If Australia pulls out, it would indeed have an effect, because it would hurt morale in America and give creedence to the cut and run advocates here.

The Western governments seem harsh in their aversion to Iraqi immigration because if Iraq is to succeed in the long run, there must be a professional class in country. Unfortunately, it is the professional class that most wants out. If this next six months or so brings no improvement, I would look for immigration barriers to lift.

The WMD-Lie scenario is the creation of the American Democrats as a way to assuage their surging anti-war base. The current scapegoat du jour on this is Douglas Feith, who was on U.S. television tonight explaining the misinformation campaign directed against him and the administration. This was concommitant with the Washington Post retracting a host of quotes fed them by Sen. Levin accussing Douglas Feith of being a book-cooker.

According to the Duelfer report, the scientists, technicians and labs to re-start a nuclear weapons program were there. Plutonium processing plants were still there. And of course the IAEA had left much nuclear material in the north at Haditha under seal, which they checked once a year. All to say, had the sanctions collapsed, it wouldn’t have been very long. Whether any actual weaponry was removed from Iraq into Syria and elsewhere remains a mystery, despite the occassional reports to the affirmative.

The week before the invasion Iraq played host to a gaggle of Russian defense ministers. Look it up. The day before the war, Pravda published a goverment story saying “the Americans would plant false WMD in iraq.” Something to think about.

Most other countries allowed weapons inspection to go on? The inspections, from all accounts were a farce, entries were blocked, diversions created, threats upon the families of many of the inspectors were made, bribes were offered, etc. And the countries most vocal in their insistance that inspections should continue, were the same countries that had the illicit oil-for-food deals going with the Saddam regime. Its something to think about, isn’t it?

Just putting my two cents in. Have a nice day!

If the worst outcome in Iraq was the emergence of a new theocracy, or federation of theocracies, all of the Coalition members could withdraw from the war on the basis that the plan to establish a secular democracy is hopeless, and that a continued military presence is only fueling the violence. On the other hand, if the worst outcome involves death squads running amok and slaughtering tens of thousands, I don’t see how the Americans, at very least, could evade a responsibility to stay and protect the innocent somehow. Likewise, if civil war threatens to draw neighbouring countries into a regional conflagration, they would be obliged to stay and contain the war within Iraq and create safe havens(Plan B).

In these worst cases, I don’t see that Australia can simply excuse itself on the grounds of being small. We could argue that we were recruited by means of lies about WMDs. But we had the opportunity in 2003 to keep an open mind and allow weapons inspections to proceed, as most other countries chose to do. As far as the ALP is concerned, it could argue that it has no responsibility for the consequences of a war it opposed in the first place. But that would be as shameful as Howard’s toadying that got us in there.

On the question of refugees, it’s obvious we have a responsibilty to increase the formal intake from Iraq. But it should’nt be an alternative to keeping soldiers in Iraq if this choice affects the outcome in Iraq. Continued western military intervention either is on balance good for the majority of Iraqis or it isn’t, and the decision should be made on that basis.

It is very simple.

I don’t want to be rude, but God forbid you should ever become a Labor policy adviser. Adopting the policy you’re suggesting wouldn’t wedge Howard at all, it would instead destroy Rudd’s electoral prospects in one foul swoop. Fortunately I can’t see Kevie committing ritual suicide.

It’s a fascinating question you pose James, with many different aspects and many options. I’ll address the Labor Party one, because I don’t think it should be conflated with the Coalition of the Willing question.

A fact about the Iraq war that both parties have not even broached in the public realm is the vast number of refugees that are looking for a peaceful place to live as a result of the Neo-con’s moral steamroller.

How would another Tampa type situation would play politically these days? Howard carted Afghanis back to their recently liberated, but barely functioning homeland on the basis that they didn’t need to come here now, and obviously kept the Iraqis out by sending them elsewhere. The UN is now looking for homes for today’s Iraqi refugees, but I don’t see Howard accepting any responsibility for their plight and offering them a home here.

Perhaps Rudd could play that angle. Perhaps the ALP position could be to withdraw the troops, but accept the moral responsibility bought about by the failure of the Howard policy in Iraq, by telling the Australian people that we have a moral duty to help as many Iraqis as we can, whose ruined lives we are partially responsible for.

Such a position would be a risk of course, because the distrust of Muslims is so much greater, and the usual cultural fear mongers in our media would go nuts, but equally it would be a very powerful swipe at their moral hypocrisy and that of Howard. If ALP policy was to offer increased Iraqi refugee intake It would wedge Howard. How on the one hand could he say that we joined the war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, but now that it has failed he’s not prepared to offer them sanctuary? He would either have to argue that the war will succeed in the face of mounting contrary evidence, or have to match the offer. Either way it will wedge the conservatives completely. Splitting the warmongers apart from those that truly feel some obligation to atone for their failure.

It’s an option that the ALP should be discussing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/world/middleeast/23baghdad.html?ei=5090
&en=bfe838d24644abfa&ex=1327208400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

(I’ve split the URL into two lines since it didn’t work with the link button the first time and it doesn’t display in full if left on one line. Would appreciate any advice on how best to deal with links.)

Do you mean in regard to our involvement or do you mean a broader view on what the US should be doing?

Well said.