Latham tunes us into Iraq

Webdiarists go for it today on Iraq, our troops, Webdiary’s lack of female contributors and a good old bitch about Robert Bosler’s Why is Latham alarming?

On Bosler, I’d like to exempt our news editor Richard Woolveridge of responsibility for pointing to Robert off the front. This decision was made by a female producer in his absence. I guess our female creative impulses took over. I love Robert’s work, not least because it eschews the standard way of talking politics.

I’ll start with my email of the day, from Russell Dovey in Canberra:

The Shiite uprisings in Iraq provoked by both Moqtada Al-Sadr’s blind hatred of the US and Paul Bremer’s heavy-handed stupidity show Australians exactly why this is no longer our war. To stay and keep the peace under a UN mandate would be morally justifiable. When the US government asks us to stand with them as they create a new Palestine, however, we must have the courage to say no.

The parallels between the occupation of Iraq and the occupation of Palestine have been growing less tenuous by the day. The current episode of attack, retribution and revenge makes it blatantly obvious that the US looks to Israel’s presence in Palestine as an example of how to run a country.

Iraq needs a UN peacekeeping force commanded by a UN authority before it devolves entirely into civil war. If this is not done, Australian troops will not be able to improve the lives of Iraqis and they will merely be there to prop up George Bush’s collapsing credibility.

IRAQ NOTICEBOARD

Scott Burchill recommends On the brink of anarchy in The Guardian and Seymour Hersch on The other war: why Bush’s Afghanistan problem won’t go away in The New Yorker. On Afghanistan, also see Alexander the Great also got in trouble here.

Antony Loewenstein recommends Naomi Klein’s report from Iraq in The battle the US wants to provoke and Robert Fisk’s report Dust off the flak jacket. Lay low. And stay off the streets…

Antony also recommends In Their Skin, where four journos discuss the important job of “entering Iraqi minds to see what they think and feel about the American occupation”.

John Boase recommends this buzzflash interview with Craig Unger, author of ‘House of Bush, House of Saud’. “Now the Saudis are pumping money into Pakistan,” John notes. An extract:

In essence, the Bush Cartel has sold Americans a bill of goods. They have diverted our attention from the major nation state supporting Al-Qaeda because they don’t want to attack their own business partners, including the Saudi who bailed Harken Oil out. He’s the same guy that was deeply involved with BCCI, the corrupt bank that Poppy Bush and many of his cohorts were associated with. There are plenty more like him. Just read Unger’s book.

Carl Cranstone recommends Poisoned? Shocking report reveals local troops may be victims of america’s high-tech weapons. “In light of this article, when is the job done in Iraq? What about the cleanup from the use of Depleted Uranium ammunitions? Is that part of the job?”

I recommend Online Opinion’s analysis of Latham’s latest poll result, Gravity asserts itself.

***

IRAQ

Paul McIntosh in Albury, NSW: Lefties and others who do not seem to care about important alliances keep coming up with half baked reasons to pull out of Iraq whilst ignoring the reason why we are there. It’s Terrorism, stupid.

Helen Monaghan: Reading the SMH and Paul MeGeough’s courageous articles it seems increasingly evident that the Iraqis just wish we would go. It surprises and alarms me that Australians are still divided on this matter.

Alan Duffy in Carlingford, NSW: Funny isn’t it. The very day that Mark Latham’s alleged honeymoon with the public goes down the toilet, his fellow ALP comrade delivers a rip-off mini budget in NSW that absolutely, totally, unequivocally guarantees that the Latham prime ministership will forever remain a bridge too far. And here I was, thinking Bob Carr didn’t have the national interest at heart.

***

Sharon Burner

A point which hasn’t been mentioned during the recent troops debate relates to engagement. Since Tampa, children overboard etc, columnists have noted that where the electorate disengages from political debate and retreats to the self-focused domain of tax cuts and domestic budgets, conservative parties tend to do far better. Hugh Mackay gave a good example last year in Why we are so disengaged.

