Posted on 09/10/2004 2:32:40 AM PDT by naturalman1975
By deciding to join the invasion of Iraq, Howard raised our profile in the eyes of terrorists.
There are 13 myths that surround Australia's decision to join the American invasion of Iraq.
The first is that Saddam Hussein threatened the United States and, indeed, Australia.
The second is that "everyone" believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was prepared to use.
The third is that Iraq had a "usable chemical and biological weapons capability" and was developing nuclear weapons, as John Howard told Parliament on February 4, 2003.
Fourth, that the invading forces would be greeted with flowers once Saddam was overthrown.
Fifth, that Australian policy was the disarmament of Iraq, not the removal of Saddam. John Howard also said that if Saddam got rid of his WMDs, he could remain in power.
Sixth, that terrorist activity would be weakened as a result of the war in Iraq.
Seventh, that Australia has not become a greater terrorist target because of our participation in the invasion.
Eighth, that the deployment of our forces to the Gulf before hostilities was not a commitment to involvement in hostilities.
Ninth, that there was an established link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
The 10th is that there was a connection between the September 11 attacks on America, and the Iraqi government.
The 11th is that the Flood Inquiry "cleared" John Howard of any misuse of intelligence material and of "heavying" the intelligence agencies.
The 12th myth was announced by President Bush on May 28 and, predictably, echoed by John Howard and Alexander Downer the next day. It was that "complete and full sovereignty" would be transferred to an interim Iraqi government on June 30.
Thirteenth, that a reconstructed, democratic, pro-US Iraq would be the likely early outcome of the invasion.
Beyond the myths, there are a number of important consequences of our involvement in the Iraq war.
The first is that action to combat terrorism has been damaged by the diversion of the focus away from Afghanistan and efforts to destroy al-Qaeda, which enjoyed widespread international support, to the occupation of Iraq, which has attracted substantial international opposition. Our participation has also diverted Australian financial and military resources unnecessarily to a distant theatre of war when our true security priorities lie in our own region.
The Howard Government has said, however, that we must stay "until the job is done". If the job will not be done until reconstruction, peace and democracy are established, our forces could be there for years, if not a decade.
Part of the tragedy of Iraq today is that the US has created a situation, with which we are closely associated, in which US forces cannot stay without provoking further hostility; but neither can they leave precipitately without risking more serious civil strife. Australian forces can leave, however, because we have less than half of 1 per cent of the coalition forces in Iraq.
The number of terrorist attacks that have occurred in the three years since September 11 is more than double the number in the three years before September 11. The invasion of Iraq has resulted in an increasing number of people supporting Islamic extremism, including in our own region.
In announcing the October 9 election, John Howard asked: "Who do you trust to lead the fight on Australia's behalf against international terrorism?" The Australian voter is being asked by John Howard to trust a man who has, since September 11, sought to exploit a fear of terrorism for his own political ends; a man whose unnecessary and costly decision to involve Australia in the invasion and occupation of Iraq has led to increased terrorism in and around Iraq and raised Australia's profile as a terrorist target; a man who used faulty intelligence, without questioning it, to support a political decision to go to war.
I hope the Australian people will prefer to trust the considered views of the 43 former defence chiefs and senior diplomats who have called for truth in government on this most important issue of dealing with international terrorism.
The US has made a major political and strategic blunder with which Australia is closely associated. The US and its handful of allies in this misadventure are likely to feel the effects of this blunder for years.
Foreign policy must be judged by its actual outcomes rather than its aspirations. I notice Alexander Downer now uses this phraseology, most recently in a speech to the Lowy Institute on September 2. "Ultimately," he said, "the benchmark by which we must measure our achievements are the outcomes we secure." Regrettably, the consequences of our policy towards Iraq fail this test by any objective test.
Unlike the US, Australia has not suffered military casualties in Iraq. The war is not a major election issue here, as it is in the US, which sadly suffered its 1000th death in action this week. To protect our system of government and the integrity of our democracy, however, we cannot just "move on" and sweep these deceptions and damaging policies under a carpet of contrived patriotism and public inertia. We must learn from our mistakes. We must insist in future on truth in government as a national priority.
Without the trust that grows out of truthful government, the democratic structure of our society will be undermined and with it our international standing and influence.
