdiary, but I�d really like to hear from other women on why they are not contributing.
***
Marilyn Shepherd
Has Webdiary become an exclusive boy’s club debating the war in Iraq and missing the real story?
One of the boys got the point – just one. Latham has done Howard on this and the behaviour of the government gets more and more despicable.
Howard�s endless abuse of the public service and defence forces and of the spooks – still under investigation – sums up his attitude. The short chap thinks he is king and we his mere subjects.
Last night in Iraq dead people were hauled through the streets, hung and beaten by Iraqis who don’t want the U.S. stealing their land, their oil and their sovereignty. How long before enraged Iraqis raid the pretty palace next to the airport who discover that Australia locks up Iraqi refugees?
Think about it – for the last 12 years we have been shoulder to shoulder with the US and Brits while genocide has been committed on the Iraqi people. Why would they thank us? Why would they want us in Iraq?
Could someone answer this simple question: If 850 troops coming home won’t make us safer why does keeping them in Iraq make them or us safer? Some of your correspondents sound like they are in kindergarten playground.
Each day our soldiers are in Iraq they are exposed to the deadly affects of depleted uranium used by the US. Will Howard help them when they are ill? Considering this nation�s disgraceful treatment of the kids who were forced to go to Vietnam and were bombed with Agent Orange, I don�t think so.
They face cluster bombs in almost every suburb – are they cleaning them up so the kids of Iraq don’t have their limbs blown off? No, they are protecting diplomats while they negotiate blood soaked trade deals.
For 12 years the mission was closed and for 7 of those years any Iraqi nationals who needed help from us was denied diplomatic assistance and forced to run for their lives, to be treated like criminals for “jumping the queue” we closed.
Realistically there are plenty of soldiers in Iraq and they don’t need ours. They need millions in food, water supply repairs, jobs, electricity – they need the money to do it themselves.
We are treating the educated and intelligent Iraqis like peasants from the mountains of Afghanistan, which has fallen into total disaster.
Grow up Australia’s boys, we had no bloody right to act as judge, jury and executioners in Iraq and we have helped to murder over 1 million people already. Enough is enough.
***
ON THE FENCE
Guido Tresoldi in Brunswick, Melbourne, ALP member
One thing that I really like about Webdiary and your columns is that sometimes I am surprised at your ideas and opinions.
One of these was your piece Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon. When someone more progressive than the ALP in many instances castigates Latham because he wants the troops back in Australia I take notice.
I do agree with you on that Latham moving on foreign policy is moving on territory that the conservatives are seen as being better than the ALP, and perhaps forcing Rudd to defend a position he was not comfortable with.
I also agree somewhat that the talk about ‘defending Australia’ was populist, however Latham is fighting a Prime Minister that made populism an art form.
Latham is trying to win on Howard�s turf, and at least Latham�s �scare mongering� as you call it, is about a terrorist threat that does exist (despite Howard denying this and shutting up those bureaucrats who disagree). It is more honest that scare mongering about asylum seekers using latent racism.
My strongest disagreement is with:
�As Howard rightly said speaking to his motion in the House of Representatives today that troops should not be withdrawn before the job is done, that would mean hauling back our troops from East Timor and the Solomons too. Stupid.�
There is a substantial difference between Iraq and the other two examples. The troops in East Timor and the Solomons are there at the invitation of the government of those countries; they are not forces of occupation that have contributed to a war waged using lies. In East Timor our troops are there under the auspices of the United Nations.
You write:
�Is Latham really saying the danger to Australia is so acute that we need 850 troops to join the 51,0000 troops stationed in Australia?�
But you can also argue, �Is Howard really saying the need in Iraq is so acute that we need 850 troops to join the thousands of troops at the USA disposal?�
We are not needed in Iraq because the USA needs extra personnel. We are there to contribute to a charade from the Bush administration that the troops stationed in Iraq are somehow �multinational�.
The position that once the Iraqis have their own government �our job is done� is perfectly acceptable. The United States created this mess and they are now realising the enormity of their folly. Yes, we were an invading force. Yes, we have obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention. But once the Iraqis have their country back we don’t necessarily need soldiers there to help.