Viewed from this perspective, the ‘Latham effect’ may be to re-engage the mainstream with political issues. If this is so, Latham and the ALP would not be overly concerned with how the “Troops home by Christmas” issue turns out, because what it ultimately means is that the electorate is paying attention again. So when the ALP speaks about those things people REALLY care about (health and education, judging from consistent polling) people will actually hear them.

***

Peter R Green in Marrickville

Simon Martin sees the issue clearly enough when he says in Webdiarist’s verdict: troops out, please:

“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 cant afford health insurance, their own home, or even to put food on the table.”

What he misses is the extent to which this is the story of our world. The Robber Barons are breaking free from strictures built up over the past 2000 years. The kings may now go under different titles – as may the local lords, whose stronghold is a corporation rather than a castle. But the game is very much the same as it was in 1200AD.

Today’s Kings pay off barons so that the barons will let them retain their thrones. Barons hire and fire from among the peasantry without much concern for justice or fairness and run their own affairs with minimal interference from those who pay lip service to the doctrine of separation of the religion of Mammon from the business of the State.

Simon is describing the resurgence of feudalism, and what I can’t understand is that the homeless, starving, uninsured masses are so prone to applaud those who are doing it to them.

***

Damien Hogan

Professor Ramesh Thakur says in Latham’s pullout plan breaches international law: academic that “By invading Iraq, Australia had

confiscated its sovereignty, and became legally, politically and morally responsible for security, services, welfare and all other responsibilities of government until sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people.”

This does not immediately imply that a military presence is the best way to achieve this end.

In fact, one could argue that our legal obligations require withdrawing our troops, if this can be shown to be the best way to further “security, services, welfare and all other responsibilities of government”.

It would be foolish to think that assault rifles are the best, let alone the only way to help the Iraqis.

***

John Boase

A few points in response to Noel Hadjimichael’s column Heh lefties, wind down the propaganda war! Iraq is about as central to the ‘war on terror’ as I am. It is a sideshow, a massively expensive distraction from the main game.

As Dick Clarke says: bin Laden must have been WILLING Bush ‘Invade Iraq, invade Iraq!’ (See Kerryn Higgs’ excellent summary of Clarke’s testimony in Bush on the ropes: his awful deeds post S11.) Bin Laden could not have hoped for a better result. The invasion has galvanised anti-US opinion, dissipating much of the sympathy post-9/11; it has stretched the resources of the US army, involving unprecedented numbers of reservists; it is providing work experience for terrorists; it continues to inflict enormous damage on the US economy.

I refer Noel to the writings of Jessica Stern of Harvard, in particular her articles on al Qaeda and on Pakistan. Stern is a highly-regarded expert on international terrorism. See theproteanenemy and Pakistan. Read together, these articles provide a chilling account of the real nature of international terrorism and identify Pakistan as the main game.

Forget Iraq, comrades, and keep your eyes on events in Pakistan, ironically now a ‘major ally’ of the US. Colin Powell’s recent whitewashing of the infamous Dr Khan, who actually HAD WMD and flogged nuclear technology to nasty regimes, was breathtaking considering what he had said about Iraq at the UN.

A challenge, Noel: read the two Stern articles then write us a piece on Pakistan. Stern’s work is authoritative and sobering. It gets the brain in gear and prevents foaming at the mouth.

***

Jason Eyre

The frustrating thing about Mr. Latham’s recent hammering by the Government and large slabs of the media on the issue of troop withdrawal from Iraq is that the ALP seems content to wear the charge that they are advocating a policy of ‘Cut and Run’. This pithy little phrase – first aired by Mr. Howard in Parliament – was taken up uncritically by the press as a shorthand way of summing up Labor’s position. Unfortunately for Mr. Latham and the ALP, the phrase has stuck.

It doesn’t matter that when you read over the transcripts of Labour’s policy position the notion of troop withdrawal invariably comes with caveats such as “as soon as possible” or “once our obligations have been discharged”. It is too late to point all this out now that the distinction has been drawn. It is Christmas or nothing.

To think that ALP policy has effectively been set in stone by Mike Carlton is irritating. Poor show.

