I agree that neutralism is a perfectly respectable position, and not at all anti-American. It's just not pro-American, is all.

I used to oppose the alliance, but I have changed my mind. My main reason for doing so is the urgent requirement for the maximum level of intelligence-sharing and cooperation in the face of an escalated terrorist threat.

One does not have to be a subservient ally, though John Howard most certainly is that. If we are "true blue mates", then we have the right to tell our mate if he makes a blue. In essence this is what Dick Cheney has conceded in saying that Australia cd withdraw from Iraq without harming the alliance.

As for neutralism, it depends what one means. Strict neutralism I view as a strategic strait-jacket, severely limiting our choices. What might be called "unalignment" ("nonalignment" has a another meaning) is more feasible.

But at the end of the day the widest intelligence cooperation is now necessary if the west is to protect itself against terrorism. Our alliance with the US greatly facilitates this, and despite the very real costs, I think we are wise to retain it. But of course, Howard's grovelling is another matter. We are a US ally; he acts as tho we were a satellite state.

Mhoram write " used to oppose the alliance, but I have changed my mind. My main reason for doing so is the urgent requirement for the maximum level of intelligence-sharing and cooperation in the face of an escalated terrorist threat. "

Mhoran I believe that Australians are quite capable in gathering first class intelligence about events and movements of importance and interest to the security of their nation. To the extent that Australia is not sufficiently capable that can be developed surely.

A lot of intelligence that is shared with the US is vetted by them and often coloured by US views of THEIR national interest. Last year I read a very interesting book by James Carroll, "House of War - The Pentagon and the distrous rise of American Power", quite a detailed account of the onset and the maintenance/dynamics of the Cold War. This account showed that on many occasions the perceptions of US intelligence of the communist military capability and moves by them which, to the US analysts, looked like preparation for all out (nuclear) war, were often plainly wrong almost right from the beginning. The responses were accordingly inappropriate and were productive of unnecessary polarisation. The entire "scholarly" underpinning of the Cold War was so flawed that the end of the Cold War was not even predicted! Do we ever want to be associated again with such "intelligence"?

Klaas Woldring

Klass

Yes there's always a risk that when one state shares intell with another that it will vet the material. It's even poss that false intell might be supplied - tho v risky if U R caught.

We cannot collect all needful intell on our own. No state, not even the US, can. That's why they have some facilities here: for certain tasks, a particular location is necessary. The kind of intell I'm talking about is not The Classified Plan For The Secret Weapon, but near realtime data - terrorist communications, movements, money transfers etc etc. Patterns in these can be revealing as to intentions. But one needs global data to maximise the chances of finding useful correlations. No intell sharing is ever going to be 100% transparent state-to-state, but in this area all concerned share an interest.

The level of cooperation and trust we have with the US as an ally is of course still limited by national interest considerations on both sides. But as an ally we have better access than most. The mistake is to think that access equals influence: it doesn't. But that access is invaluable in the face of an amorphous and elusive enemy that lurks in the nooks, crannies and dark corners of our societies. And, as I wd stress, we should act as an ally, not a satellite.

There are so many opposing interests and agencies in the US administration that you wonder if they are on the same side. Bush senior was once the head of the CIA, so you can imagine the President's familiarity with their people.

Australians like to cast the CIA and the Bush Empire as always the bad guys, particularly in the generation of the Iraq invasion.

It was a little more complicated than that. The CIA actually advised against the invasion of Iraq and advised the President to focuss on terrorism and the Taliban and terrorist groups themselves, settling Afghanistan to leave there as soon as feasible.

Chaney: the Vice President, and Rumsfeld: the secratary of defence, were also stakeholders in the munitions industry. There was much information that even Bush was not aware of.

Chaney and Rumsfeld had their own secret service in the White House, in the beginning without the President's knowledge, to silence and block all advise and intelligence meant for the white house that was against their personal interest. They had their own advisers to push for an Iraq invasion. Bush was not nearly as enthusiastic as we are lead to believe. Neither was his father. He never believed in "occupation" as it was too expensive.

He was literally tripping over his own words as it slowly hit him that he was not in control at all over the white house, never was, and never will be. No wonder he rattled on about God.

The US administration are not one group of people, they are opposing agencies with rival agendas with a dysfunctional mess.

The look on Chaney's face as he boarded his broken down aircraft: cast a pregnant pause over the Australian landscape.

For once I saw no malice. Just regret, and to some degree, dread. To tell John Howard that they don't mind us cutting back was a hint that we have done quite enough for them.

Howard has his own agenda. He too has the look of regret and dread. This war ghost will follow him after Government from madness to his grave.

Dear Mhoram.... I can't remember if we have clashed or agreed in the past, but your most recent post was very spot on.

I want to add that Neutrality (for Klaas's sake) is not sufficient to save us on a day when insurmountable odds are overtaking us.

If we are "neutral".... in what way ? If that means not having an alliance treaty with any great and powerful friends, what do we expect them to do for us in the event of a greater and more powerful ENEMY biting at our northern shores ? Precious little I suspect unless their vested material interests are threatened, such as reliance on Iron ore etc.. We could probably expect more help from China if Indonesia decided it had more right to the N.T. than us ?
Given their history and the situation in Tibet, I highly doubt that Australia would in anyway benefit from such a dependance.

No, neutrality is not really an option. To be neutral means we would not help the USA and could not expect then to help us.

Alliances are part of life. They determine much about our future.

References to the personal interests and agenda's of the likes of Rumsfeldt and Chaney just doesn't ring true to me. I don't believe sain people with the values background of the USA would embark on such an adventure simply for personal gain. (Though I could entertain it being for a broader national interest).

We should all be reminded that the leftist mantra of "We were deceived, there were no WMD" is actually a lot of total rot and rubbish.
The Pilot who FLEW some of them to Syria has openly confessed and testified to their reality, but this does not suit the leftist media and it gains little attention.
As to the question of Sadaam and his WMD being a threat to the USA, well.. its a bit moot now, but.. they DID have a Nuclear program until Israel sorted them out... right ?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html

I find great humour and irony in that Klaas Woldring chose the internet to seek debate on a neutered foreign policy to protect Australia from cooperating in the development of the world experience. I have no idea what information or intelligence one might arrive at alone concerning the goings on around the world isolated by a do not get involved foreign policy. Is it that Woldring, like many others wants to throw stones but, not be the recipient of said stones? The cost of being alone in the world can be best illustrated by the formation of the non-aligned countries. Bit of an oxymoron that, after forming an alliance. It's laughable that those same individuals who claim Islamic terrorism is all neocon hysteria are the same who promote such hysterics in the Bush/Blair/Howard, white slash anglo slash Christian slash oil slash world domination slash etc. slash etc. conspiracy and advocate retreating from any involvement or taking responsibility in world affairs.