The reason why Iraq may need military personnel longer than expected is precisely because the folly of Bush and co has attracted murdering fanatics from everywhere. We should help, but not as part of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’.
Australia should do what the new Spanish government has done � say its troops may remain if US forces to contribute under to UN military force to rebuild Iraq. (MARGO: That�s what I reckon!) This should include Arab countries to undermine al-Qaeda propaganda that western forces occupy a Muslim country.
I detect at the end of your article anger towards Latham that he stuffed up. (MARGO: You�re right there!) You fear that he had momentum against Howard and it may unravel. 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 is likely that it may happen again. Yes, we have to accept that Latham support in the electorate may evaporate, as it did with Beazley last time.
***
MARGO, YOU�VE LOST IT
Tony Dummett in Beecroft, NSW
In calling for the troops to be brought home by Xmas, Latham is heading for the finish line – election victory – instead of worrying what Howard, behind in the race, will do next. It is the first sign of independence that Labor has shown in a long time and consistent with Labor party policy. Until now, Labor just didn’t have the courage to state it so unequivocally.
A couple of metaphors – one military, one sporting – suggest themselves.
First, the battle of Gettysburg. That too was a decision to join battle made on the fly. Both sides were looking for a fight and, as forces almost accidentally marshalled around the village of Gettysburg, they realised that it was as good a place as any to see who could win.
Second, the 7th America’s Cup race in 1983. Even though Australia II was in the lead after the last buoy, the skipper, John Bertrand, at first let Dennis Connor decide when and where tacking was to take place, almost to the point of becoming fouled-up in the spectator fleet. Connor was leading from behind, dictating the race from a position of weakness, as Howard has been doing for too long, freaking-out Labor with empty threats and a reputation for being “strong on security”. Yet everyone was wondering what the “wily old fox”, Connor, would come up with next. Eventually, Australia II simply refused Connor’s last tacking invitation and headed for the finish line. It was only then that the world saw how much in front our Australia II was.
Like Australia II’s John Bertrand did then, Latham is calling his opponent’s bluff. Like Union cavalry general Buford did at Gettysburg, he has decided it’s time to stand up to his tormentor. Latham is showing us all that the next election will be a genuine race, a real battle. He has kept his nerve and picked a difficult policy area – you could say the most difficult for a modern Labor leader – in which to take on the government. If he can win on this one, Labor could romp in.
On the international law question, it may well be that Australia has a duty to clean up after the mess it made in Iraq. But try telling that to the majority of Iraqis who want foreign troops out of their country and who are killing them daily to emphasise that point.
Iraq is a quagmire where we are not welcome, and any policy that purports to put a time line on withdrawal is better than one that, like Howard’s, has developed into commitment without end. Anyway, what’s to say we can’t discharge any residual duties we may still have in other ways than sending man and women in uniform to be targets of Iraqi insurgents? Do our service people have to be mutilated and hung from bridges to satisfy our consciences?
This area – national security – might not have been the best place for joining battle last week, but battle is joined. It has developed into a handsome chance for Labor to restore its credibility in an area commonly held to be the sole personal province of Howard and his gang. Latham has committed himself well so far and may even be winning. He is chipping away at the edifice of invincibility that Howard’s spin merchants have built up around their master.
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.
***
Phil Hewett
The government wallows in hypocrisy and the media just doesn’t get it, as ever colluding with Howard to smear another opposition leader instead of debating the injustice and criminality of Howard’s invasion of Iraq and his contemptuous treatment of the UN.
Margo, why ask the question “Can we trust Latham?” in Latham’s troops recall: your say Who trusts Howard? He’s in power and the mob accept him, so what’s the big point in asking for trust in the Opposition leader all of a sudden? Sounds like another Howard wedge to me. (MARGO: This is my point � why did Latham, soaring on the trust scale with his �new politics� of honesty and openness � allow himself to be trapped by Howard into looking like just another politician?)
It�s clear that since September 11, the US is blind to world opinion and most Australians will not tolerate dissent or difference, instead craving conformism and paternal leadership. When issues get too complex they retreat to prejudice and turn away in contempt.
