What a week! Whatever else Latham did, he sure dragged the Iraq war onto centre stage in politics and lit a fire under it. There�s fire in the bellies of Webdiarists, too – with the added spice of a gender angle in our Iraq debate. Over to you, and have a good weekend.
The ten most read Webdiary entries in March were:
1. Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone? March 17
2. The American elections, the future of alliances and the lessons of Spain, March 15
3. Spain and Australia: the parallelsMarch 18
4. A rotten lousy disgrace, March 22
5. Whatever it takes: the Howard Government’s cash for comment play, March 24
6. Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq, March 16
7. Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon, March 30
8. Beware the leaky official, March 1
9. Anglo-democracy on trial, March 2
10. Is the government ethical? No comment, March 25
The top five referring web sites were antiwar, michaelmoore, spleenville, informationclearinghouse and roadtosurfdom.
What are Australia�s international obligations in Iraq? Don�t expect Howard to tell you � he didn�t give a shit about that when he illegally invaded. And don�t expect Labor to tell you either � it supported international law before the war, but seems to have trashed it in deciding to bring our soldiers home by Christmas regardless. John Littler writes that �Professor Thakur is technically wrong in Latham’s pullout plan breaches international law: academic�.
�For some reason no one seems to have explained, Australia is not on the UN list of invading powers in Iraq, hence even though morally we should uphold our ethical obligations under international law. Legally speaking, if the UN hasn’t named us we are not technically required to uphold the obligations of occupying powers, ie legally we can pull out any time we like and US and UK can’t. Not that legality bothered them going in, of course.�
Peter Green in Marrickville, Sydney responds to Tamas Calderwood�s outrage at my statement in Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon that �according to some, the CIA played a part in ousting Gough Whitlam”.
It would be outrageous to assert absolutely that the CIA played a part in the end of the Whitlam era, but that was not said. Rumours of CIA involvement have circulated almost since the day of the Dismissal and that one version of the story holds that the CIA began campaigning against the Whitlam Government well before the end. The theory was that it was the threat to US activities at Pine Gap, which triggered active US efforts to remove Whitlam.
I was finishing an undergraduate degree at Sydney University in 1975, and heard many theories as the academic year drew to a close.
US President Ford had a reputation as decent and rather inept, and the rumours had the CIA acting without close presidential supervision. However, it did appear that there was considerable unease among senior US officials and politicians over the perceived turn of the Australian Government in a “Communist” direction. One reason for the rumours was the US’s penchant for interfering in political processes worldwide – more often by clandestine methods than by direct action, which is why the CIA mostly acted without direct Presidential mandate. It made subsequent official denials more plausible.
And what would the American public have done, if their government had tried to interfere with an Australian election? If they disbelieved the denials, surely a little extra pink paint tipped on Gough would have brought the American public to their feet to cheer another victory for US democracy against the forces of world communism. Because, after all, the Americans are a deeply democratic people.
Personally, I doubt that the CIA had a great deal to do with the 1975 dismissal and the subsequent 1976 election because I doubt that they could have done anything effective and remained a hidden force. At most, they may have provided advice, encouragement and, indirectly, limited funds for the Coalition campaign.
***
NOTICEBOARD
For updates on Iraq, James Quest recommends Laura Flanders� radio show ‘Your call’ (see Naomi Klein ‘live from Baghdad’ on March 31) and democracy now, especially Robert Fisk�s �Most people dying in Iraq are Iraqis”.
AFP reports that 71 percent of Portuguese voters want Portugal�s 128 national guards in Iraq withdrawn, including a slim majority of ruling centre-right Social Democrats voters. Portugal sent troops to Iraq in November, where they operate in southern Iraq under British command.
***
WOMEN AND WEBDIARY
Harry Heidelberg
What is Susan Metcalfe on about? I never understand this whole gender thing. Didn’t we go through that debate on Webdiary in 2001 and say it didn�t matter? (See Webdiary women.)
I never think about what sex the contributors are. To me they are just people carrying on about stuff. What difference does it make if the contributor�s name is Paul or Pauline? How bizarre!
