Well said Binoy. The tragedy is that out of all this the ADF and the Dept. of Defence have been thoroughly politicised. Poor sad eyed Houston must know he has been used and abused by Howard and Rudd. Australian troops complain that they have been molly codelled by a risk adverse Defence Department. It is all quite pathetic particularly when combined with the Howard inspired and Rudd endorsed Jingoism.
I wonder if Howard's supporters believe that his new AC will shield him from the judgement of his peers and history?
Bruce Haigh

Well said, both Bruce and Binoy.

But as a late-trained elder historian, one would still like to find out whether Bush and his late lot of Generals committed a crime by after going illegally into Iraq to save the Iraqi Shias from Saddam's Sunnis, now after five desperate years are now on top by forgiving Saddam's Sunnis and naming the venture, would you believe - The Great Iraqi Awakening.

Also as a successful Australian historical novelist, must ask what way to go about depicting the above?

Cheers - BB, WA.

Donald Rumsfeld is loathsome and probably America's most successful war criminal since Henry Kissinger, but attacks on the "known knowns" explanation are unfair. As much as it was a craven excuse for the lies that preceded the war, it's actually a failry good summation of the categories of intelligence.

What absolute twaddle. On virtually every indicator Iraq is better off today than at this time least year. In Australia’s Area Of Responsibility the pacification has been a great success. “Given that Australian troops are handing over to Iraqi control two largely peaceful provinces that just three years ago were in the grip of a full-blown insurgency, it is hard to argue otherwise.” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23799915-16382,00.html

Jensen >> “you have a war that is essentially being won and we’re seen to move out of there”

to wit the author replies “Jensen is evidently reading different dispatches from the front.”

Which dispatches are these we are left to wonder that the author felt were not relevant to share?

The author says “It is hard to find any credible description of what Australia’s role has been in that divided, crumbling state”

What the author clearly means is that despondent, pessimistic or negative reports which are credible are hard to come by at the moment. These are lean times for the anti-bush, anti-american brigade, which is why we are only hearing about WMD’s now, instead of criticisms of the actual war itself.

Here’s the good news
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22337284-5013404,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-01-17-baghdad_N.htm
http://news.smh.com.au/world/us-deaths-in-iraq-hit-alltime-low-australian-troops-pull-out-20080602-2klq.html

One wonders what point the author is trying to make when he complains about the lower profile job the Australian Army carried out in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces. It seems an entirely unedifying swipe in the midst of his case for the prosecution of the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing. On the one hand, he is arguing that Iraq is an illegal war. On the other, he suggests we weren’t actually as involved as we could've been? That the defence department wasn’t aggressive enough? WTF?

The whole premise that this is an illegal war is clearly wrong. The UN resolutions were deliberately worded in a manner that left room for the armed intervention which followed. That’s the nature of diplomacy and the rubberiness of the UN. There were something like 10 resolutions on Iraq and more than one gave the coalition the right to intervene if Saddam failed to cooperate fully

“…What is forgotten in this withdrawal is that John Howard, the man who, along with Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush, participated in this invasion, is now the object of a war crimes brief drafted by an International Criminal Court Action group in Melbourne.”

I’m sure these 3 people are really shaking in their boots. What a lot of childish rot from another group of wackos. Lyn Allison’s name is enough to highlight the idiocy of the whole thing. While I have no time for the Queen’s Birthday Honours (or any other honours awarded to people who were paid to do what they did), it must rile Allison and her fellow boofheads that Howard was awarded an honour this year.

And, Rumsfield a war criminal? Duh!

When we will hear these clowns calling for the Rudd Labor Government to withdraw troops from Afghanistan where Australian soldiers have actually been killed?

Why is Afghanistan ‘right’ just because the Rudd Labor Government supports it, and will increase our military commitment there?

I notice with much amusement the “cheer squad” who feel that all that is required of them is a kind of “GO OO TEAM” cheer.

Bushbred,

I cannot for the life of me believe that you haven’t grasped the fact that we didn’t go to Iraq to fight the Sunnis. It seems to be a fundamental incapacity to comprehend the simple truth of the matter. I shouldn’t be surprised, you regularly mistake criticism of the Iranian leadership for criticism of the Iranian people. We went to Iraq to, among other things, take down Saddam's regime. That doesn’t mean we declared war on all of his co-religionists

The Sunni awakening has driven al-Qaeda in Iraq underground to the point that they are almost a spent force. Al Qaeda were the evil bast@rds, if you recall, who committed the bombing of Shiite shrines during Friday prayers to create maximum damage. These atrocities helped kick off the sectarian bloodshed which has plagued Iraq until recent times.

