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.
<< .... 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