The only people who have a right to feel alienated from Webdiary are those to the right of centre because of the overwhelming left wing slant of the forum. Even those people shouldn’t feel alienated because I know you will give them a run if they have a coherent point to make.
People assume I am a man because my name is Harry but I could be a woman. My real name could be Harriette. Gender is relevant when we speak of gender specific topics but otherwise, I don’t get the relevance of gender and Webdiary contributions.
I get the feeling that Susan would like to contribute more often but feels so alienated by the men so she can’t. Susan, relax. I’d like to contribute LESS often but can’t tear myself away from it because I am over-engaged in it. I don’t care about anyone else; I just want to have my say. Is that a bloke thing?
*
Peter Whitford
I read Webdiary nearly every day and am used to the constant animosity between the sexes when gender related topics are discussed. But what on earth are these two women raving on about?
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.�
Marilyn Shepherd: �Has Webdiary become an exclusive boy’s club debating the war in Iraq and missing the real story?�
Their arguments relevant to the topic show them to be intelligent, articulate people. Better bring back the entertaining, provocative, gender related topics, because these two are obviously in withdrawal.
*
Nick Garben in Narrabundah, ACT
Just a thought on why women aren’t participating in the commentary on Latham v Howard. Isn’t sport predominantly followed by men?
For a long time, politics has been primarily about winning a race. The most successful teams are the ones that have more people barracking for them.
I’m not blaming Latham. The biggest mistake Beazley made last series was not playing the ball. I thought then that the only way Labor could have won the Sept 11/ Tampa election would have been to have opposing policies.
Latham is right to recall the troops. Labor had a poor image on security anyway, so he won�t lose anything. At worst he’ll be seen as a bit of a goer. (I’m picturing a lumpy front-row forward barging up the middle of the ruck, and all the punters going “oouwh” as he cops an elbow in the head � or in Howard�s case, maybe a knee in the groin.)
Howard�s also doing the right thing by his team – pulling out the old “unAustralian if you don’t stick it out” move, sure to get the viewers heads nodding in appreciation (even if it doesn�t get their brains whirring with critical analysis � God forbid!)
This is mere sideline commentary as important to the real interests of the people in our nation as a call by Ray Warren. But that�s politics.
Or at least that�s part of politics. The other part is that these policies our present or future governments develop for mainly polemic purposes sometimes actually get implemented!
Here’s where Latham’s right for the right reasons. Australia should never have joined an unprovoked attack on another nation, even though it, like many others, was ruled by a despot. And we shouldn’t stick around there like shrapnel in a festering wound. (Repairing the devastation we’ve been party to by sending medical, engineering and financial aid is another matter.)
To our shame, Howard’s “I’m with America” policy resulted in Australia’s first and only offensive war. From the beginning the War stank of American imperialism and was always going to lead to an increased risk of terrorism.
One of the greatest crimes Howard has committed � along with his latent encouragement of racism and division in our society � has been sending of Australians to this war, and not only because of the wrongness of the war, the death and chaos it brought to innocent Iraqis, or the risk of our soldiers dying needlessly. He sent his fellow Australian to kill people, both the guilty and the innocent.
The effect on a person of having to do the deeds of war is well understood by those who fought in last century�s wars. At least in some of those a soldier had the conviction that what he did was for a worthy and unavoidable cause.
Even though it’s only a game here, politics in some places is deadly serious. So I�m barracking for Latham.
***
THE POLITICS OF OUR TROOPS
Sharon Burner
After June 30, with a sovereign Iraqi administration in place, the game will be very different. If Iraq is looking safer at the end of the year, the troop withdrawal will seem logical and Latham will get kudos. If Iraq has become a basket case, Latham�s criticisms will also seem justified.
Once an Iraqi administration is in place, Latham could go to Iraq and meet them regarding requests for our troops to stay, and could amend the ALP’s troop position by acting the statesman.
The single most important thing is for Latham not to back down or revert to crudity. In the back of my mind Tampa has been reverberating – Beazley attempted to ‘look tough’ by aping Howard, but in the electorate ‘toughness’ doesn’t turn upon substantive policy but presentation. If Latham backs down he’ll look like Beazley.
