The Claws Come Out

John, any student of history (which I suspect bin Laden is) can tell you the lessons of low-intensity warfare were learned long before the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan.

Whether a Republican or a Democrat occupy the office in 2008 is irrelevant... a withdrawal from Iraq will occur because the AMERICAN PEOPLE will demand it.

Let's put our hopes in the surge. I have been told by some of my guys over there that it's still a Shiite-inspired hunt for Sunnis... business as usual. If that's the case, this will be a failure... and one that we will not recover from, I fear.

yup! But any student of history (hey, we were educated in the same history department :) ) will tell you that the Afghanistan model is what really got Islamic terror going.

I think that Obama was a genius for running for President this early in his political life. Mainstream American voters do not know how crazy left wing he is, yet.

Once his anti-white comments, his weakness on defense, and his ultra liberal social policies emerge, he will lose his charm. This was just one indication. Many more to come.

We have approximately 7 times as many troops per capita in Iraq as Australia. Australia would need to field around 10,000 to reach a similar proportion.

(Furthermore, as even the Australians admit, their troops are in the most stable areas and have not seen very much action. All of their fatalities (~5) have been non-combat.)

Obama is right: If the war in Iraq is as critical as Howard claims, he would commit more troops. That he has not is a clear indication that it is not so critical as he claims.

As for snapping ones fingers? You know that is ridiculous and yet you wrote it anyway. It has been nearly 4 years since the invasion. Plenty of time for Australia to train and field thousands of additional troops. How fundamentally dishonest of you.

Andy, stop addressing the strawman and address Howard's point please: if Obama came to power and pulled all U.S. soldiers out of Iraq, would the terrorists be happy or not? Is that what they want or no? Stop attacking our P.M. and our country and consider what he said, please.

Ah yes, the "strawman" of calling out a hypocritical politician who does not seriously believe what he is saying.

Howard is more afraid of the Australian electorate turning him out than he is serious about fighting terrorism in Iraq.

And frankly, I don't think we should set policy based on the happiness of terrorists. By the way, who are the terrorists? Sunni al-qaeda? Or is it the Sadrist Shiites? Either way, it sort of seems like it would be best to let them duke it out for a while without our boys playing nanny.

Gentlemen,

A very good analysis of Obama and his off-handed, intellectually bankrupt retort to PM Howard.

Your analysis is the cornerstone of my own frustrations with the atmosphere of self-aggrandizing and empty-headed Washington power-politics in a time of war.

I offer a single quote from a senior Chinese military officer on the eve of our invasion of Iraq:

"If the US has some 100 casualties, there will be large-scale anti-war demonstrations within the United States. If the number of casualties exceeds 1000, Bush may be forced to resign.” (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/chinview/chinacont.html)

The Chinese understand "that low-level warfare can topple superpowers." Their modern doctrine (vis-à-vis a fight with the US over Taiwan) is designed to "defeat the superior with the inferior." The Chinese mean to seriously bloody the United States in the Pacific, so severely that the American public’s aversion to blood and guts would blunt any counter-attack in support of Taiwanese forces.

At the very least, we are showing the Chinese (and our future enemies) how our national will can be defeated; at the worst we are encouraging our future enemies to accept enormous risk and embark on aggressive military campaigns to defeat American foreign policy goals.

Scary stuff.

Semper Fidelis, mac.

Right, that is the definition of a strawman, an argument that you trot out so that you can avoid answering the question, and answer the other one instead.

Is he hypocritical? No. But that argument is totally besides the point. No matter how hypocritical he is or is not, what he said is either true, or it is not true.

Really? I think we should set policy based on the happiness of terrorists. We should make them miserable, so they stop blowing up mosques and market places and killing hundreds of innocent people. Because it's the prospect of random killing that makes them happy. We should take that enjoyment away from them.

Who cares who the terrorists are? Yes, Al Qaeda and Shi'ites and Kurds (PKK) - whomever. They will be delighted if we leave Iraq to their tender mercies. And, by the sound of it, so would you. However people like me and our good P.M. feel differently. We don't want to see Iraqi civilians slaughtered and terrorist bases set up from which they can launch more and deadlier attacks in the region. Maybe it's because we care, I don't know.

Here's a parting thought for you. Did it ever occur to you that, unless Howard keeps the electorate happy, he can't fight terrorism in Iraq, since he will be voted out and unable to have any effect in that area any more? Probably not, that's a bit subtle.

Andy I have to agree with Nicholas here.

Australia is dedicating an enormous portion of their resources towards fighting this war. And they're doing it because, when we were attacked on 9/11, our Aussies allies took it as an attack upon themselves. That's the type of selfless integrity that can't be measured in troops sizes or dollars.