Prescription: Labour should now emphasise their own caveats, their own ifs, buts and maybes: that they want to withdraw our forces as soon as possible, yes, but only when the ‘job’ is done; if this means withdrawing troops by Christmas then wouldn’t that be great? But if the ‘job’ is not done, then they will have to stay. Reluctantly, but out of a sense of duty.

They will be accused of back-tracking, of capitulating to Howard’s pressure, but the ALP should wear it. Besides, the records show that this has been their position all along. There is no backflip to speak of, it’s just a matter of emphasis and spin. The storm won’t last long.

All of this will provide the ALP with the opportunity to seize back the initiative on the Iraq debate (or bury it altogether). As recent contributors to Webdiary have pointed out, the question of what the “job” actually is has not been identified by the Government. Tricky questions have yet to be asked.

This is where Labor can claim the upper hand: they have advanced an exit strategy. Mr. Howard and the Liberals – who appear to have an open-ended commitment subject to White House approval – have not.

***

Matt Southon

I’ve been a keen follower of Mr Latham for many years and am glad to see that faith rewarded with a new freshness in what was becoming a very stale affair. I’ve read with interest the discussion surrounding Latham’s troops decision, and I wonder if he is up to something bigger.

Initially, Latham beat Howard to the punch by setting the agenda on domestic political issues, leaving Howard in a spin (pardon the pun) and without a hard target. This early agenda reflected a community keen to respond to issues of family and role models, with Howard continually flummoxed by Latham’s enthusiasm and announcements worlds away from the PM’s agenda. I wondered if Howard may hold off on an election until he saw a point of attack. The longer he waited, the more opportunities for Latham to stuff up, so to speak.

With Latham suddenly turning debate back to national security, Howard has found himself back on comfortable ground, and Latham has arguably had his first ‘trip up’. If Latham continues to stare back at Johnny on this point, the PM may feel he has an angle on which to launch the election debate agenda and set a date (my bet is last weekend of August).

It is a classic trap. Latham has seen that Howard is weak in his ability to connect with punters and bereft of ideas in relation to real domestic issues. Once Howard sets a date, Latham can again shift the agenda back to domestic issues (This is a strength, as people want to hear Latham and he can therefore trigger debates where Crean could not and Beazley would not.

The worsening situation in Iraq see more horrific stories aired, and the public will realise that they do not want to see five Australians burnt and dragged behind vehicles. This will strengthen Latham’s call to get troops home as soon as practicable.

Therefore, the recent troops home call may be seen as a ‘red rag to a bull’. The hope is that the bull will not see behind the rag to the sword of domestic issues upon which he will be finally impaled .

***

Peter Funnell in Canberra

Robert Bosler’s article on Latham/Howard was very good. Today’s opinion poll result (how good are these polls??) illustrates Bosler’s observations about fear of Latham, as does the troops home by Christmas/intelligence briefing issues.

I read your comment about being angry with Latham and why. What was he supposed to do? I don’t think he has lost a thing, mate. I would not have made the case the way he did, but I do want an end to the Coalition of the Willing and the UN to take over.

I also wanted Howard boiled in oil for deceiving the nation on the reason for going to war, but he seems to have weathered that storm. The notion that we don’t “cut and run” is tosh! We can get out of what’s wrong as soon as we can and make good the damage done as best we can with the UN.

Iraq is busting wide open and it must be nearly impossible to plan tactically on the ground to contain the ever increasing violent civil disorder. There is no law and order in Iraq, there is only a military conqueror, an invader.

We are going down the toilet in Iraq and the US is finding it hard to maintain the commitment, let alone increase it, which is what it needs to do if it is to regain military control. Every conceivable anger, pent up frustration and grievance – the US has killed a lot of Iraqis in two wars and decade of sanctions – is now being directed at the US. They will beat the US, but what will be left will be a shit heap. At least it’s their shit heap. Then what happens? We did this, not Saddam!

I think Latham has scared Howard witless. Howard must be getting close to pulling the early election trigger.

