Leave now or perish, Mr Howard

THE IRAQ WAR
By Alan Stretton
November 20, 2006


As Iraq continues to sink further into the quagmire of civil war, the leaders of the coalition of the willing continue to close their eyes to what is happening and keep repeating the untruths about how democracy in Iraq is starting to work. The remarkable thing is that while President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are suffering the political consequences, our own Prime Minister is weathering the storm The reason is that there is still a general apathy in the Australian electorate because we have been fortunate enough to avoid major casualties.

It is sad that Bush and Howard both think that the trial of Saddam Hussein shows that democracy in Iraq is working. The trial was not set up by the Iraqi Government (which was not in existence at that time) but by a military commission controlled by the US.

The first judge hearing the case resigned because the Iraqi Government and their American advisers thought he was "too soft" on Saddamn. A second judge was murdered. Three of Saddam's lawyers were gunned down during the trial and other defence counsel were banned from the court. The third judge shut down the defence before all their witnesses could be called. This is democracy at work, according to Mr Bush and Mr Howard!

And guess what? The guilty verdict was able to be announced two days before the American mid-term elections. Not that it did much good as the American people gave a resounding answer to the lies, spin and deceit still being promoted by the President as the military casualties rise to nearly 3000. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been massacred.

Many eminent lawyers cannot understand why Saddam was not brought to justice and made answerable for his crimes before the International Criminal Court. If this had occurred the world would have been reminded that it was the United States that armed Saddam Hussein during the war with Iran. It was also likely to publicise that the gas and chemicals used by Saddam against the Kurds came from the United States. It is easy to understand why the Americans wanted Saddam to be tried by a court controlled by them.

The term "cut and run" is no longer used by the leaders of the coalition of the willing. It is now being replaced by the term "withdrawing with honour". Certainly a major withdrawal of American forces will be under way before the presidential election in 2008. It is also certain that a withdrawal of some Australian units will take place before Howard comes up for re-election in 2007.

There was a great opportunity to withdraw 400 troops earlier this year. They were guarding Japanese troops helping to rebuild the infrastructure in southern Iraq that had been destroyed by the Americans in their initial air onslaught. They should have been brought home to relieve the strain on the Australian Army, which is overstretched with other foreign commitments. The cynical could believe that the decision to leave these forces there in an operational role has a political motive, so that their withdrawal can have a political impact closer to the federal election.

From the start, our involvement in Iraq has been a military and political catastrophe. The stated aim for the invasion was to destroy weapons of mass destruction and to fight the war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorists who carried out the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. The attack on Iraq was launched without any United Nations authority. The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam was not involved in the attack on America is now acknowledged . The main reason for the American invasion of Iraq was that, after 12 months of bluster and threats by Bush in the so-called war against terror, the Americans could not find bin Laden, and the Republicans were losing political support.

The invasion of Iraq as part of the war against terror has had the opposite effect to that which the coalition of the willing intended. Instead of decreasing terrorism it has provided radical Muslims with a reason to call a jihad against American efforts to dominate affairs in the Middle East. It has provided the spark to start fires around the Western world that will take decades to extinguish.

There is now no way the invading forces in Iraq can withdraw with honour. The excuse for withdrawing US forces during the Vietnam War was that the American policy of Vietnamisation had made the South Vietnamese forces strong enough to defeat the Vietcong themselves, and the Americans were no longer needed. This was a complete falsehood that served the purpose for internal American consumption. But it will be difficult to use this excuse again. Despite the American resources being poured into the growing Iraqi army and police force, the results have been very disappointing. On many occasions the Iraqi army has refused to fight and many terrorist acts have been committed by Iraqi army personnel.

The American aim to set up a Western-style democracy in Iraq was doomed from the start. With the country divided into three major factions - the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - the only solution may have been a loose federation controlling three semi-autonomous zones. Unfortunately so much damage has been done that this political solution is unlikely to succeed.

Both militarily and politically the invasion of Iraq will become one of the great catastrophes in the Middle East and have lasting consequences for peace and security. Australia's involvement for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place at the wrong time must have major political repercussions for the Australian Government despite the political skills of Howard.

Although some Australian forces need to remain to protect our embassy and other Australian officials, there is no reason why the 400 Australians who were guarding the Japanese cannot be brought home now, before they risk taking casualties. Should Australian casualties occur, the political fallout for the Government will be greater than any gain from a withdrawal closer to the next election.

Major-General Alan Stretton was the Australian Army chief of staff during the Vietnam War and was later placed in charge of Darwin after Cyclone Tracy. He spoke out strongly out against involvement in the Iraq War.

There was a great opportunity to withdraw 400 troops earlier this year. They were guarding Japanese troops helping to rebuild the infrastructure in southern Iraq that had been destroyed by the Americans in their initial air onslaught. They should have been brought home to relieve the strain on the Australian Army, which is overstretched with other foreign commitments. The cynical could believe that the decision to leave these forces there in an operational role has a political motive, so that their withdrawal can have a political impact closer to the federal election.

From the start, our involvement in Iraq has been a military and political catastrophe. The stated aim for the invasion was to destroy weapons of mass destruction and to fight the war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorists who carried out the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. The attack on Iraq was launched without any United Nations authority. The fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam was not involved in the attack on America is now acknowledged . The main reason for the American invasion of Iraq was that, after 12 months of bluster and threats by Bush in the so-called war against terror, the Americans could not find bin Laden, and the Republicans were losing political support.

The invasion of Iraq as part of the war against terror has had the opposite effect to that which the coalition of the willing intended. Instead of decreasing terrorism it has provided radical Muslims with a reason to call a jihad against American efforts to dominate affairs in the Middle East. It has provided the spark to start fires around the Western world that will take decades to extinguish.

There is now no way the invading forces in Iraq can withdraw with honour. The excuse for withdrawing US forces during the Vietnam War was that the American policy of Vietnamisation had made the South Vietnamese forces strong enough to defeat the Vietcong themselves, and the Americans were no longer needed. This was a complete falsehood that served the purpose for internal American consumption. But it will be difficult to use this excuse again. Despite the American resources being poured into the growing Iraqi army and police force, the results have been very disappointing. On many occasions the Iraqi army has refused to fight and many terrorist acts have been committed by Iraqi army personnel.

The American aim to set up a Western-style democracy in Iraq was doomed from the start. With the country divided into three major factions - the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - the only solution may have been a loose federation controlling three semi-autonomous zones. Unfortunately so much damage has been done that this political solution is unlikely to succeed.

Both militarily and politically the invasion of Iraq will become one of the great catastrophes in the Middle East and have lasting consequences for peace and security. Australia's involvement for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place at the wrong time must have major political repercussions for the Australian Government despite the political skills of Howard.

Although some Australian forces need to remain to protect our embassy and other Australian officials, there is no reason why the 400 Australians who were guarding the Japanese cannot be brought home now, before they risk taking casualties. Should Australian casualties occur, the political fallout for the Government will be greater than any gain from a withdrawal closer to the next election.

Major-General Alan Stretton was the Australian Army chief of staff during the Vietnam War and was later placed in charge of Darwin after Cyclone Tracy. He spoke out strongly out against involvement in the Iraq War.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/leave-now-or-perish-mr-howard-the-iraq-war/2006/11/19/1163871268501.html