"“While Labor has consistently opposed the invasion of Iraq, the basic truth is that if those who planned the invasion had intended to pursue regime change, they should have been aware of that research and experience.”

One wonders if the Senator and Labor were aware of this research and experience, or have they just found out about it now, when it is too late. If they did know, why didn’t they say something a long time ago?

Because the ‘system’ requires the Opposition to criticise everything the Government does, no matter what. Helpful, constructive criticism is not on for political reasons.

One thing we should all know is – never listen to a politician; especially a politician in opposition (irrespective of party). Oppositions can say anything they like. They don’t have to prove anything or do anything about anything.

The solution to spreading Australia's military forces too thin has been a problem not convincingly addressed by the ALP.

Australia appears to be remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan to service the US alliance and as a lever for wheat sales. That outcome seems to be consistent with Labor policies over the last 50 yearss when in power - put another way if Labor came to power tomorrow I don't think Australian policies towards those countries would really change.

Robert McClelland's look at stabilisation, throws up some good points but the logical conclusion of the stabilisation theory is that Australia might be committing 4 times as many troops on a longer term basis to many hotspots in the region eg 20,000 personnel to East Timor.

The US strategy of a longer term presence and reshaping institutions has been a tragic failure in Iraq. If McClelland sees that as the way to go for Australia toward's its regional (almost) failed states then the prospect of fighting widening counterinsurgencies and constant chargess of paternalism may greet us.

Certainly constant monitoring of the countries and a coordinated Defence/Foreign Policy approach is needed along the lines McClelland suggests. If Kevin Rudd ever gets to be PM he might be the right man to oversee the coordination process.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

The "deployments" by the Australian police and Military in the South pacific are nothing more that a ploy to help the Chinese Government to corrupt the region.

These ratios may have some basis but I certainly hope there has not been too much stress put on them in advice to the PM or Defence Minister over action in Fiji.

For a start, much of the population is well away from the capital and on other islands where life still goes on as normal.

Secondly, more than half the population has no sympathy with the Fijian military and therefore should not figure in any calculation of ratios.

More importantly, these ratios are completely removed from real questions of military resources, structures and endurance.

The Queen Elisabeth Barracks is only 3 hours and 20 minutes by F111 from Amberly and just three of them could drop 42 tonnes of ordinance in one strike. Any thing left moving after this would be in range of the 5 inch guns of an Anzac Frigate that could pump out another 20 rounds of 32kg explosives per minute.

And one could reasonably conclude that any Fijian soldiers who still had trouble understanding that soldiers do not sack duly elected governments at gun point would, at least, be able to comprehend the broader implications of "might = right".

It is plain old fashion gunboat diplomacy with a distinctly pro-democratic nuance.