Plus, Australia is a country of about 30 million people. How much more of a contribution do you want?

Yes, it can be measured in troop size and dollars. You see, those are things that mean something, unlike the volumes of hot air Howard is currently providing.

And, my lord John, conflating 9/11 and the war in Iraq when even Pres. Bush has given up on that trope.

A proportional representation for Australia would be about 10,000 troops. If John Howard felt as strongly about winning in Iraq as George Bush does, don't you think he could commit more troops?

You cannot claim something to be vitally important to the survival of ones nation and then half-ass the response. Both Bush and Howard are guilty of this. They are simply unserious about fighting terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm all for "winning." The current strategy that many of you seem to support will not get us anywhere close to such a goal.

And Nicholas' quote, "Who cares who the terrorists are?" goes directly to the heart of the matter. This lack of care and basic understanding of the region has led us to this quagmire. We're fighting Sunni insurgents on behalf of a Shiite government and their Iranian backers and at the same time protecting Sunni "allies" like the Saudis, who are supplying Sunni in Iraq with weapons that are used against our troops. It's a god damned mess that we have unleashed and there is no good solution.

Luckily, you lot are holdouts in an shrinking minority at the far reaches of the political spectrum. The great majority of the people in America and Australia have come to realize that this is a disaster.

A proportional representation for Australia would be about 10,000 troops, If John Howard felt as strongly about winning in Iraq as George Bush does, don't you think he could commit more troops?

Before we talked up the surge, did the Coalition ask for more troops? Negative, Ghostrider.

Man, I'm thinking through this response, and Anonymous, your post was just plain poor. Poorly constructed, poorly conceived, all focus on emotional retort and none on fact.

Didn't take into consideration the other places were Aussie troops are deployed, Gulf, Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, didn't factor in resources, or size limitations on navy ships and fighters, or what the military necessity dictated.

Just pulled a number (10k) out of the blue and said "that's how many it takes for Australia to prove their dedication."

What a silly argument.

The Soviet pullout of Afghanistan taught guys like Bin Laden that low-level warfare can topple superpowers. ...and later in comments: But any student of history ... will tell you that the Afghanistan model is what really got Islamic terror going.

Sorry John, but while we're all giving each other history lessons, I've got to pick on these statements just a bit (though I really am trying to be more agreeable here).

My personal recollection is that another superpower sent their CIA and "military advisors" into Afghanistan and surrounding areas to recruit, train, arm, and support "crazy jihadis", who were deemed to be ideal patsies who could easily be convinced to fight the "infidel invaders" who were occupying the Islamic country, in order to fight a proxy war against it's cold-war enemy on the cheap. Now, who could that other superpower be? Aside from leaving out this important detail, you may be right.

IMHO, the USA had a lot to do with "really [getting] Islamic terror going" in the region. We also had a lot to do with putting Saddam in power all those years ago. Ditto the Shah of Iran (both times helping the overthrow of democratically elected governments, if I'm not mistaken). Seems we're always having to clean up our own messes these days. Maybe we (as a nation) should try to learn more lessons from our own history. One might be that extended occupations can weaken a superpower. Another might be that we should expect our rivals/enemies to assist the insurgency in covert ways should we choose to ignore the first.

My personal recollection is that another superpower sent their CIA and "military advisors" into Afghanistan and surrounding areas to recruit, train, arm, and support "crazy jihadis", who were deemed to be ideal patsies who could easily be convinced to fight the "infidel invaders" who were occupying the Islamic country, in order to fight a proxy war against it's cold-war enemy on the cheap. Now, who could that other superpower be? Aside from leaving out this important detail, you may be right.

Sure, we helped. Bad decision, but hey...it was all about the Cold War back then. Enemy of your enemy is your friend and all that jazz...

But, I'm not pulling this example out of my ass here. That's what Binny Laden himself has said on many occasions.... you want to trace back to the roots of 21st century terror, you'll find them resting under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Sure, we helped. Bad decision, but hey...it was all about the Cold War back then. Enemy of your enemy is your friend and all that jazz...

Yep, it "seemed like a good idea at the time"...

you want to trace back to the roots of 21st century terror, you'll find them resting under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

If this is so, it makes me wonder what seeds we're planting with our occupations in the ME, and what will take root as a result?

Freeman: No, it *was* a good idea, and it worked, it just had some unforseen consequences. If you want to get really blunt, 9/11 was a small price to pay to prevent WW3. Could we have picked a better path through the Middle East in retrospect? Yeah, probably. But given what we knew as the time, we did pretty well.

