Mr Bush’s child bride
Australia in Iraq - - Posted on October, 27 at 11:31 am by Tim
Count me amongst the declining number of Australians who think the US alliance is worth maintaining. I’m even somewhat sympathetic to the notion that the government felt obliged to lend a token force to the invasion of Iraq, although my point at the time was that it wasn’t necessary:
I harbour no pacifist fantasies and don’t wish to rule out a war with Iraq forever and ever. Iraq, the region and the world would be well-rid of Hussein. But as far as I can see, no compelling case currently exits for US pre-emption and even less for Australian involvement in it. If our relationship with the US is worth the blood it has been forged with, then it should be able to withstand this particular rain check.
We should remember, too, that Mr Howard’s argument that supporting the invasion was necessary to the health of the alliance was predicated on another factor: that our commitment would be brief:
If Australia does go into a war in Iraq, it will be only for a limited time and there will be no subsequent peacekeeping role, Prime Minister John Howard says in an exclusvie interview.
…B: What type of post-Saddam regime do you see emerging in Iraq, and will Australia have a say in its structure?
PM: You could well end up having a UN-supervised [regime] depending on the formal involvement of the UN. I don’t see Australia, for example, providing peacekeepers.
B: So you’ve immediately ruled that out?
PM: Yes. It’s not actually been raised with us, but I’m saying to you that an ongoing peacekeeping role is not something that I would seek for a moment.
B: So our forces would be in and out fairly quickly?
PM: Oh, yes, very much so.
So for him to turn around now and say that we have to stay there indefinitely in order to fufill our duty to the alliance is to hold us all in contempt, treat us idiots who haven’t noticed his tremendous backflip on the topic, and add to the deceit that has characterised his approach to justifying this war from the beginning:
Australian troops must stay in Iraq to maintain the country’s friendship with the United States, Prime Minister John Howard says.
Mr Howard said he accepted responsibility and stood by the decision to commit troops to Iraq.
Speaking about Australia’s alliance with the US, he said friendships were most important and tested when they came under pressure.
“And the loyalty and friends is more deeply appreciated in times of challenge, in times of difficulty,” he said.
“And the idea that Australia could walk out of Iraq and walk out of the coalition (of the willing), and imagine that that would be prosperous in terms of our alliance and our friendship with the United States is living in fairyland.
“Part of our obligation as a good friend to the people of the United States is to understand the importance of maintaining a place in that alliance and the importance of maintaining our involvement in the coalition.”
This is basically handing our foreign policy decisions to the United States. It is saying that there are no circumstances under which it is acceptable for us to act independently of them. That’s not an alliance: it’s an arranged marriage between Imam and a thirteen-year old child bride.
And it overlooks another factor: he is confusing a nation-to-nation alliance with the United States with his personal relationship with the Bush Administration. Sure, the Bushies will be annoyed at us if we leave, but that doesn’t mean the United States will be.
The fact is, the alliance can survive our withdrawal because the alliance isn’t with the Bush Administration but with the United States. Kim Beazley, at least, seems to realise this.
In such a head-to-head, who has Australia’s best interests at heart? Who is showing leadership?
Posted in Australia in Iraq |
October 27th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Yeah, you gotta watch them “pacifist fantasies”…
October 27th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Finally, the press turns on Rumsfeld:
October 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
OK so the grub wants to up the stakes … BRING IT ON! As I said yesterday, it’s time to review the whole alliance with America to see if it’s in Australia’s best interests. He talks as if the importance of preserving the alliance is self-evident. It’s not. It would be ironic if his reckless commitments in Iraq were to cause a growing number of people to question the whole underlying assumption, namely, that the USA’s friendship is vital to our own interests.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
‘“And the idea that Australia could (stand up on it’s own two feet and behave as a sovereign nation) is living in fairyland.’
Before the last election I thought that the major issue, underlying so many others, is our sovereignty, or the lack of it. Perhaps we are getting closer to realising that we are on a road to nowhere with America as it is, and it will probably get worse. If we stick with them thru thick and thin, and they continue their trek to irrelevance and obloquy, JH’s rep for pragmatism, fatally weighted to the short term, will take a nosedive.
No wonder the little booger is a baldy. Years of tugging the forelock to one side of the Atlantic, then the other. He’s probably got tugger’s elbow as well.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Well then we have another entry to the “heads I win, tails you loose” section:
We decide who come to this country and the circumstance by which they come; but we don’t decide which country we send our soldiers to invade and the circumstance they go. That is a matter entirely at the disposal of G.W.Bush.
October 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
No wonder the little booger is a baldy. Years of tugging the forelock to one side of the Atlantic, then the other. He’s probably got tugger’s elbow as well.