I�m beginning to think middle Australia bloody well deserves John Howard. They�re captive to his security blanket of middle class conformity saturated in prejudice, fear and self-interest.
For Pete’s sake Margo the question you asked is not relevant. Howard should be howled down and frog marched out of Parliament each and every time he mentions honesty, trust, and integrity. He�s made an art form of deceit, lying and obfuscation and propaganda – why should we wallow in it with him?
***
Ian Patterson in Queanbeyan, NSW
No matter how you look at it, we are in Iraq as an army of occupation following an illegal invasion. Our troops should not have been there in the first place; they should not remain there now. Latham’s policy is correct. Get our troops out.
The UN should be providing assistance to Iraq to redevelop, including peacekeeping forces of which we could be a part. But not as an occupying army. Never again!
***
Michael Ilkehan
Margo, I think you are overestimating PM. I am sure Latham is on strong grounds in his arguments and will emerge the winner on this debate. Facts are on his side. He can’t lose.
Our contribution is only symbolic and won’t make much difference on the ground, except for its political impact on George Bush. The argument that we should finish the job sounds hollow.
***
Ben McDuff, on debut
Latham has wedged Howard – delicious, Labor wedging JWH on a *security issue* – and ensured Howard can’t pull a swifty just before the election and welcome home our troops on the docks.
Further, 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’? Latham can bring them home because he’s announced he�ll do just that. Plus, Labor didn’t want to send troops in the first place. If the latter occurs, it proves Latham’s claim that we need our troops here protecting our borders.
A question for you. Is Latham the new Keating or the new Hewson? (Margo: Keating without the pretensions.)
***
James Quest
I love Webdiary but you annoy me sometimes. I find your positions on Latham’s policy to pull out the troops infuriating! The point must be made: the ‘help’ in nation building that the Coalition of the Willing is giving the unfortunate people include:
killing Iraqi civilians every day and being killed in return every day. The violence is getting worse and the Iraqi people are becoming more and more hostile to their occupiers.
giving military support to the American led privatisation of Iraq’s economy.
not providing the basic essential services, fuelling popular support for the resistance forces.
With ‘help’ like this any policy to withdraw the occupation forces is welcome.
***
Tony Kevin
This William Maley essay is the best thing I’ve read on bringing home the troops. It touches all the bases of argument, and neatly answers Ramesh Thakur’s point on international law.
The other point I would make – I’m 61 with a long memory back to Vietnam – is the way Howard exploits all that emotive rhetoric “Australians don’t cut and run”, we “stay the course”, we “stand firm”, we “hang in there”, we “stay till the job is done” because he knows all this stuff plays to such a deeply ingrained almost instinctive Australian value. We learned that stuff from our pioneer days, our survival often depended on fortitude.
Politicians only have to start using that rhetoric and the substance of the argument goes out the window as we all start salivating emotionally. Holt, McMahon, Gorton, etc all used that trick in Vietnam years.
It took Whitlam to have the courage to say – “comrades, this is all bullshit – persistence in folly is no virtue!” That is what Latham is trying to do now.
Here we are a generation later, going around the same mulberry bush again. Iraqis don’t want our armed soldiers there any more than Vietnamese did in the 1960s. Sending civilian aid teams after the politics of Iraq is legitimised by withdrawal of US occupation and a real act of self-determination is another issue altogether, but conflation of the two issues leads to foolish policies.
***
James Woodcock, ALP member
I am with Mark on this one. Bring the troops home. We should have never been there in the first place. Once again, the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with fighting terrorism seems to have been lost.
Sure 65% of the population think they should stay there. This support would quickly change if civil war erupts or a truck load of our men and women get blown up.
Mark’s pronouncement that he wants to mirror Government policy and abolish ATSIC is much more disturbing than his stance on Iraq. Aboriginal affairs needs a radical rethink, but from the scant detail he seems to want to take us back to the pre 1967 position where Aboriginal Welfare was the function of state governments.
Colonial and state governments bear a lot of the responsibility for the mess we are in today. They either practiced extreme neglect -as spending money on Aboriginal services is not a vote winner or they brought us the social engineering disasters like taking children away from their mothers and communities in the hope of literally breeding out the Aboriginal genes.