***

Max Phillips

I’d like to challenge Webdiary readers who think the troops should stay in Iraq to state what jobs the Australian troops need to do that Iraqis are incapable of doing. To me this “doing the job” thing is the new imperialism’s version of ‘civilising the savages’.

Iraq is the birth place of civilisation. Its culture is deeper and more sophisticated than ours. Iraqis are relatively well educated and modern. Iraqis are not stupid or inferior or incapable of ‘doing the job’ themselves. To imply they need our guidance or American guidance is an insult and rooted in racism. There are Iraqi air traffic controllers who are perfectly capable of “doing the job” of air traffic control at Baghdad airport. The Australian controllers are doing them out of a job – bloody scabs!

Our real employment in Iraq is as a side-kick enforcer for American imperialism. The actual job we are doing is one of oppressing Iraqis and subjugating them to Western power and capital. This is not a job to be proud of and we should cease it now. Persistence in folly is not a virtue.

Of course “doing the job” is the equivalent of 2001’s “queue jumpers”. No decent Aussie wants to support queue jumping or shirking responsibility. Clever politics, but a complete whitewash of the real issue. Whether we fall for the shallow spin and re-elect Howard, or whether we see through it will be interesting. With events in America and Iraq spiralling out of control it seems our political fate could well be decided by external events anyway.

***

BAGGING BOSLER’S Why is Latham alarming?

But first, a fan….

Peter Woon

I have just returned from a fortnight in the UK having lived there during the Thatcher era and then in Australia for the last 14 years. It was a reminder that the UK experience brings no comfort to those who cower in the shadows of the Tory creed of visionless rearrangement and the atrophication of a nation’s creative spirit. For at the end of Tory rule in the UK, the community was perfused with creative release, a celebration enfusing Brit Pop, Cool Britannia and renewed exploration of the human spirit.

When Howard is discarded at the next election it will be by tsunamic flood as the nation enjoys a seismic shift away from the oppressive politics of fear, uncertainty, doubt and outright deceit which typify an uncreative leader. This is what happened in the UK. And Australia can look forward to a celebration of our creative and community spirit.

There is no comfort either to those who excuse leadership fuelled by voters’ greed and ignorance by arguments of economic mastery. In Australia, Howard inherited the good economic work done by Paul Keating – and yes, his mistake was to celebrate his vision without converting the punter to stakeholder. In the UK, the most enduring period of economic stability has, horror of horrors, been achieved by the New Labour government!

Tory apologists also conveniently forget that Thatcher’s economic record was fiddled through the gift of black gold from North Sea Oil, an influx of foreign currency from reprocessing other nations’ nuclear waste and the selling of any national asset which could be put on the national shop shelf.

The question comes down to what sort of leadership we value. Is it one sustained through the inspiration of the nation’s creative and compassionate spirit or one suckled on self interest and deceit?

Do we really want to live in a country where people with brains and education are denigrated with a label of elite? Are we really to become a nation which does not care when we are lied to by our government? Or are we ready to believe in the promise of a new order, one in which we can dare to value a diversity of humanity rather than transient personal materialism? Are are we prepared to champion the enduring and wholesome for our individual and collective good in such a new order?

This change is about what we value. If we value a creative nation then change is our mandate. If we value open, honest government and constructive debate then we should kick and scream until we get it. And if we know that the way forward is based on a mutual and coherent core of values and things we collectively value, then we should vote for the leadership which will govern in the directions which such values dictate, and not on short term number crunching by unremarkable people hiding in shadowy political burrows.

Don’t confuse the intermittent Howard government morality-based furphy with a coherent approach to take the nation forward which enmeshes a value set. Even leading edge corporations have worked this out and have moved beyond economic rationalism to values-based management.

Our choice is indeed stark. Do we suffer petrification through continued stasis and inertia or do we trust our inner, creative, inspirational, communal selves and take on the challenge of change?

Then, in our new creative community, we can look back at Howard and see him for what he was as surely as looking at the internal organs of those sliced animals in formaldehyde created by Damien Hirst as part of the Cool Britannia uprising of our British cousins.

