This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/when-it-comes-to-iraq-australia-needs-to-look-after-its-own-national-interest
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| When it comes to Iraq, Australia needs to look after its own national interest | When it comes to Iraq, Australia needs to look after its own national interest |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| "It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis," wrote Tony Blair over the weekend. | "It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis," wrote Tony Blair over the weekend. |
| "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't." | "We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't." |
| Blair has no credibility on this subject; he is totally and absolutely wrong. He was wrong in 2003, when we invaded Iraq, and he is wrong now. The Coalition of the willing is certainly responsible for much of the destruction and loss of life that has happened since the invasion. However, that does not suggest that a renewed invasion, or replacing troops in Iraq, would solve anything. If a very substantial military force ended in failure – even if US president Barack Obama claims it was a success – how can we expect another force to do better? | Blair has no credibility on this subject; he is totally and absolutely wrong. He was wrong in 2003, when we invaded Iraq, and he is wrong now. The Coalition of the willing is certainly responsible for much of the destruction and loss of life that has happened since the invasion. However, that does not suggest that a renewed invasion, or replacing troops in Iraq, would solve anything. If a very substantial military force ended in failure – even if US president Barack Obama claims it was a success – how can we expect another force to do better? |
| Iraq's sectarian divide is pulling the country to pieces, and also seriously damages the politics of the entire Middle East. We are responsible in this sense: the original invasion created a great disturbance in Iraq, and unleashed the sectarian tensions which were under control under Saddam Hussein. Certainly Hussein was a most terrible dictator, but what has replaced him has been even worse, because of the vast numbers who have been killed or mutilated. Responsibility for that is a guilt that we have to carry. | Iraq's sectarian divide is pulling the country to pieces, and also seriously damages the politics of the entire Middle East. We are responsible in this sense: the original invasion created a great disturbance in Iraq, and unleashed the sectarian tensions which were under control under Saddam Hussein. Certainly Hussein was a most terrible dictator, but what has replaced him has been even worse, because of the vast numbers who have been killed or mutilated. Responsibility for that is a guilt that we have to carry. |
| The notion that another military intervention can reverse Iraq's situation is almost certainly false. It could suppress hostilities, or prop up the government of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. But al-Maliki himself has shown himself to be partisan, one sided, taking many measures that advance the power of the Shias, and diminish the Sunnis. | |
| If we turn our minds back to the war, the Sunnis were causing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government a great deal of trouble. The Americans replied with a devastating assault on the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah in 2004, with another push in 2006-2007. The damage to the Sunni military was vast, and the numbers of civilians killed probably ran into many, many thousands. After that, the Sunnis made the decision to lie low, and to wait for the Americans to withdraw before asserting themselves. That is indeed what has happened – ISIS recaptured Fallujah late last year, in a prelude to the current conflict. If al-Maliki had tried to establish a cohesive, united nation, perhaps this could have been prevented. | If we turn our minds back to the war, the Sunnis were causing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government a great deal of trouble. The Americans replied with a devastating assault on the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah in 2004, with another push in 2006-2007. The damage to the Sunni military was vast, and the numbers of civilians killed probably ran into many, many thousands. After that, the Sunnis made the decision to lie low, and to wait for the Americans to withdraw before asserting themselves. That is indeed what has happened – ISIS recaptured Fallujah late last year, in a prelude to the current conflict. If al-Maliki had tried to establish a cohesive, united nation, perhaps this could have been prevented. |
| By contrast, the Kurds seem remarkably capable of looking after themselves, and I suspect don't need our support. If there are things that are needed to maintain peace in that part of Iraq and we can contribute sensibly, then we should do so, but their own military forces are quite substantial and they seem to be keeping a relative peace. | By contrast, the Kurds seem remarkably capable of looking after themselves, and I suspect don't need our support. If there are things that are needed to maintain peace in that part of Iraq and we can contribute sensibly, then we should do so, but their own military forces are quite substantial and they seem to be keeping a relative peace. |
| Obama has likely ruled out replacing troops in Iraq. If that's so, he will rely on air power or drone killings. The use of American air power – as devastating and horrific as it can be – would certainly cause great damage, but wars on the ground are seldom won without troops on the ground. Whether air power could do anything to diminish sectarian violence and hatred, is highly dubious. The US used air power in Libya to support one section of the population, and Libya, virtually off the radar, has in reality fallen into a civil war. | Obama has likely ruled out replacing troops in Iraq. If that's so, he will rely on air power or drone killings. The use of American air power – as devastating and horrific as it can be – would certainly cause great damage, but wars on the ground are seldom won without troops on the ground. Whether air power could do anything to diminish sectarian violence and hatred, is highly dubious. The US used air power in Libya to support one section of the population, and Libya, virtually off the radar, has in reality fallen into a civil war. |
| Based on what Tony Abbott has said on return from the US, we can probably assume that Australia will do whatever America asks. That represents a total abrogation of Australian sovereignty. We need to look after our own national interest, and that doesn't involve fighting wars, where we cannot make a significant difference, on the other side of the world. | Based on what Tony Abbott has said on return from the US, we can probably assume that Australia will do whatever America asks. That represents a total abrogation of Australian sovereignty. We need to look after our own national interest, and that doesn't involve fighting wars, where we cannot make a significant difference, on the other side of the world. |
| We should instead support the camps now filled with refugees from Iraq and Syria, and prepare to resettle refugees in Australia in large numbers, because we – with Britain and America – are significantly responsible for the situation that's unfolded. Being prepared to accept large numbers of refugees would be a practical, humane measure, and would at least give a large number of individuals a home and hope for the future. | We should instead support the camps now filled with refugees from Iraq and Syria, and prepare to resettle refugees in Australia in large numbers, because we – with Britain and America – are significantly responsible for the situation that's unfolded. Being prepared to accept large numbers of refugees would be a practical, humane measure, and would at least give a large number of individuals a home and hope for the future. |
| Many people opposed the original invasion in 2003. Australians should oppose any renewed commitment on the ground to the maximum extent possible. We have followed America into three failed wars. We should not be continuing to follow America merely because they ask us to do so – or tell us to do so. Somehow, difficult as it is, the only solution will in the end be a non-military one. It will not be something imposed by American arms, supported once again by Britain and Australia. | Many people opposed the original invasion in 2003. Australians should oppose any renewed commitment on the ground to the maximum extent possible. We have followed America into three failed wars. We should not be continuing to follow America merely because they ask us to do so – or tell us to do so. Somehow, difficult as it is, the only solution will in the end be a non-military one. It will not be something imposed by American arms, supported once again by Britain and Australia. |