I think it’s possible that if Kim had said ‘no’ to Howard on Tampa he would have copped heat in the media (just as Latham is now over the troops) but the message ‘I stick to my guns’ would have been set in the voters minds. What did people remember? ‘Flip flop’ and ‘no ticker’.
Latham’s foreign policy address this month will demonstrate that the ALP is going to run an Australia first foreign policy – ‘WE decide where our troops go, and the terms in which they go’. Ring any bells?
*
Antonio Yegles
Your stand on the issue of the week took me a bit by surprise. Et tu Margo?
I thought the press was again reacting all too predictably to the drumming up of a sideshow by Howard on the qualified comments by Latham on the troop pullout of Iraq. The Canberra Press Gallery hacks are desperate to get the kudos to be the first to call the end of Latham’s honeymoon. They went all out. They went big. They missed the bigger story.
Howard’s agenda was to attack Latham on foreign affairs by alleging he cannot be trusted to lead the country as he makes policy on the run without briefings and consultation. Yet the issue is straightforward. If you look at what the two sides have in common you realise that:
1. Both want the troops home as soon as practicable.
2. Both have made or are making references to time lines.
3. Both agree that the troop withdrawal should not happen before the hand over of sovereignty.
The differences are under what circumstances this should happen. Howard says when the job is done, whatever that means. Latham says when Australia’s obligations have been fulfilled, hopefully by Christmas.
Howard saw his best chance to nail Latham. With the polls behind him, he went all out and yet again totally overplayed his hand.
Surely Latham is allowed to state his position on Iraq as Opposition Leader without being attacked like this. It a ludicrous argument to say that Latham’s position plays into the hands of the terrorists. What, more than actually taking our country into an illegal war under false pretences to curry favour with the US? This is desperate politics from a desperate man.
There is an interesting pattern emerging here. The Howard Government has frequently used emotive labels such as terrorists to smear their opponents. Remember the Reith/Howard links between refugees and terrorists after 9/11? (See The end of multiculturalism?)And the anti-war is pro-Saddam line? Now the Iraq pullout is pro al Qaeda. I suppose in Howard’s world being called U.S. deputy sheriff brings him not ridicule and hatred but kudos in our region.
In Howard’s World the war on Iraq made the world safer, brought democracy to the Middle East, fixed the Israel/Palestinian issue and brought us a lucrative Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and lucrative contracts in Iraq. What an idyllic world Howard lives in. Is he bordering on dementia? No wonder the bombings in Madrid upset this beautifully constructed world. Politically the most damaging line was from Keelty, that the Iraq war increased the risk to this country.
The contrast to last year could not be greater. Howard was the man of steel, Teflon man, untouchable and unbeatable. A master politician at the top of his power. He was above politics and above the Governor-General. Within a few months of Latham�s election, Howard�s World has fallen apart. He is panicking.
This was best illustrated by this weeks� shenanigans in Parliament. The all conquering all-powerful Howard threw everything he had at Latham and failed even to land a serious blow. On the contrary, he was wrong on Labor Party policy and wrong on the nature and substance of Intelligence briefings by the Opposition Leader. Howard, the master politician, took on apprentice Latham and Latham trounced him.
Latham�s first big test, his baptism of fire, has shown a man who fights best with his back to the wall. He turned disadvantage into advantage by his logic, arguments and charisma. Latham is a true leader who can withstand serious pressure.
If Latham actually planned what eventuated this week by pre-empting Howard on Iraq, ATSIC and Baby bonus, he is on the way to becoming a master politician. He is more than a match to Howard. And that is an achievement. The honeymoon is over because the gloves are off. Bring it on!
*
Tony Kevin
“As Mr Howard insisted the troops must stay, he said an Australian Army officer would play a key role in coordinating the fight against Iraqi insurgents. Major-General Jim Molan will take up a position later this month as deputy for operations for the multinational force coalition. He will be the most senior Australian officer in Iraq, responsible for planning missions to find and destroy terrorist cells, patrol areas from which anti-aircraft missiles may be fired and provide protection to the Iraqi and coalition community.” Today’s Canberra Times.