Nice one, Glenn. LOL
October 27th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
The same Lowy Institute poll which found Australians don’t support the war and think it’s exacerbated terrorism also says most Australians still support the Oz/US alliance.
Mind you, they weren’t asked whether they’d prefer a different dominatrix so it’s only half a question, and they didn’t do outstandingly well on the general questions designed to test knowledge of international events, but anyhoo.
Re-read Don Watson’s “Rabbit Syndrome” recently and following a short but intense period feeling we’re inevitably doomed to join Alaska and Hawaii, with Nauru possibly as the new and improved Gitmo Bay, realised that one of our curses could turn out to be a blessing.
Somewhere hereabouts Steve Irwin’s death brought about a discussion on Tall Poppy Syndrome which, it was generally agreed, is tripe. It is partly responsible for Australia’s traditional adherence to the lowest common denominator as our greatest achievement. Ordinary Australians, battlers, middle Australia would not be as admirable without it. We see the exceptional, the high achiever, the stand out, and with a parenthesis around sport, we chop them down. Worst of all is the pretender - the total dipstick who gets about screeching “You will respect my authoriti”.
Who’s the tallest poppy in the whole world?
October 27th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
a) The “alliance” doesn’t guarantee we will get help from the Americans if we should ever need it. American politicians, unlike ours, always, repeat always, act in what they perceive to be in America’s best interest, and you can be sure that if their best interest is to hang us out to dry then they will.
b) It has long been the accepted doctrine in defence circles that no country other than the U.S. could successfully invade us. That may change in the future if China uses the spoils of it’s growing economy to massively expand its armed forces, particularly its navy. But while there is evidence China wishes to increase its defences to the degree it could successfully defend itself against any force America can mount against it, there is no evidence the Chinese have ambitions to become a global player with imperial ambitions.
c) If push ever did come to shove between America and China, would it be in our best interest to side with America? Possibly not.
d) An “alliance” suggests an agreement that is mutually beneficial to both parties. It seems to me that so far we have given 500+ Aussie lives, made ourselves a first strike nuclear target by hosting critical U.S. defence assets, anyones’ guess on how many billions of our tax dollars for Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, defence purchases beyond our real needs, the Abrahams being a recent example, the money lost on duds foisted on us such as the rust bucket landing ships, plus uncountable costs in lost influence, the animosity of some of our neighbours, lost trade etc. because we’re perceived to be America’s lackey (especially in the Howard decade!)
And what have we received in return? The heavily weighed in America’s favour FTA is about it. Hell, they won’t even give an inch on Vegemite!
e) Nor should we kid ourselves that our relationship with America is particularly special. A case in point, if the Joint Strike Fighter (another waste of our taxes, BTW) ever makes it into service we won’t get the USAF/USMC/USN versions with the special radar absorbing paint, only the export version available to anyone, Osama bin Laden possibly excepted, with a big enough cheque book.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Wot Ian sed.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
“It has long been the accepted doctrine in defence circles that no country other than the U.S. could successfully invade us.”
If it ever came down to it, I think that the Iraq adventure has proven what Korea and Vietnam should have. The US can’t invade anywhere. All of the earlier colonial misadventures on the part of the U.S., Britain, France, Holland, etc., should have proven the same thing to any rational observer, but Iraq will be the one that finally convinces the bully that what everyone says about him is true: he’s full of shit and people don’t have to let him push them around.
October 27th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
I get so sick of the militant nonsense about needing the USA in case Australia is invaded by some country (Indonesia is probably the only one people take seriously, given our geographical distance from everyone else).
The Iraqis are a good example of what happens when a country simply refuses to be invaded, occupied and ruled. I would of course champion a more pacifist approach of non-co-operation and civil disobedience, but the fact is that Australia needs US military protection like a baby needs a security blanket: it might help us sleep well at night, but we’d better grow out of the habit.
All the troubles in the world, all the money spent on wars and guns and tanks and soldiers… What a waste! We should be leading by way of example as a multicultural, peace-loving nation, with a vision of real global peace to which we are totally committed.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
He said he wouldn’t seek it. That’s different from being asked. Or whatever it’s called when GWB rings up wanting something. You must parse every word.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
[...] In the meantime, check out this, this and this. [...]
October 27th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
There’s such a mind-boggling disconnect on this issue. From the way Howard talks, you would think that we have a huge contingent shoulder-to-shoulder with the US in the Sunni triangle. For Allah’s sake, there are more Australian soldiers in the main street of Townsville on a Saturday night than there are in the whole of Iraq.