The improvement of health education and housing for Aborignals should be a national endeavour, provided directly by the federal government. That is the only way you can override parochial prejudice and self interest.
I think we all need to be on our guard. After eight years of Howard the last thing we need is another politician who is willing to play populist politics with marginalised groups.
***
NOPE, LATHAM�S THE LOSER
Wesley Folitarik
I have read many articles suggesting that Mark Latham’s honeymoon period is over thanks to his poor performance on the ‘”troops out of Iraq” pledge.
Some claim the “honeymoon” period is typical for new fresh faces entering the political arena. I add that Mark Latham is also in the extremely fortunate position of being a “wartime opposition leader”. This should be ensuring him an long and extended honeymoon period. Traditionally governments don’t last these wartime elections. Latham’s failure to convincingly dominate a besieged wartime leadership (Howard’s Liberals) has highlighted the Labor Party’s and Latham’s shortcomings as a serious political threat to the Liberal Government.
It�s the same old problem – the Labor Party lacks real policies, basing their claim to government on opposing Liberal policy. Australians see this.
Labor long beat the drum that security was not an election issue, and tried to put domestic issues back on the agenda. This may have been the best course to run against a besieged wartime government where you have a historical advantage. Now a drastic about face sees Latham talk of “homeland security”. The public is sceptical.
Now Latham is on the offensive vowing to bring our troops home from Iraq to protect Australians. Big mistake. Even right wing Australians now realise (although few will admit it) that we were duped into Iraq by the US on WMD. 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.
So Latham puts security and terrorism back on the agenda then hands the microphone to Howard! Political suicide.
A reeling Latham then launches a pre-emptive strike of his own on ATSIC – back on the domestic front after suffering heavy casualties on Iraq and security. This manoeuvre is backed up by another pledge on cash for kids. Reinforcing the home front.
After a brief foray into international issues, Latham has proven he is not capable of leading the country responsibly on Iraq and security.
It seems Latham and Labor are failing to dominate a besieged wartime government. If Labor can’t achieve that, they won’t fair very well at the polls either when economic policy brings many swingers back the right.
***
Shaun O’Brien
Margo, it’s funny seeing the transformation of Latham “the hero” to Latham “the typical pollie” within a week with you. Is the strong vitrol because you see that Howard may remain in office or that Latham is no better (or perhaps worse than Howard) at the end of the day? My money is on the latter.
Latham has taken a stance on the troops, and giving excuses such as the defence of Australia, in my eyes 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.
So who do we choose between? Howard lied to keep Australia’s long term future safe by keeping the US on side. What benefit do Latham’s lies achieve?
In the short term it does nothing for Australia’s defence, as you rightly pointed out. In the long term it puts the US offside and encourages the terrorists.
If you are a long time suffering ALP supporter, would you be happy to support a side that lies to get ahead even after serving up to the Coalition for their indefensible lies? Willing to do anything for victory perhaps?
I wonder if Kevin Rudd still thinks he is bound by Lathams call to be “honest” in politics. His leader was quick to get rid of that label when the chips were down, but he forgot to tell his troops.
Is it a coincidence that Latham’s abysmal national security gaff occurred when the only ALP member worthy of advancing informed security matters is in Western Australia recovering from a medical problem? The ALP is sorely missing big Kim’s input. Rudd is probably on his knees praying for a quick recovery.
***
Andrew Prentice
I’m nonplussed. Most of the rhetoric around Mark Latham’s announcement that he intends to recall Australian troops in Iraq was whether this was a politically expedient move in terms of his election chances. And 65% of Australians disagree with him, saying the troops should stay till the job’s done.
What exactly is “the job”? Capturing Saddam? We got him. Finding WMD? You can’t find what was never there, a fact most from George W. to John W. are reluctantly realising. Preventing terrorism? Exactly how will occupying Iraq do that?
I wonder how many of the 65% might change their minds when/if an Australian service man or woman is killed in Iraq. When did this country become so screwed up that a majority of people would disagree with a proposal that might save lives and distance this country a little from a “superpower” determined to prove that phrase in a military sense, no matter how many enemies they make?
I’m going travelling later in the year, and I’ll be introducing myself as a New Zealander.