So the little chap, helped by his obliging Washington buddies, is up to his old tricks again. In his obsessive lust to hang onto Australia�s prime ministership at any cost, our little mate is again trying to rack up the national testosterone level and lead with OUR chins.
Australians don�t see through Howard. We don�t see the simple truth of what Whitlam helped us to understand 40 years ago, after so much blood had already been spilled in Vietnam, that persistence in folly is no virtue. A new generation of Australians needs to relearn that truth.
We don�t want to see what Howard is doing in his national security politics – making all of us his hostages and making some of us his victims. We have all the facts available to us, but we don�t want to register them.
We know Howard�s senior ministers ignored three well-founded security alerts and issued no warnings to our Bali holiday-makers.
We know that Howard instructed the ADF to help plan the US invasion, many months before he told us. We know he secretly ordered our SAS in to fight in Iraq, only 12 hours into a declared 48 hour ultimatum period, contrary to all the laws of war, and that he hid this fact from us for 10 months afterwards.
We know that he set up early high-risk combat roles for our ADF so that it would not have to take part in the messy post-invasion phase but could honourably rest on its combat laurels and go home.
We know that as the US occupation came under increasing military pressure, he has gradually totally reversed that position over the past 12 months, to the point that we are now to play a key role in coordinating the fight against Iraqi insurgents.
We know all those things, yet we encourage our media to continue to trivialise and misrepresent the important issues: that Australian soldiers should not be in Iraq, that we have no right in international law to have occupying troops there, and that the time to leave is now, before any of our people die in battle with Iraqi insurgents seeking to liberate their country from American occupation.
We courteously continue to give this man the benefit of our doubts. We let him pontificate about our national values and we fondly pretend that there is a “real issues” debate going on now between Howard and Latham on the Iraq War. Some of us comment that Howard might be “holding his own” in this debate, or even “starting to win back a bit of ground”.
We get lost in the detail of who said what to whom, and we let the issue be falsely framed for us again.
***
WHAT IS IN AUSTRALIA’S INTERESTS?
David Eastwood in Sydney
There appear to be two main arguments as to whether we withdraw our troops from Iraq or not:
1. We have a moral responsibility to �get the job done� because we went in there in the first place.
2. We should stop supporting an illegal invasion and cut and run before Iraq becomes a quagmire.
The first argument is attractive; it speaks to a nation�s need to take responsibility for its actions. �Sure, we shouldn�t have gone in, but we did, and now that we�ve made a mess we should clean it up.�
This argument doesn�t stack up. Our force in Iraq is a token force, as it was in the war. Our troops are not in the front line, they are precious few in number and they perform duties best described as �back office�. This is not to denigrate their contribution � no doubt they are carrying out their assignments peerlessly.
We�re �half pregnant� � there, kinda sorta, but not really – because our troops are there as political pawns. Politicised again. Their practical contribution has to be trivial, their numbers and roles ensure that.
No, their presence allows the US government to claim that Australia, promoted in the field to a significant sovereign state, is with them in this campaign, thus helping justify the whole episode. But, if we really were serious about this, surely our troops would be far more numerous and far more substantially engaged, like in the first Gulf war, like Afghanistan.
It suits our government to be half pregnant. It would not take many body bags to have voters clamouring for withdrawal. The government needs our troops protected as it knows their role is domestically contentious, so it�s part of the quid pro-quo.
Cut to just before the war, and the crucial phone call: �John, if you send in a contingent we can point to we�ll guarantee to keep �em safe, and as icing on the cake, we�ll throw in a free trade agreement you can point to as proof of the benefit of the US alliance. But wait, there�s more, you get to strut the world stage as part of the Coalition of the Willing.�
Let�s swallow that argument. What we need to do is get pregnant. Let�s make a real contribution. Troops, battalions of them. Planes, ships, tanks, Eddie Maguire, the whole catastrophe. If we are going to clean the mess up we surely have a moral duty to make a real and substantive contribution. Mr Howard, over to you.