The mistake we made was pulling up our stakes when the Soviets did. We should have aided a moderate warlord to power in Afghanistan to stabilize the situation.

ahhhh hindsight....

"Australia is dedicating an enormous portion of their resources towards fighting this war."

Well, look, to be honest I don't think we're making an enormous contribution. I'd say we're doing more for morale and unit than the actual fighting. But it's not a meaningless gesture either. We had on the ground SF in Iraq during the invasion, in combat before pretty much before anyone else was engaged. We've sent aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles, money.. it's not something you can easily dismiss. But I think we could afford ot do a lot more. However, I doubt most Australians would agree with me (maybe, say, 30%) which limits his options. He doesn't want to piss off TOO many people spending our money on something which won't have an immediate payoff when there are other areas that money is needed such as the public hospital system.

So, I agree we could and should contribute more, but I don't think that makes him a hypocrite because we're making a reasonable contribution and we really do think there's a threat not just to us and our allies but civilians in the Middle East who really don't deserve to live under a dictator or in a guerilla war zone.

"And Nicholas' quote, "Who cares who the terrorists are?" goes directly to the heart of the matter. This lack of care and basic understanding of the region has led us to this quagmire."

Oh, I understand who we are fighting as well as any non-military member of the general public can, I think. That's not my point. My point is, who cares what their identity is, if their goal is totally unacceptable? If they attack us and their goal is for us all to be converted or to die, we fight back, be they Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Athiest, Hindu.. I just don't care. It's their deeds that matter, not their religion.

"Yep, it "seemed like a good idea at the time"..."

Hey, "political realism" sucks. That's what got us in this mess.. or at least, made it as bad as it is today. But that only answers the questions "how did we get here" and "what do we want to avoid in future".. it doesn't really answer "what should we be doing now" except in the negative (i.e. we don't want to arm random resistance groups lest they turn on us).

Anyway.. *sigh*.. I don't want to get into a scrap over this. I never voted for Howard, but he's doing the best job he can.. maybe he shouldn't have opened his trap in this case. But so far I haven't heard any compelling arguments that what he said is actually wrong.

These are complex problems we face, with complex solutions. The "run away" solution is simple and has proven time and time again to be the wrong one. Remember "peace in our time"? Remember "peace with honour"?

I prefer to rememeber the phrase "never again". It reminds me that sometimes you have to do difficult and unpalatable things to avoid even greater horrors. I don't want to be one of the few left to say "I told you so" in 10 or 20 years when the situation has devolved precisely because we got sick of doing something about it and just ran home to mummy.

"....A proportional representation for Australia would be about 10,000 troops. If John Howard felt as strongly about winning in Iraq as George Bush does, don't you think he could commit more troops?"

He probably would if he had them to send. The aussie army is stretched beyond its current capability by working not just in Iraq but also East Timor, Solomons Islands, and Afghanistan, as well as a myriad of smaller peacekeeping missions in other places.

Massive instabilty in the places I just mentioned also requires what little is left to be kept in a semi-permament state of high readiness in case the local trouble spots go ballistic, as East Timor recently did, requiring a surge of aussie troops.

Oddly enough, the election of Obama would probably escalate the present war very quickly. Anyone who understands islamic fundametalism would probably realise that many in the fundamentalist orbit would see Obama as an apostate, so, if you think they hate us now....

"Yep, it "seemed like a good idea at the time"..."

Hey, "political realism" sucks. That's what got us in this mess.. or at least, made it as bad as it is today. But that only answers the questions "how did we get here" and "what do we want to avoid in future".. it doesn't really answer "what should we be doing now" except in the negative (i.e. we don't want to arm random resistance groups lest they turn on us).

First off - hey Nicholas, how ya been? Haven't seen you here in a while, nice to hear from you again.

"what do we want to avoid in future" (and now) was my point. And yes, I agree it's in the negative, but I still think it should be said. Case in point, I'm seeing a lot of reports that the US is giving some support to MEK in Iran. Same shit, different day, it seems. Shame, if true.

What should we be doing now? My opinion runs along the lines you can read about on this blog. Drop the interventionism, quit insisting on controlling the whole world (historically, has gone badly for those who tried, and we probably can't achieve it anyway), and guide foreign policy with the concepts of fair and honest trade - square-deal politics. Let other nations run themselves as they see fit, and reap their own rewards or consequences as a result. Lead by example, not force. Military is for self-defense (and no more stretching the definition of this).

Just my opinion, for what it's worth to ya!

Actually, this post from the blog I linked to is more to the point I was making.