Richard Woolcott, a former Australian ambassador and secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, was one of the 43 former service chiefs and senior diplomats who signed the August 9 "truth in government" statement. This is an edited extract from his address to the Institute of Post-Colonial Studies, delivered in Melbourne last night.
I guess he couldn't fit that into his prejudices at short notice.
Gee, if only Australia would have lay low during WWII perhaps the Japanese wouldn't have bombed them...
Ya right...
Funny, I didn't know that our DemocRATs had control of the Aussie press, too!
There ARE idiots and morons south of the equator too. Some of them are even in Australia.
Morons like this will get us all killed.
Wonderful logic... because we only have a comparatively small number of troops in Iraq, we don't need to have any.
Obvious problems with the idea.
(1) The effectiveness of our troops has only a limited amount to do with their numbers. What counts is what they are doing - Australia's military is based on having a small, highly professional defence force. The idea is to do a lot with small numbers. It's not always the best way of doing things, but we are experts at it now.
(2) in a world where political appearances are so important, numbers are a very tiny part of the story. While I am very proud of Australia's contribution to the war in Iraq, the fact is our contribution has a large symbolic value over and above it's military value. We put troops on the ground because that is the clearest way of showing the world that the United States had our support. Keeping those troops on the ground now is the clearest way of showing the world that the concept of a democratic Iraq has our support. When you commit troops, even a small number, you make a powerful statement of commitment - one of the most powerful statements you can make. Yes, we could withdraw our troops without vast military implications - but that would have significant political and diplomatic implications - and Mr Woolcott is being deliberately misleading if someone with his experience pretends not to know that.
I served in the first Gulf War - where Australia's contribution was even less than our contribution to this one - a few ships, basically. But we knew then, that what was most important wasn't the size of our force - but the fact of our force.
Someone like Woolcott probably wants conflicts resolved through diplomatic and political means rather than force of arms. That's a fine goal - but if that is what he believes, then he should (and must) realise that that means the symbolism of forces is a powerful way to make that more likely. Treating our troops only in terms of numbers and military impact gives greater validity to the idea that that is the only way to solve conflicts - and I doubt he believes that.
Rather, he places diplomatic platitudes above diplomatic facts.
Good post -- and astute comment!
Richard Woolcott is the living walking breathing illustration of the weakness in Australia's systemically-and-irreversably-flawed and essentially-fascistic system of government in which the self-annointing, self-appointing, self-enriching, self-perpetuating and abjectly parasitical so-called "permenant public service" has taken upon itself such powers as render Australia's elected politicians effectively irrelevant and actually redundant -- and the greater Australian Nation but the host to its rapacious appetite.
That Richard Woolcott and his Aussie-taxpayer and Arab-banker-enriched ilk and their obscenely elitist, anti-Australian, anti-American and anti-Human-Civilization Aussie-media mates will always follow the dictates and toe the line of Australia's and the FRee world's enemies should surprise only those too stupid to know they're being lied to and/or too mean-spirited and/or greedy to care!
Best ones -- B A
BUMPping
<< .... I am very proud of Australia's contribution to the war in Iraq [Which] contribution has a large symbolic value over and above it's military value. We put troops on the ground because that is the clearest way of showing the world that the United States had our support. ...
Absolutely!
Australia -- America's First and Best-ever Ally -- aught be proud, aught be much appreciated -- and is.
I served in the first Gulf War .... >>
Thank you.
Blessings -- Brian
Funny you say that.
Our "Leftist" party, Labor, are amazingly similar to America's Democrats.
"This is the wattle,
the symbol of our land.
You can put it in a bottle,
you can hold it in your hand!
Austalia..Australia..Austalia...We Love Ya!"
,,, Richard Woolcott and his 42 other yes men did OK out of government service, I'd say. Now they're trying to serve as apprentices to Robert Fisk. Fortunately, Australia is still one of the countries where you don't get put up against the wall and shot for having an opinion that runs against the grain. Saddam and the madmen running North Korea and Zim would have to agree with that if pushed into a corner.
He forgot the biggest myth of all: "If you just don't do anything to antagonize terrorists, they'll leave you alone."
No, I don't think you got my point at all.
Welcome to Free Republic. Erm, tread carefully...
I live in an RAAF town here in Australia, hiked through a couple of U.S. Navy and Air Force towns when hiking Southern California a year and a half ago. I dare say I've picked up the term you allude to but refuse to say, just by chatting with our airforce boys... :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.