The moral stream of the second argument is pointless. We did support the war, and now are enmeshed, albeit minimally, in the mess left behind. It�s already a quagmire. More troops have dies since the war �finished� than during it, surely the Key Performance Metric. If there are kooks out there looking for an excuse to finger Australia as an enemy of Islam and a terrorist target for overturning Saddam�s secular regime, they�re on a winner.
Surely also it�s only a matter of time until an Australian is killed in Iraq, then another, then another. What�s the point? What practical difference will it make to the end game and the welfare of the Iraqi people if we pull out? Surely too the risk of �collateral terrorism� just mounts as we stay there?
*
Phil Webb in Miranda, NSW
A year ago we were told that the “job” was to eliminate the weapons of mass distraction in our “war on terror”, despite the absence of links between Iraq and September 11 – the event which instigated the Western version of “jihad”.
We can’t find the weapons, and senior officials have all but admitted they are not going to find them. So the job IS done.
The restructuring of Iraq was never part of the original Australian brief for a non UN sanctioned invasion, so what “job” is it that Australian taxpayers are meant to continue funding and Australian soldiers are meant to be putting their lives on the line for? The installation of Western style democracy in a land that has just been smashed to pieces by Western forces?
We weren’t told that in the beginning. It became the “task du jour” as soon as it became apparent that the lack of WMD would cause some red faces on both sides of the pond. Whilst political pinball is played with ordinary Australian people, these facts remain:
* We haven’t found what we originally went in there for
*We haven’t found Osama bin Laden in Iraq (or anywhere else)
* We have killed more than 9,000 Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11
* We have lost more than 400 coalition lives * We will be asked to put our hands in our pockets and chip in for the rebuilding by US appointed contractors of US destroyed Iraqi infrastructure The whole thing is a Monty Python sketch with an evil makeover. Meanwhile, Latham and Howard furiously debate over whether “home by Christmas” means home by Christmas full stop or home by when the undefined “job” is done. Not on the basis of whether it’s in the best interests of Australia and the Australian people (or the Iraqi people), but on the basis of political jockeying as to who presents the best “holier than thou” image in the run up to an election. And we let them get away with it time and time again. As the saying goes, “History has to keep repeating itself because we just don’t listen”.
***
THE BIG PICTURE
Simon Martin
I read Webdiary every day and am amused, angered, touched, incensed, pleased or annoyed by it. It is always topical with points of view that get left behind in the mainstream media. I�ve been reading all the pieces recently regarding Iraq, troop withdrawal and WMDs, and they�ve got me thinking of the bigger picture.
Who are the people benefiting from the War on Terror, and from the policy of the Bush Administration? The answer depends on the lens through which you view this conflict.
History is littered with leaders who raped their country’s wealth to sustain their own and their cronies� wealth and life style at the expense of their citizens. We need look no further than Saddam, for evidence of this. We all know the familiar story of people who amass riches through pillaging a country’s economy and resources.
Is the current policy of the Bush Administration any different, in its ends, to the policies of such leaders? We see a U.S. budget deficit of something like $700 billion, and for what? So that Dick Cheney’s mates at Halliburton can gain contracts in Iraq worth $22 Billion? So that there will be massive amounts of spending on research and development of new battle field weapons and that Bush’s major campaign donors from McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing will have huge amounts of government money pouring into their armaments accounts?
Who is paying for all this? American taxpayers are footing the bill, and the children of America will be paying off the massive interest bills on government loans to fund the difference between tax receipts and government spending.
Bush and his neo-cons are taking the current and future earnings of the country and tipping it into the coffers of the major donors to the Republican Party. This makes Bush a very powerful man and the heads of these companies (and their shareholders) much richer at the expense of Americans who can�t afford health insurance, their own home, or even to put food on the table.
***
MEDIA BIAS?
Phil Kendall
What we need is a “bias recognition kit”. We heard Peter Thompson on ABC Radio National today start a question with “How embarrassing is it…?”
This encapsulates the assumption that something was embarrassing, an assumption Thompson should *not* be making (the ABC is powered by *our* dough and it’s gotta be impartial).
Thompson’s “embarrassing” statement is logically equivalent to “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Thompson is a shameless & continuous serial offender. But you know as well as I that there are LOTS of his ilk! We need to start naming and shaming