Bruce Haigh,

Howards place in history will be much safer than Bill Clinton’s and the UN leadership who stood by as a million people were murdered in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands murdered in the Balkans. This is the same UN which has stood around wringing their hands about the tragedy in Darfur without actually doing anything about it.

Sancho,

I have little interest in defending Rumsfeld, although I agree that his unknown unknowns speech makes perfect sense to all but an imbecile or a left-wing partisan. I will take issue with your claim that he is the most successful war criminal. Rumsfeld wasn’t very successful at anything he did, which is why he got the boot in the end

We are talking about what future historians will make of the Iraq illegal intervention, Mr PaulL and Mr Right.

Not about Mr Bush and his Generals successfully offering to put typical two-timer Sunnis on the US pay-roll.

Remember these are the same sorts of Sunnis whom Donald Rumsfeld did deals with when Saddam declared war on Iran in 1981, the Americans even supplying chemical weapons.

Also take note that Saddam's Sunni two-timer militia, after being defeated by Bush, can easily be proven to be on the side of bin Laden's Al Quida while it suited them.

Reckon it could be much safer to trust the Shias, even though the majority do belong to Iran.

Paul L

Well well, I am choking. We absolutely agree on everything in Iraq. Just goes to show there is hope for both of us ... eh?

Bushbred

None of us are sears in our own lifetimes. Like the US electorate and historians I'll wait a generation before assessing any judgement of Bush, Rumsfield and the US actions in Iraq. Safer I think. And quite different from supporting their actions just as are opinions of comdemnation. Cheers.

Bushbred

>>” We are talking about what future historians will make of the Iraq illegal intervention”

Firstly, it seems you have already made up your mind regarding how it will be viewed, because the war has sinmply NOT been ruled to be illegal. Secondly, the topic is “The progress of defeat: the withdrawal of Australian forces : Comments”. This is not the same as “how will future historians view the Iraq war”.

History is not an end in itself except to academic w@nkers. History has a primary utilitarian role as the informer of policy. In that sense, policy is the both the master, and the raw material, of history.

>>” Not about Mr Bush … offering to put typical two-timer Sunnis on the US pay-roll.

You seem to be entirely unaware that you are being a bigot by smearing a whole sect with the misdeeds of a few. This would be totally unacceptable and someone from the left would have pulled you up on it were you not part of the soft-left cheer squad.

>>” Remember these are the same sorts of Sunnis whom Donald Rumsfeld did deals with ..in 1981,”

WTF? The support that America gave to Iraq was given to the regime of Saddam Hussein, not to the Sunni’s of Iraq. That you cannot see a difference is very disturbing.

BTW, America’s support for Iraq only became tangible when it looked as if Iran might march into Baghdad and install another Islamic republic after the retreat to the border of 1982.

“The Iranian Chief-of-Staff said “the war would continue until Saddam Hussein is overthrown.” Khomeini on the issue of a truce said "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic." Indeed American ambiguity towards which side to support was summed up by Kissinger when the American statesman remarked that "it's a pity they both can't lose.

According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from China, Germany, UK, France and the US.

Please wake up to history, Paull.

Most of the problems in the Middle East, including much Islamic terrorism caused by anger not only against Israeli nuclear rocket potential, but against a Western populace which would let Pax Americana be world master or mistress, rather than a United Nations which truly ethically shaped may not bring about a Kantian Perpetual Peace, but very close to it.

Such of course, would also ethically preclude a miserable but deadly little Israel which has enough atomic power right now with its over three hundred loaded rockets to blow apart the whole Middle East.

To me that certainly does not sound like a recipe for Perpetual Peace in our world.

PaulL, seems those Sunni Shaiks you admire so much, have now been given the keys back to Baghbad. Certainly Saddam must now be smiling in his grave.

Certainly the two-timer Sunnis over the last few years have certainly broken a record.

Maybe the Bush regime before it moves out might forgive the whole lot of them, including bin Laden's al Quaida, which helped the Americans get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, in any case.

In fact, could really wonder how these support changes might go down in history, possibly giving reminder of the Jew Shylock who by paying obeisance to the Roman General Pontius Pilate, was later able to have Pilate give the order for the crucifixion of CHRIST

the Jew Shylock, who asked Pontius Pilate to give the order for Christ to be crucified. gave the order for Jesus of Nazareth t