Here’s a tip for those who fret about what the Americans will say if we withdraw from Iraq: Let’s leave in the middle of the night without telling anyone. There’s a better than even chance that the Americans won’t notice.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Which United States Mr. Howard?…who exactly are you talking about?…
all things change.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:06 am
“Which United States Mr. Howard?…who exactly are you talking about?…”
The bit that will give his kin contacts and contracts… will pay him exhorbitant fees…
October 28th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
So….can anyone give me a rational excuse for the maintenance of this ‘alliance’ outside of so-called cordial and beneficial trade?
October 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
‘American politicians, unlike ours, always, repeat always, act in what they perceive to be in America’s best interest’
I’m not so sure. I agree they couldn’t give two shits about us, but their consituents nowadays seem to come somewhere behind (1) their own career, wealth and family interests, (2) the demands of party strategists, (3) the interests of the people that bankrolled them, and (4) Israel, via AIPAC.
We’re a footnote, and not even on the same page.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Do I take it that Canada, Singapore, Germany, Sweden, Portugal, New Zealand, Greece, Ireland, Peru, India and a truck-load of other nations would be left to burn if they ever needed American help?
After all they didn’t jump at the chance to join us in our little unprovoked war…
October 28th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
:)…too true…I reckon the Yanks would only come to the rescue if there was self-interest involved…valuable resources they require…a useful intelligence gathering/radar system…strategic military bases…hmmm…i think we might already have all those…:)
October 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
yeah, I’m afraid that whether we like it or not the US will insist on being our allies no matter what. We have the whip-hand here. How about no more feeds from Pine Gap until the USA stops torturing its prisoners. Afterall it wouldn’t do for Austraia being seen as the type of country that turns a blind eye and helps prop up an abusive regime would it?
October 28th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I’ve posted this in another discussion, but it bears repeating.
Seriously… have a read through part of the Lateline interview then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage gave before the last election. Images of a Mafia protection racket come to mind.
MAXINE MCKEW: Okay. Well, you know, certainly, in Australia, this is going to be quite a contentious point in the lead up to the election. Do you agree with President Bush, as he said last week, that the withdrawal of Australian troops, if a Latham government were to come in, would it represent a disaster?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Of course I agree with the President, but I would say, even since the day that he and Mr. Howard stood in the Rose Garden and the President, in answer to a direct question, gave a direct answer, as our President is one to do — I would say, given the fact that we have a UN Security Council resolution, which puts the international community squarely on the side of Iraq, and, I think, clearly, makes the point that bygones are bygones, I think to walk away now would be almost unthinkable.
MS. MCKEW: In reply, of course, Mark Latham has said that the — all of the policies, in relation to Iraq, have failed. He talks about the consequences. He said it’s meant the diversion on resources from the fighting and the capture of bin Laden. He has pointed to the prisoner atrocities scandal, as providing great propaganda for a more vigorous recruitment campaign. What do you think of that?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I saw a rather interesting press release from the ALP. I think those were some of the points to which you refer. They also seem to think that Australia was made a target by having participated in the war in Iraq, and as I have said before, I was under the impression that Bali happened prior to the invasion of Iraq.
MS. MCKEW: You don’t think we’re a greater target then?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Pardon me?
MS. MCKEW: You don’t think we’re a greater target –
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don’t think you (inaudible) –
MS. MCKEW: — as a result of Iraq?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don’t think you know where the Bali attack emanated from, and whether it was from Afghanistan or whether it was planned somewhere else. You can’t pick and choose, I think, with a transnational threat like terror and just limit it to one corner of the earth like Afghanistan. And God knows, the people in Morocco, people in Turkey, people in Thailand, and the Philippines, in Uzbekistan, Spain, they certainly know that, and there are cells all around and we can’t limit ourselves to prosecuting a global war on terror in one small corner of the earth.
MS. MCKEW: Mark Latham, of course, separates the alliance issue, or separates Iraq out from the alliances issue. He says it’s — the alliance is bigger than just this one thing. Is that a point that Washington would agree with or not?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I think our alliance, having existed since 1951, is huge and much bigger than any individual issue. Having started down the path together and being within, at least, in reasonable sight of a goal, an Iraq which has a representative government, it would seem to me this is not the time to turn around.
I also noticed in this press release, to which I think you were referring, some of the comments Mr. Latham made about the alliance. I agree, alliance is, is bigger than a lot of things, but he also says it was apparently limited to strategic, whatever that means, and intelligence and cultural, and my own view is it’s much more than that. It’s about policy, politics and about the economy.
MS. MCKEW: So you’re saying you can’t separate it out.
