Let’s cut through the bull. The American led coalition on Iraq has little to do with disarming Saddam Hussain. It has everything to do with with Sep 11. So why is the Australian government going to commit troops to a war without truthfully telling us why? Do they think we might disagree and they know better? Rightly or wrongly, Bush has decided to deal with the threat of terrorism by sending a message to the Islamic world. Deal with the terrorists in your midst or you’ll get what Saddam got. Both Howard and British PM Tony Blair have never flinched in their willingness to go all the way with the USA. But if they feel strongly about the rightness of their cause why blur the debate with the “weapons of mass destruction” falsehoods?
As a Labor supporter it is most disappointing to me that throughout his time in office, my party has not been able to convince my fellow Australians that John Howard is the most deceitful and divisive Prime Minister in Australia’s history. Too often when Howard has engaged in his practice of the half-truth, Labor has been sucked into debating the nuances of the original deception instead of going for the jugular and exposing the lie itself. The present debate on Iraq is a classic case. Howard has committed Australia to the conflict and Labor wants to nit-pick about whether or not the UN says it’s OK. The point is moot. The real debate is whether or not the Americans are being truthful about their agenda. If we are to commit troops to a conflict then let us at least as a nation be given the respect we deserve to let everyone have a say about whether or not it’s a good idea.
Labor has maintained its virtue by insisting that any action against Iraq must be sanctioned by the UN. There is merit and principal in this stance. The Australian Labor party was one of the strongest advocates for the UN in the aftermath of WW2. It is an article of faith for many in the party that the UN is the only forum where warfare can be rightly mandated against rogue nations with the consent of the majority. So is Labor afraid of the debate or the possibility that Howard’s strategy might be right? In purely political terms, if the “million that matter” think it’s good to give the UN the finger and that sticking it to known bad guys like Saddam Hussain can’t be all bad, is Labor’s principled and correct stance academic? Throughout his political life and especially since he became PM, Howard has instinctively appealed to the lowest common denominator in the Australian psyche. So far it’s worked for him so why would he change tack now?
But it is a scorched earth approach to political leadership because whoever succeeds him will be Prime Minister of a divided, cynical and disillusioned nation who believe that governments are manipulative and deceitful as a matter of course. Chicanery under Howard is now the accepted norm. Now is the time for Labor to expose Howard once and for all. Labor has nothing to lose by nailing “Honest John” as the liar that he is. Labor must sidestep the government line and explain to the Australian people that Bush, Howard and Blair have been economical with the truth. Exposing that the real reason for the action against Iraq is that they have decided to take up the challenge thrown down by Bin Laden.
Namely that if Islamic extremists want a holy war, this trio are willing to give them one.
For Bush the action against Iraq is the strongest possible message that the leader of the free world is more than ready to take up the invitation. Understandable perhaps for the USA. They were attacked in their heartland. But is Howard’s unequivocal support for Bush in Australia’s national interest?
This is where Labor’s mettle will be tested. Because once having exposed the deceit they have to manage the debate that would follow. They would have to engage fully and without flinching as to whether or not this may or may not be a good idea. The question for Australians is, will this cowboy approach actually work? Will smoking out the bad guys and laying them waste eventually provide long term peace, prosperity and security? Or will it be a futile chest beating exercise by a waning superpower that leads us all into decades of fear, uncertainty and terrorism?
Only a nation not deceived can even begin to wrestle with questions of such magnitude. Labor’s challenge is to win the argument that Howard has disqualified himself from the position of leader of this land. That won’t happen while they pussyfoot around UN participation in what is increasingly likely to be near unilateral action by the US and its willing partners.