Now, Australia looking to abandon Dumbya..
Glenn Milne: PM in need of an exit strategy
A worsening situation in Iraq may force John Howard to consider stepping down next year
October 10, 2005
THERE is a growing view in senior Labor ranks that a potential wild card is emerging that will help shape John Howard's thinking on retirement: the Iraq war.
This view is based on a looming convergence of events that will soon force the Government into a clarification of its Iraq policy. These events lie largely outside Howard's control, a fact that gives them added potency. And critically, they come to a head on the same time line set by Peter Costello for the resolution of his leadership tensions with Howard - April-May next year.
Sensing this moment, Labor is now determined to take the largely dormant domestic debate on Iraq to a new level, so the Opposition is in a position to take advantage of the situation should Howard personally "cut and run" if the coalition of the willing finally founders in Baghdad.
Labor's positioning began a week ago with a landmark speech by shadow foreign affairs minister, Kevin Rudd, titled, "The Possibility of Civil War in Iraq: Foreign Policy Implications for Australia".
The speech was important. So too was the context in which it was made: Rudd had just returned from a trip to Washington where he had immersed himself in the latest thinking of the best and the brightest in the US capital.
The conclusions Rudd reached were unerringly pessimistic and based on four main factors; the intensifying conflict between Sunnis and Shias, the push for a separate Kurdish state, an infinite supply of insurgents and lastly the accelerating political pressures in the US demanding an exit strategy from the conflict.
Rudd quoted the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal to make his point: "There is no dynamic now pulling the nation [Iraq] together. All the dynamics are pulling the country apart."
Rudd used his speech to put a series of questions to the Prime Minister.
"First, does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Minister's statement that the security situation in Iraq is very much improved? Or is this simply just another case of public, political spin?
"Second, what exactly is the Government's analysis of the prospects for civil war in Iraq? And what will Australia do - and the international community do - in response to a civil war if it occurs, given the implications for the Iraqi civilian population?
"Third, what does the prospect of a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias mean for the security situation in Al Muthanna province where Australian troops are deployed?
"Fourth, given Al Muthanna's proximity to Saudi Arabia, what are the particular new dangers faced by Australian troops from foreign jihadists arriving into Iraq from Saudi Arabia?
"Fifth, what has Canberra been told by Washington about the real timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq? What criteria have been set for any such withdrawal?
"Sixth, what real timetable is the Australian Government contemplating for withdrawal? Are statements attributed to the Australian military about and Australian drawdown next May accurate?"
Reasonable questions, really. Don't expect any answers any time soon.
What does all this suggest for Howard's domestic future? Using Rudd's analysis as a base we can add in these factors; Iraq's first elections are scheduled for mid-December. In Washington the consensus is that GeorgeW. Bush will use the formation of a government in Baghdad to claim mission accomplished.
This means US troops could begin to leave Iraq in the first half of the year. Bush faces the added pressure of mid-term congressional elections in November, 2006. With his stocks through the floor, worried Republicans are demanding that come the polls, "Iraq must be in the rear-view mirror".
Once US troops pull out, Australia and Britain would have no option but to follow suit. What they would leave behind would be chaos, an elected government without the security apparatus necessary to govern, Sunnis and Shias at each other's throats and insurgents running rampant.
For Howard it could well prove the biggest foreign policy disaster of his prime ministership. Senior Labor figures are now raising the question; if the option of retirement in April-May is a live one, would he want to hang around to explain the bloody mess in Iraq to an Australian public now firmly against the war?
Especially given that it has now been graphically demonstrated that our involvement was based on the myth of weapons of mass destruction. One Labor frontbencher staring into his crystal ball described the potential terrain early next year thus: "Iraq's a gigantic, rolled-gold policy failure. By that time high petrol prices will have started to feed into inflation, threatening interest rates, and his IR changes will be beginning to bite.
"The US economy is already flattening. By next year the economic fundamentals here could be much more challenging. Under these circumstances the mess in Iraq might well be an added incentive for Howard to give it away before the scale of his failure becomes clear."
Could Howard manage to avoid the blame for a lethal debacle in Iraq? Rudd answers the question in his October 3 speech: "Because of Australia's status as one of only three invading states back in March 2003; because of our subsequent legal status as an occupying power in Iraq; because Australia continues to have something in the vicinity of 1000 troops in theatre, Iraq can therefore not simply be shuffled off to one side by the Howard Government simply because times are becoming increasingly politically uncomfortable."
Rudd goes on: "Of course all of this begs the question of what 'staying until the job is done' actually means.
"John Howard has consistently refused to define what that might mean - as if the question is somehow regarded as an impertinent intrusion on his sense of vice-regal prerogative.
"Instead, the Australian parliament, public and press are simply administered political platitudes from the Prime Minister: a rolling morality play between staying until 'the job is done' and 'cut and run' on the other."
Rudd then went after Howard's weak point: "The purpose of my address tonight is to begin to signal a new phase in our debate with the Government on Iraq. We simply don't intend to allow them to continue to brush aside the hard questions on Iraq. Particularly when Australia has such large national security issues at stake, not to mention the wellbeing of our troops in the field."
On May 4, two years ago, Howard was asked of the Australian troop commitment in Iraq, "Do you see it as months or years?"
The Prime Minister's reply: "Well, I certainly don't see it as years."
Some in Labor's ranks now believe that under the looming pressure that is Iraq the same may be said about Howard's future. |