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I have said it before. You can’t pick and choose. You don’t have to agree with us. And, by the way, we don’t have to agree with Australia. We can have differences of opinion. We can disagree without being disagreeable, and we’ve done that in the past. But I don’t think you can pick, like, an ala carte menu: I like the intelligence-sharing, but I don’t have to talk about global policies; or I like a strategic relationship, but I don’t want to be involved in it economically. The world doesn’t work that way now.
MS. MCKEW: That would seem to suggest, with both sides locked into these kind of positions — let’s say President Bush is reelected, let’s say Mark Latham becomes Prime Minister after the election — that this could be, if not an alliance-buster, something that will certainly cause a lot of disharmony.
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I can’t speak for our Australian friends, but I can speak for Americans. And I can tell you whether Mr. Bush wins or Mr. Kerry wins, that our view of the alliance with Australia is going to be the same. It is not a partisan issue, and it won’t be allowed to become a partisan issue. I can’t speak for Australians. It takes two to have an alliance. And as much as we want it, and as much as we want to nurture it and have it grow and develop, we can’t do it alone.
MS. MCKEW: Of course, the worst scenario would be for Australia to be, say, left out in the cold like New Zealand. Are you saying that’s just not remotely possible?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I would have said –
MS. MCKEW: That you could work together with the future Latham government, if that happens?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: In 1981, I would have said it was virtually impossible to consider that we’d be in an AUS alliance and not in an (inaudible) alliance. So I can’t see the future. I can only say that for our part we will always sit down and try to be the most reliable, forthright, and transparent partner that we possibly can, but I’ll let Australians make their own decision on how they view the alliance and what affection they may hold it in.
MS. MCKEW: There is the question of how we speak as allies. And someone you know very well, Kim Beasley, has said in recent weeks that, in fact, post-Iraq, Australia needs to be the kind of ally that the U.S. needs, as opposed to the one it might want, but we need to find a way to engage in a very meaningful dialogue, even if that’s a dissenting dialogue, on some of these big issues. Has he got something?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don’t know. I, for years, sat in on some of these dialogues with Kim and it seemed to me that’s exactly the kind of ally we had in Australia. You know, it seems to me that Australians pride themselves in speaking straight, in speaking candidly and frankly. It’s almost a national trait and a national treasure, and when Americans speak that way somehow this is not fair. It’s not fair to anyone.
MS. MCKEW: Oh, c’mon.
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: We’ve had the most in-depth, sometimes neuralgic discussions with Australians over the years that one could possibly imagine. We are much better for it. I’ll let, as I say, the Australians, successive Australian governments decide if they’re better off for it.
MS. MCKEW: Let me ask you why — let me tell you why I ask that question, and that is, there are a fair number of political junkies in Australia all wading through Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack. And what comes through is that, in fact, some of the dissent within the Administration was not necessarily heeded. I mean, one reading of the book would be the fact that you and Colin Powell were seen as voices in the wilderness.
Now, if that’s a correct account, what chance* do allies, such as Australia, have of putting a dissenting view?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Nobody — first of all, nobody forced Australia to participate with us. It’s a coalition of the willing. First of all, we didn’t drag Australia into this. John Howard made his decision based on what he felt was best for Australia. It wasn’t because the Americans were pushing, pushing, pushing.
Regarding the question of what’s accurate or not in the book, I think it’s fair to say that President Bush is a guy who wants strong voices and strong opinions. This would be a hell of a government if all of us got up in the morning and thought the same thing about every issue. It would be kind of like a mom and dad getting up and always having similar views about how to raise their children without ever discussing them, without ever having differences of opinion. That is not the way the world works, and it’s certainly not the way George Bush wants his government to work.
MS. MCKEW: So the book’s slightly got it wrong?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: No, the book’s a bestseller. That’s all I’m saying. (Laughter.) You can decide for yourself whether they’ve got it right or wrong.
MS. MCKEW: Okay. Just a couple of other points. There has been talk recently between Senator Robert Hill and Donald Rumsfeld about a joint military facility in northern Australia. How do you envisage that?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: That’s something that’s more correctly addressed to our colleagues in Defense, but this is not something that just popped up. We’ve had discussions like this for some number of years. At one point in time, we were talking about the possibility of having carriers (inaudible). But the (inaudible) distance made it rather undesirable.
I can’t speak to where these discussions are. I can just note that if found favor with the Australian Government and it was a fiscally responsible thing to do and it benefited both nations, then it’s something that they should be considering. But I can’t speak to just where those discussions are.
