Gerrit - you're the man.

I have ventured to say things about the role of the GG before, but lack the knowledge to join the dots properly.

Before the invasion, Marlene and I downloaded the Australian Constitution and plodded through it, but it was hard going. I have to admit that Marlene made a much better fist of it, because she is without a doubt the most devious and EVIL woman I ever met!

But I digress -

Question: Was GG Hollingworth in a position to halt or even impede the dispatching of our forces to the Gulf? From our reading of the Constitution, the GG is titular head of our armed forces - essentially their commander-in-chief. In which case he might be a voice for sanity if the PM and Security Council go troppo.

Somehow, I can't imagine GG William Dean being such a pushover - but then, he was terminated early wasn't he?

We wrote letters to Hollingworth, but no reply - stony silence. We pointed out as politely as possible that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was an absolute CROCK (you only needed an Internet connection and a teeny bit of technical knowlege to know that). We tried the gentle approach, the impassioned approach - zilch!

Maybe I'm being unfair. After all, the GG's staff handle this stuff. Hollingworth's 2IC was a bloke by the name of Guy Green, and who knows how many other layers our mail has to penetrate.

But what say you Gerrit?

Could a properly informed (and willing) GG have stalled the proceedings? After all, we now realise that Operation Iraqi Theft has been on the books for at least a decade. The robbers were caught with the plans of the bank.

Pete

This is not your smoking gun and I’m sure you know it.

“(Greenspan) …said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have NEVER heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

“In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "NOT THE ADMINISTRATION'S MOTIVE," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

"a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as ONE OF MANY objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

He clearly has no concrete evidence of the administrations motives for going to war in 2003, otherwise he would have produced it.

I have never denied that oil played a role in this conflict. Go over my previous posts if you don’t believe me. I have only ever denied it was the SOLE motivating factor.

Fostering a democracy in the centre of the Middle East would be a significant strategic blow for dictatorships across the region. Such a democracy would be a massive boost to the reformers in Iran. It would also be an incredible stroke of luck for the Iraqi people, especially after the brutal suppression of the uprising which WE encouraged but never supported.

As an aside, what do you make of the claims that Saddams functioning weapons programs were shipped to Syria, another Ba’athist State

Paul

Good reply. You're becoming not a bad debating opponent.

But I've just been writing a better reply ;) which I'll submit to OLO as an article in a couple of days.

Regards

Pete

Gary Brown wrote 14 September 2007: "... Howard has ordered the so-called Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD), three advanced US-designed warships that can be fitted with radars and weapons which turn them into part of a US “missile defence” system. These expensive capabilities are unnecessary for Australia, and they come at the cost of more relevant capabilities that have to be deferred or not acquired at all. ..."

The Spanish designed Alvaro de Bazan class destroyers being purchased are slightly cheaper than the US option considered and were purchased despite strong lobbying from the USA: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2007/03/hitech-spanish-warship-in-sydney-for.html

They come equipped with US built radars and missiles for air defence (using Australian designed antennas). The ships are about as cheap as you can get and still shoot down the type of sophisticated attack aircraft now being deployed by other nations in our region of the world. The ships can be also used for ballistic missile defence with little more than a change to the software (no new radars needed).

At the same time Australia is also buying two "Landing Helicopter Dock" (LHD) ships from the same Spanish company. These are essentially small aircraft carriers, although the RAN will not yet admit that. They will be very useful for humanitarian operations as well as military use. Australia will likely get a lower price by buying all the ships from the one supplier: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/transport/amphibious.shtml

ps: I should declare my interest. Tenix, the winning tenderer for the LHDs, advertised them on my web site. I got about 10 cents for the web ad and they got $3B. ;-(

Thanks for those details Tom. All is grist.

- sorry about the 10c though -

Did you ever think of working for Halliburton in Iraq?

Chris, as indicated my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and see also website; http://schorel-hlavka.com and set out matters. Also my e-mail address and you can contact me by e-mail.

As for the Governor-General, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that albeit he is the Commander-in-Chief, he could do nothing with the armed forces unless Parliament provided for it. On the other hand, the Minister of Defence could do nothing unless so authorised by the Governor-General.

It is not relevant if the governor-General personally reads correspondence or he leave this over to his staff, as in the end he can run his office as he desire and he is ultimately accountable for it. While John Howard in the past sought to excuse himself he wasn’t told by his staff, that is no excuse as he is the one who has them employed on his terms!

At the time of the build-up of the armed forces Hollingworth should have made clear to the Minister of Defence that either he withdrew Australian troops or he would simply withdraw his commission and appoint another person as Minister of Defence. Likewise so he should have withdrawn the commission of John Howard for authorising an unconstitutional invasion!
I suspected all along that Hollingworth would not do so because of then, so to say, needing Howard to try to stay in office because of the sex-abuse scandals then going about. Hollignworth by this I view was just a puppet for Howard. I view that Holligworth was a disgrace to the office of Governor-General and so likewise Jeffrey now!