***

Noel Hall: I was astonished to read this meaningless drivel, and alarmed that the Herald would have any interest in publishing it- to the point of placing it on the main page. I applaud your attempt to provide a forum of opinion, but please raise the bar for content.

***

Harry Heidelberg

Those Bosler pieces are amazing. I hope he keeps turning them in. I rarely agree with anything in them but they are fun to read. The first line on Howard says he’s “a solicitor”. Yeah, right. So why not call Latham “an economist” in HIS first line?

Bosler tries to make Latham sound like some kind of romantic Australian poet laureate driven by creative urges. He is no such thing. He is a bull in a china shop. He crashes through roaring here, roaring there and breaking lots of china. People like that are great to have as mates, because they are always entertaining and make you laugh. It’s the unpredictability and the twists and turns that make it so much fun.

I don’t want a mate as a prime minister, though. When Latham broke the cab drivers arm, was that the male or female side of his creativity? A form of creative destruction perhaps? I think there are only two interpretations of Latham: (1) Bull in a china shop and (2) Typical NSW ALP Mate/Thug.

Then again, judging personalities – and art for that matter – is purely subjective! Right now I am struggling to see Latham other than as he appears.

PS: If anyone is creative……..it is John Howard! Look at the stories he weaves – they take imagination and creativity! John Howard is the most radical PM we have ever had (except perhaps Whitlam). His style is more Machiavellian rather than bull in a china shop. Creativity takes many forms.

***

Helen Darville

I don’t like to pour cold water on people (having had it done to me plenty of times), but Robert Bosler’s Mark Missives are full of the same twee rhetoric that floated around Keating and no doubt contributed to Labor’s devastating electoral defeat. For the record:

1. There is nothing special about artists.

2. Artists have no particular vision, and are neither more capable nor more sensitive than the rest of us.

3. Every job is important. If you don’t believe me, try living in a city where the plumbers or garbage collectors have gone on strike.

I have slowly come round to the view that Australians are right to distrust intellectuals (by which I mean cultural poseurs, not the simply clever). Many intellectuals are extraordinarily narrow, having decided that they have the answer and that the rest of us are far too insensitive to understand the answer.

I lost count of the number of times during my brief run on the ‘literary circuit’ that I had Henry Moore [sculptor] quoted at me: “Artists are the eyes for other people.” Well, no, they bloody well are not; people have their own eyes with which to see the world. They don’t need some literary twit full of his own importance to tell them ‘You’re too common to describe the world for yourself; better let me do it for you.”

Mark Latham is an interesting leader; like Howard, he is essentially conservative and populist. He wants to dismantle ATSIC and bring the troops home – both popular ideas in the blue-collar fringes where Labor has lost ground.

Unlike Howard, Latham is personally aggressive and highly intelligent. He could combust before the election; he may well combust after it. Either way, it’ll be interesting to watch.

But please, no paeans to the new man. He’s a politician, for God’s sake. The sort of person who only wins glory in retrospect.

***

WEBDIARY’S GENDER PROBLEM

Harry Heidelberg

Susan Metcalfe is clearly a gender junkie (see What’s the job and when is it done?). She is unable to look at anything in the world other than through the prism of gender. Given that Susan thinks such matters are so critical to debate, my recommendation is that you have a pop up form for each Webdiary contributor. They would need to disclose the following characteristics which would clearly be central to any contribution they might make:

1. Gender 2. Religion 3. Race 4. Sexual Preference 5. Disability Status 6. Incomes in Bands of AUD 10,000 7. Proof of identity (birth certificate extract sufficient) 8. Criminal record 9. Credit record 10. Body Mass Index.

Of course there are many more deeply personal things that would impact the perspective of the contributors. Why stop with gender? It is arguable, totally arguable, that any one of the ten items above may be MORE influential on a person’s life and views compared with gender.

For Susan the central issue is gender and she expects it to be that way for the rest of us. Well for many it is not! For some that is the least of their problems or concerns. She says: “What is so wrong with wanting to hear a bit less from men and more from some of the great women out there instead?”

Precisely. And I will help her along by being the first man she’ll be hearing a lot less of.

Leave a Reply