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. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
PART TWO:

US attempts to train the Iraqi police and army have failed so far and continually fall below hopes. According to the Washington Post “The Pentagon lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html

The US occupation is clearly not working. Why does Australia need to be part of it?

“Overwatch Battle Group West have been involved in numerous reconstruction efforts…” Yes Australian’s (Reconstruction Task Force, Operation Slipper http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/ continue to do that in Afghanistan as well.

My contention is that Australian forces can do more good fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. Moving there can free up more US troops for the US’s Iraqi imperative. So Australia’s ANZUS premium is still being paid.

“gives the terrorist renewed hope for victory…” Not that Australia's small forces (smaller than several “contractor” units) pulling out of Iraq would cause a terrorist victory.

The US is building walls in Baghdad to separate Shiites and Sunnis. Carrying the separation concept further is the possible solution of allowing Iraqi’s to split into 3 countries: Shiites in the south, Sunnis in centre and west, Kurds in north.

The Shiite and Kurds would probably eliminate what we class as Sunni international al Qaeda aligned terrorists in ways that the Americans could only dream of. The fate of a Sunni nation is more difficult and would rely greatly on Saudi money and leadership.

Even if you disagree with much of the above I hope we can agree that this is an interesting debate ;)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 26 August 2007 5:03:07 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 plantagenet. Seems Australia has what would be termed 'a presence' in Kabul. Must be a bit ordinary operating out of a couple of hotel rooms. Also not much of a statement of confidence in the future of the country.
Yes a good discussion. I have nothing to add to your last comments with which I agree.
Bruce
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Monday, 27 August 2007 2:27:14 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-agree this is an interesting debate.

I don’t pretend oil is irrelevant to the conflict. I just don’t believe it is the only, or even the most important, explanation for going to war. And the idea that America wants to stay the course in Iraq to recoup its expenditure is laughable.

I can accept that the there are good arguments for whether the coalition should even have gone to Iraq. My point is that regardless of the legality or illegality of the original decision we have a duty to do what is best for the Iraqis now.

It seems to me that after promising Iraqis for five years that we would bring them democracy, peace and progress, it would be unconscionable to just give up and abandon them to their fate.

I wonder how you think a break up of Iraq could be achieved peacefully in the absence of US and coalition forces? Especially since the oil wealth is not distributed evenly across the ethnic homelands. The Sunnis especially are not going to be too enthusiastic. With support from Al Qaeda, who are intent on causing as much trouble as possible, a military conflict is inevitable. Just look what happened when India and Pakistan separated.

Whilst I would agree that up until recently the coalition has not had much success in eliminating the civil conflict, I think that we will see a positive report from Petraeus on the results of the surge.

With the departure of Rumsfeldt from Defence and the ascension of Petraeus/Mcmaster to command in Iraq, the situation has improved significantly.

With the new Clear, Hold and Build tactics, the coalition has finally hit on a winning strategy after years of search and destroy style tactics.

Clear, Hold and Build however, takes time. It only works if the community actually believes that the security forces are there to stay. If there is regular debate about the prospects of the coalition pulling out, what person is going to stand against the insurgents, since it is only a matter of time before they are back to square the ledger.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 1:07:31 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 find the direction of this debate all too limiting. It is not about domestic politics or even the formation of foreign policy. It is a rehash of all the old arguments about our involvement in Iraq. It is only a miniscule part of our overall Foreign Policy> Australians are clever enough to work that out and to appresciate a the much broader brush of our Foreign Affairs Policy.

Given that Labor continues to concentrate on Iraq and isn't prepared to tell the rest of us what is their overall Foreign Policy, these types of discussions don't do anything much other than re-inforce Labor's verty limiting absense of policy and demean our greater and wider traditions.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 1:46:17 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
COVERT ACTION AS AN ANSWER?

Paul L

The good thing about democracy is that the public debating of issues (eg Iraq strategy) is a strength rather than a sign of lack of resolve.

In any case, from the day it entered Baghdad overall US strategy and street tactics have consistently been ill considered and counter productive. The failures are due to failed strategy not a failure to adhere to a correct strategy.

US Generals and politicians may attempt to blind failure with patriotism but oddly I think success lies more in covert action as well as secret political deals with the various factions in the Iraq question. Overt religion and politics in the US and Iraq are simply incompatible.

Robert Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Intelligence_career ) a former CIA Director and current Defence Secretary has the record and qualities to "swing" a solution in Iraq but we won't know how he and his strategy did it. If partition is the result I agree with it. If Gates is talking to his old mates, the Saudis, then there may be ways to find a solution acceptable to the Sunni's (noting large oil reserves are suspected to be in western (Sunni) Iraq. Gates may also have a past with the Iran's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair so might effectively negotiate with them.

Covert action (or at least secret politics) is a bad, bad phrase for most Australian, but in Afghanistan and Poland it achieved outstanding results is combatting the Russians/communism.

Like my "soft left" advocacy of nuclear weapons for Australia open support for a well considered US covert action program in Iraq is anathema to most but thats life.

Keith

I think Rudd realises that setting out a comprehensive foreign policy platform may distract people from his, so far, successful campaign to pick away at Howard's domestic weaknesses. Rudd and Howard have said less than they could have about Iraq because its an issue politically dangerous for both of them.

Pete
see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/10/covert-action-program-in-iraq.html and

http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/07/saudis-unsung-suicide-bombers-in-iraq.html
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 3:09:54 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
So what is Rudd's foreign policy? Is he going to go to the electorate without a policy?

We know his Policy on Iraq (You know the withdrawal you have when you aren't having a withdrawal...and deternined by the US and not by domestic considerations) but what about the rest of the World? Is he going to align us more closely to the UN and it's agencies and treaties or is he going to continue our successful bilateral approach?

If he doesn't set out a comprehensive policy what happens after he's elected? (If he's elected) Does he then turn around and claim to have a mandate to do anything he pleases?

I suspect he'll be a typical Labor PM. Leave our policy up to the UN and indulge in spectactular but empty gestures.

'I think Rudd realises that setting out a comprehensive foreign policy platform may distract people from his, so far, successful campaign to pick away at Howard's domestic weaknesses. '

And I suspect once the election proper starts this negative carping and inability to form reasonable, consistant and understandable policy will become evident as Rudd's greatest weakness... and not just in foreign affairs.

And just one word on Iraq. Now that the 'surge' is evidently working, the situation in Iraq has changed ...drastically. US action there appears to be curbing the violence...now what remains to be seen is how effective is the pressure being exerted on the Iraq PM and politicians. I think we will see in the not too distant future a change in the attitude of that set of people.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 7:45:10 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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