Iraq conflict probable: Hill (Australian Defence minister)

The Australian ^ | June 29, 2002 | Greg Sheridan

[Dundee]

Iraq conflict probable: Hill

DEFENCE Minister Robert Hill believes there is going to be military conflict between the US and Iraq.

Although he stops just short of saying so explicitly, that is the inescapable consequence of remarks he made in an interview this week. This is a development of first-order importance for Australia, which, although no formal decision will be made until a request is received from Washington, is overwhelmingly likely to participate.

Since taking up Defence after the election, Hill has developed, much like his US counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld, a welcome penchant for plain speaking.

I asked him point-blank whether the US would strike Iraq. Here is his answer: "Unless Saddam Hussein responds positively to international demands that he open up his sites to proper inspection and verification, I think the Americans will continue to feel threatened by his ongoing program of developing weapons of mass destruction.

"And I think Bush has made clear that if you see a threat developing, it's bad policy if you don't respond to it. Over the last six months, many warnings have been given to Iraq. Unless Saddam can give real confidence to the Americans that he has stopped his (weapons of mass destruction) program, there's a real chance of military intervention.

"It would be a great mistake to believe the Americans are engaged in some game of bluff."

It's hard for a defence minister to get much more explicit than that.

Hill has been criticised in some quarters recently for saying the war on terror is forcing a rethink of Australian security and will have consequences for our defence force structure. His response is straightforward: "At some point you've got to face reality. We've got troops on the ground in Afghanistan, ships in the northern part of the Persian Gulf, 707 refuellers in Kyrgyzstan, until recently fighters in Diego Garcia. Now where does that fit with (conceiving security as) a series of concentric circles?"

Hill is not trying to revolutionise strategic doctrine, which emphasises the defence of continental Australia as the top priority. But the White Paper envisaged an annual review of our strategic circumstances.

"The main changes in the last year have been the war against terrorism, the improvement of US-Russia relations, and the people-smuggling operations. These may cause us to rejig defence capabilities around the edges but not fundamentally. We'll fulfil the commitments of the White Paper."

Indeed, this week Hill announced a downpayment of $150 million for participation in development of the US Joint Strike Fighter, of which we will probably eventually purchase 100, a revised contract for the Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles and a short list of tenderers for new patrol boats. These are all big defence capabilities. All emerged from the National Security Committee of cabinet and reflect the Howard Government's commitment to a deep defence effort.

Hill has a huge, multiple task for the Government. He must oversee a financially vast department with multi-billion-dollar equipment decisions of the most acute importance. He must oversee deployments of Australian forces at the highest tempo since at least Vietnam. And he must interface internationally with our key ally, the US, and our main regional partners.

A little surprisingly, Hill believes the coalition fighting the war against terror is not doing as well as it should on the battleground of international Muslim opinion: "An issue that worries me is whether there are new terrorists being created out of alienation or feelings that they are victims. In the Middle East and even in central Asia there is a feeling that this is a war against Islam. I think that is worrying and I don't think we are effectively responding to that."

This is an honest and important assessment. Hill believes that creating a successful outcome in Afghanistan, not only militarily but politically, is crucial to addressing this problem. It's vital, he says, to "win the peace in Afghanistan . . . that the people of Afghanistan end up with hope in a better future".

Hill believes that early on, the Bush administration was inclined to underestimate the importance of nation-building in Afghanistan, for two reasons. They naturally did not want to lose focus on the critical military task at hand. And they felt that others, less equipped to fight, might take up more of the nation-building burden.

But he believes the Bush administration's views on this have grown and evolved quickly, so now the US is taking a lead, for example, in rebuilding an Afghan national army. Hill believes that "if there were another Afghanistan, they (the US) would tend to emphasise nation-building in parallel with the military campaign".

Another Afghanistan? Again, this can only mean Iraq. Hill's job can only get bigger.

[Dundee]

"It would be a great mistake to believe the Americans are engaged in some game of bluff."

"At some point you've got to face reality. We've got troops on the ground in Afghanistan, ships in the northern part of the Persian Gulf, 707 refuellers in Kyrgyzstan, until recently fighters in Diego Garcia. Now where does that fit with (conceiving security as) a series of concentric circles?"

Australia is a big believer of dealing with threats long before they get near our shores.