Hi Tim

Dangerous views, but accurate.

Dangers to War include:

- Referring the war making power to Parliament would remove the historic and manly privilege of declaring war from the PM of the day.

- If Parliament says "No" a PM might forego an inevitable increase in public support OR the opportunity to distract the electorate from a PM's other failings

- Parliament may vote "No" because it doesn't GET IT that most of Australia's wars have been about supporting an ally rather than fending off direct threats to Australia.

- There should be no risk that MPs, directly sensitive to public views, should get in the way of the political and economic interests that benefit from war.

Cheers

Pete

Tim, I enjoyed your article and your thinking. But keep in mind that, as far as war is concerned, Australia receives its orders from the U.S.

Yes, the American Ambassador (the man with a husband) says 'JUMP' and our politicians cry out, 'How high, Oh Master of the Universe and should it include a double-pike?'

Yeah, Australia has become an American colony and it awaits its instructions from His Eminence, Barry - The Drone King - Obama!

So Senator Don Chipp claimed in 1986 that without reform a Prime Minister could commit the nation to a "disastrous course of action without Parliament and Australian people knowing what the arguments for and against were, and what the potential hazards might be."
Then in Afghanistan in 2001, and again in Iraq in 2003, under PM John Howard this is exactly what happened.
Almost 30 years have elapsed since Don Chipp's prophetic statement, and has anything been done about addressing his concerns? Not really. Even the Poms have gone with consultation, but somehow I just can't see Abbott and Bishop letting go the executive prerogative to take the nation into war. Especially not given the No verdict handed to PM Cameron by the House of Commons
With luck, the possibility won't arise. But then look at the posturing over Syria, with Iran in the wings. Does anyone think that if the Yanks and Israel beckon, we won't follow - without consultation and blindly? It will be worth bearing in mind Chipp's words in the months ahead: disastrous course of action; arguments for and against; potential hazards.

Tim

A thoughtful article on a vitally important issue. Several years ago, pursuant to various reviews on the process leading up to Australia's commitment to the war in Iraq, the Parliamentary Library produced a comprehensive discussion paper on this topic.

Despite being depicted by his detractors as weak and prevaricating, it is to President Obama's great credit that he has been willing to consider alternative means to respond to the terrible conflict in Syria that are consistent with international law (including the long-established Geneva Conventions). There are several powerful imperatives for the American President to adopt the mantle as the "world's policeman" (ironically under the moral auspices of defending human rights). These imperatives include a widespread conviction in America that resort to force (in self-defense) is an inalienable right; a similar belief in the exceptional status of American society relative to other societies; and the technological capability and superiority to be able to feasibly undertake unilateral military action.

This is a sensitive and highly complex issue and it is unfortunate that the public discourse is often overwhelmed by simplistic and polarized views emphatically supporting the justness of one side in a conflict.

Hi halduell

Yes I'm also pessimistic that our new government will have the depth to resist the next US request to join a Coalition (this time over Syria).

I mean without Obama creating the appearance of an "international" Coalition on Syria how could Obama persuade his own Congress to act on Syria?

Pete

Hmm, so many against action in Syria yet they all complain about no-one doing anything about the situation there.
What action do the opponents of force believe will solve the situation in Syria & prevent half of that country rolling up on our doorstep ?