MS. MCKEW: Okay. Just one final issue, if I can, and one that’s very, important to our region; that is North Korea. In the same week that we’ve seen this decision by the U.S. to pull some of its troops out of South Korea, equally Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan is saying that he feels Kim Jong-Il is sincere when he stresses the need to dismantle some of the nuclear programs. Do you accept his word*?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: We’ve had those discussions with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we’ll see at the end of June when we have our meetings with North Koreans if the alleged words of Kim Jong-Il are translated into actions by his colleagues at the parts — at the talks — excuse me. I’m willing to certainly take the Prime Minister of Japan’s words at face value and hope it’s the case.
But we are, as we’ve discussed, we’re moving a brigade from Korea because of our needs in Iraq. We have likewise, over the past several years, put in $13 billion of weapons improvements into (inaudible) to make sure that we can fulfill our responsibilities to another ally,
MS. MCKEW: Rich Armitage, for that, thank you very much, indeed.
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Thank you, Ms. McKew.
October 29th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Have I missed this story being given exposure in the mainstream media? On the face of it, a million Christian Iraqis have been either forced to flee Iraq or exposed to the risk of genocide, as a result of the invasion. If it’s true, and Beazley gives it credibility, why isn’t the story on the front page of every newspaper in the world?
CALLER: Amanda. Hi. My question is that there were originally over one million Christians pre-occupation in Iraq, now there’s only 250,000, and they are currently under lock-down because of persecution. I am just wondering what your policy would be if either you withdrew or stayed in Iraq, whether you would actually do anything about that, because there is a real possibility that this group of people would suffer genocide if nothing was done, and the unofficial policy seems to be in America that its not in their interest to intervene and I’m just wondering what you’re response to that is?
BEAZLEY: Those are the Chaldean Christians and the Assyrians that you are talking about there, who were perfectly safe until we invaded.
CALLER: That’s correct.
BEAZLEY: Yes. Many I think, as I understand, many have crossed the border into Syria and many are in refugee camps. They would be in a position to apply for refugee status through the normal refugee program, and in the circumstances in which they find themselves they would be able to make a good case. So, for the various countries and that includes Australia, who accept refugees, they ought to be in a position to apply for that status.
October 29th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Why hasn’t the media grabbed hold of this story? Even if they don’t care about Muslims being killed or made homeless, shouldn’t the rabid right be concerned that their invasion threatens the lives and security of nearly a million Christians? Or are they just collateral damage in the War On Terror? The price you pay for being able to ‘fight them over there’? Yay verily I say unto you, it’s better that a million Iraqi Christians’ lives be destroyed than that one drop of precious American blood be shed in the Homeland.
A recent UN report denounced that religious minorities in Iraq “have become regular victims of violence and discrimination, with acts ranging from intimidation to murder.” The document said: “Members of the Christian minority are particularly targeted.” This is because they are more vulnerable than other communities, without an internal or external political force to defend them …
Out of a population of 27 million Iraqis, Christians account for around 800,000 (3%), divided into various rites and denominations. A 1987 census estimated that members of Christian communities amounted to 1.4 million. The drop is mainly due to growing emigration: around 100,000 have left since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Idk why the non-quote bits are in italics … mars did you forget to turn the italics off before you left?
October 29th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
They might be Christians folks, but they’re still brown ones. All those Middle-Eastern gooks look the same anyway so who cares?
October 30th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Unfortunately i think you might be spot on there IB…i heard someone utter similar stuff the other day. I’m beginning to think racism is quite rampant in Australia…i’d always hoped otherwise…& that the Indonesia & Pacific Island bating, Aborigines in custody & being taken from their parents & paid slave wages…& Kanakas being sent home…& White Australia Policy & Dictation Test…& lack of respect for Chinese labourers in the early years…& attempts by media to set up young urban Islander lads as LA style gangsters…& Tampa…& locking up refugees…& invading sovereign Arab nations…& the Cronulla race riots…were all a slight abberation in the Australian National character…but now i’m beginning to wonder…
yes, this latest business w/ the mouthy Mufti has revealed once again how Johhny Howard & his mates luv a good spell on morning radio to set the agenda…enjoy beating the flames of racism, xenophobia & religious intolerance…nothing like constructing more HATE…creating a more divided Nation by dinner…all done in the typical wily & weasel way…the concerned PM.
i wonder if the media will focus so intensely on the past discriminatory & bigoted words of a few other religious leaders in this country?…but i suspect the fact that many are caucasian looking will automatically provide them w/ a ‘get out of media scrutiny free’ card.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:38 am
[...] Recent Posts:Muddling through?Good questionThe interest rate rise we have to haveSunday tube surfingFriday MeltdownHigher interest rates are good for youMr Bush’s child brideValues assaultAl-Yarmouk hospitalThe wages of wages [...]