The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Domestic politics shape Australian foreign policy > Comments

Domestic politics shape Australian foreign policy : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 22/8/2007

Howard is planning to pull the bulk of Australian troops out of Iraq over the next six months beginning the month in the run up to the election.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Sound analysis, Bruce Haigh. I think you're very likely to be proven correct on both major points: Howard is likely to withdraw the troops as a pre-election ploy, but it won't help him because a sufficient proportion of the electorate has finally woken up to the fact that he and his government are cynical, dishonest and interested only in remaining in power - whatever the cost.

Interesting diplomatic perspective on Haneef - I hadn't connected that failed political stunt with the subsequent obsequiousness to India's nuclear demands. Makes sense.

What a bunch of boofheads.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A great deal of my own detestation of John Howard is due to his obsequious association of Australia with George Bush and the neocons. His absolutely unqualified admiration of the American Right seems to have blinded him to the real advantages of creating a more moral, more principled relationship. I'm quite sure Bruce is correct: the UK will start pulling troops out in October and Howard will take this as justification. Given the size and location of the permanent bases the US has built in Iraq, the likelihood that a majority of US troops will ever be withdrawn seems remote, no matter who the President is. However, there seems to be so much stress among the combat troops in Iraq that Bush will be forced to start pulling back from Baghdad in the next year.
Posted by Johntas, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:52:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had expected this stunt for quite some time. It doesn't take a political genius to determine there will be a stunt, Howard is nothing but true to form. But this one is not an election winner, it will be an admission of guilt and failure. The Australian public showed me their disinterest in this issue in 2004, when we re-elected Howard despite his war and the lies. I understand the war is on the nose these days, for all the reasons we said before the war, but Australians vote with their wallets. Work Choices is killing Howard, and he can't back track. Not only will the Chamber of Commerce have a fever fit, but this has been Howard's agenda for his entire life. Not only trapped in the 1950's, but the 1850's. Even a terrorist attack would probably backfire on him, as it did the Spanish government after the Madrid bombings.

Well may we say God save the Queen, but nothing (hopefully) can save John Winston Howard.
Posted by Earthrise, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would suggest this item has been written in haste and the author did not bother to check facts as against fiction.

I detest Howard and yes he has started this chat simply to test the water. It was rough so he has cancelled such plans. It wouldn't fly and would ruin any chance he has. Which is minimal anyway.

The reason I say this is that today the leading Democrat contenders in the US have stated that they would want a commitment for another 3 years and , NO they haven't taken into account who might be the govt here. Lap dogs follow anyway don't they?

So whoever wins the US job the US will still be in Iraq. So Howard cannot pull out prior to an election. Or even indicate he will do so. Note his hasty denial of the possible intent of that letter.

After the election? I still doubt it as the public would finally know (those that haven't woken up yet) that Howard has used troops as vote buyers.
Posted by RobbyH, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WITHRAWAL - BUT ONLY PARTIAL UNDER HOWARD OR RUDD

I think Bruce's scenerios are plausible however I suggest a bit of fine-tuning:

I don't think there is time before the election to actually withdraw any troops. Its more likely Howard will make promises BEFORE the election that "units will be withdrawn" But this will be intentionally vague and will only effect some units.

Looking at the Defence Departments deployment fact sheet http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/default.htm :

- the Overwatch Battle Group-West (OBG-W)of 515 troops, based in Dhi Qar province, may be the most likely unit withdrawn. However this may be part of a deal with the US for an equivalent battalion sized unit to be deployed in Afghanistan to boost Australia’s growing commitment there.

This switch to Afghanistan would put Australian troops in greater danger then there relatively quiet time in Iraq.

- Australian Joint Task Force Headquarters of about 70 personnel may simply move directly to Afghanistan.

The term "withdrawal" will only ever be partial under Howard OR Rudd because I think the following guard force will always be retained in Baghdad ie:

- The Security Detachment (SECDET) of about 110 personnel including infantry personnel and Australian Light Armoured Vehicles (ASLAVs) to provide protection and escort for Australian Government personnel working in our Embassy in Baghdad.

Its very unclear what would happen to the 800= personnel in Logistics, IED research, secondments, Training Team , RAAF elements and the RAN Frigate that service the Iraq region.

I think therefore any "withdrawal" will not be an absolute term. It will only be partial stepped withdrawals over years from Iraq and in any case a similar or greater number of Australian troops will be sent to Afghanistan.

Pete
(based on much direct and indirect contact with the military over the years)
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 3:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet has it mostly right. But I just wish everyone would take a look at Rudd's and Labor's various positions on withdrawal from Iraq.

Remember the furore after Rudd had a go at Howard when Howard criticised Obama's call for an immediate withdrawal?
It continued until one dim witted interviewer actually asked Rudd what was his position on withdrawal from Iraq.

Remember he dodged the issue but left the impression he was agreeing with Obama and that he'd want a withdrawal.

I remember because at the time I actually checked the Labor Party position on a withrawal from Iraq . Want to know what it was?

Rudd will hope it allows him to dodge any obrium from his original evasivenes.
Labor policy is to withdrawal the combat troops leaving the diplomat protection force, trainers, the RAAF and the RAN in place. A withdrawal you'd have when you want both a withdrawal and a non-withdrawal.

Politically sneaky and grubby but what else can we expect from 'an uppitty, snotty and rowdy' labor leader.

Jeez and he criticises the Exclusive Brethern for their duplicity.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 6:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy