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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Hey Bruce

You forgot to mention Howard's, Downer's and Kelty's bullying of Indonesia. You remember forcing them to give independence to East Timor, forcing them to stop the people smuggling that led to the 'boatpeople invasion', forcing them to implement anti terror policy, [The formation of the AFP backed anti-terrot Unit 88 (?)], forcing them to put on trial Bashir and to jail him.

Did you forget those things or would that simply have given the Howard Government some good press?

It is astonishing to see all the Labor apologists in the media excusing Rudd his faux pax's and condemning the Government for doing all the things the Labor Party does as a simple matter of course. Bruce's article is simply another in a long line of such unbalanced rubbish.

Just to have a look at the polls re Rudds grubby little episode in NY. I checked the odds with the gambling outfits this week. The vast bulk of money this week was going on Howard to win.
One other curious little thing I noticed. All those minimising Rudd's gubby little episode were middle aged men and obviously 30+ labor women. Someone ought to do a poll of younger women ... you know those between 18 and 30, and grandmothers. I think the results would absolutely stun most pundits. My mum used to refer to men, Rudd's age, indulging in Rudd's antic's 'dirty old men'. The term is still used...extensively.

And the silliest comment this week was on Sky News and repeated in the commercials and the ABC that the rise in interest rates had hurt the Government ... when...that's right ... the two-party preferred gap between Labor and the Coalition actually closed.

Some are so biased they think we are all silly enough to swallow their 'spin' when the facts clearly show the real position.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 7:03:24 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
In my opinion you have it in one plantagenet.But why does Howard need to do a deal with the US over Afghanistan? What are they going to deliver to him that might help in the run up to the election? And if he wins,even despite his love for Bush, Howard is sufficiently hard headed to know that he doesn't have to give anything more, other than words, to a lame duck President.
From a military(training,health and morale) point of view he needs to bring home the OBG-W troops and as many others that he can without leaving the SECDET high and dry. Sending OBG-W or equivalent to Afghanistan will require extra logistic and helicopter support.
Keith, calm down, I don't hold a brief for Rudd. But surely you can see that a majority of voters have seen through Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Andrews, Abbot et al., just as they saw through Beazley, Crean and Latham. If your point is that we are badly served by the quality of our elected representatives I would agree, none of them should be playing A Grade.
RobbyH you will note that US Democrat Adviser, Michele Flournoy, was quoted in the SMH today as saying that increased American engagement in Indonesia could be conducted through Australia.
"It may be much more effective for the US to support Australia to take the lead in capacity building there, whether it's sending aid workers or troops."
Troops for heavens sake. It seems that little will change in the US in terms of arrogance and ignorance under the Democrats.
They also see us as their lap dog or is it Deputy Sherif.
Peter Hartcher seems to think that if the Democrats articulate this role for Australia it must be OK.
Where would we be without the mainstream media intellectual hard hitters of the likes of Sherridan and Hartcher?
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:16:12 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
Thanks Bruce and keith

I think that regardless of electoral benefits Howard and Rudd (will be/have been) persuaded that Australian troops can do a little more good in Afghanistan than being oil security guards in Iraq.

While being a war of attrition Afghanistan:
- was/is literally the the training base of al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia remains the spiritual base)
- is the base of the Taliban - AQ's support group.
- is as close to AQ's sanctuary in Pakistan as Western troops can get.
These Western troops breathe down the neck of Pakistan's Muslim extremists and the Pakistani leadership who, in turn, are a little too close to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

So if the US insists that there should be Aussie troops in the Middle East (as part of our ANZUS premium) I think Afghanistan is the most useful place for counter-terrorism and to influence the direction of Pakistan. But its more dangerous than Iraq.

If the Australian Embassy remain then they need reliable protection (not Yanks, Iraqis or merceneries). Hence I think retaining the company sized SECDET seems reasonable and, in such an environment, is cost effective diplomatic protection. However if our Embassy closes (due to constant danger) then SECDET should also be withdrawn.

So what I'm saying is that electoral politics isn't the COMPLETE driver of deployment decisions. However any Akubra wearing city lawyer/politician who gains electorally from sending the troops off to war has got to bare the responsibility of digging their graves.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 11:29:16 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
Yes Pete that sums it up. However an increased military commitment to Afghanistan raises the question of diplomatic representation. If we are fighting for them shouldn't we have a presence so that we can influence decision making and other aspects of government?
Bruce
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Thursday, 23 August 2007 3:23:26 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
Bruce

What you say is sensible and given DFAT's limited diplomatic resources it may be better to close up shop in Baghdad and move the Embassy (and the SECDET military unit) to Kabul (Afghanistan).

Australia's interests in Iraq could be represented by a third country Embassy. I'm sure the Yanks (with thousands in their Embassy - world's largest) would agree to this role.

The Embassy move and transfer of Aussie military units to Afghanistan would be symbolic and tangible actions indicating that counterterrorism and putting pressure on a wayward Pakistan are more important than securing IRAQI oil supplies by force.

However I don't think Howard or Rudd have the stomach to actually do this. The tiny little Aussie flag is too important to America's Anglo Occupation of Iraq.

Both Howard/Rudd have been made aware that Iraq means oil - a major concern of a key constituency and tax source - the Big End of Town :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 23 August 2007 4:50:52 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
Plantagenet

I wonder what you think will happen ( given your vast and clearly superior experience in military;/strategic affairs ) in Iraq if we all just pull out?

Lets say I now believe that Iraq didn’t ship what was left of its WMD capability to Syria ( another bathist state) and that therefore the invasion was illegitimate. Just for arguments sake.

What happens when Iraq descends into total civil war. Do we go back? Do you really think we will be able to get America to send troops back to Iraq to prevent genocide? Because no other country has the resources to do such a job

Opponents of staying the course pretend that what we have now is a full scale civil war. But that is not true at all. Whilst Iraq is by no means at peace, there is the potential for death and destruction on a much larger scale. Think thousands dying each week instead of tens or hundreds

Iran would not stand by and watch as its Shia allies were massacred or driven from their homes and cities. Likewise, Syria and Saudi and others won’t watch while their Sunni relations are attacked.

New evidence from Iraq seems to suggest that the surge has been successful in reducing the level of violence. Obviously the violence has not stopped but it may be it has been reduced to a level where a real rebuilding of Iraq can begin.

Sarkozy has intimated that he would like France to be involved with a UN effort in Iraq. With more troops, and a UN resolution, Iraq may have a last best chance.

As for Afghanistan, I agree that we should fully support operations there as it is vital in the war on terror.

Give the oil arguments a rest though. Whilst they may have had some validity at the time of the invasion, the massive cost to the US has far outweighed any benefit it can now hope to receive
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:53:00 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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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