|
February 17, 2003
Australian citizens are now marching against John Howard's war with Iraqi. The rainbow expressions of the carnival have been counterposed to the authoritarian logic of the US war machine.
The Prime Minister rejects the claim that it is his war. He was quoted on Radio National this morning as saying that he still does not believe those citizens who marched represent the majority view.
Mr Howard's account of the events, as has told Channel 9's 60 Minutes is that most Australians realise the need to deal with Iraq. In this interview John Howard says:
"The one constant in all the polls is that people think that Saddam Hussein has got dangerous weapons. They don't believe him and they think something ought to be done," he said.
"I don't think the mob, to use that vernacular, has quite made up its mind on this issue and it can't really make up its mind until we know what all the alternatives are."
The 'mob' Prime Minister? A Freudian slip? Democracy as the mob? That conservative language sits up a collision between the Australian government and Australian citizens. John Howard reinforces this when he adds that, "If my critics are listened to, the world will turn its back on the problem."
Really? Aren't the critics saying that the UN inspectors should be given more time and resources to do their work?
And those nation-states who are not convinced of the need for war by Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the National Security Council? What are they? Appeasers?
The Prime Minister says that we have to act on our obligations under the Anzus alliance even though the US is not attack. Why? Because 'there is only one country that can help with us to guarantee our security and that is the US.'
Prime Minister, are you saying that we ought to go to war with Iraq for the sake of a special (insurance) relationship between Australia and the US?.
I thought that we go to war when Australia's security threatened? Now it is threatened by the threat of violence and terror that is borderless. But how does Iraq fit into this?
It is based on a series of risks---what ifs---says the Prime Minister:
"....when you know that a country has chemical and biological weapons and wants nuclear ones, when you know it is like Iraq, when you know that, if they are not disarmed, others will aspire to do the same, and when you know that the more they have them, the more likely it is that terrorists will get hold of those weapons, you've got to do something and, if you don't, I think you could end up paying a much greater price further down the track."
This is authoritarian logic. That is why there is only a faint hope for peace in this mantra. It is the sheer mediocrity of the arguments that is what is most amazing. And the evidence presented is unconvincing according to the standards of presenting evidence in a court of law.
Why? Why the poor script?
Howard has locked himself into the trajectory of the war machine and he has no control over it. He has little choice now. So he is forced to ride the groundswell of public opinion and confront it with the closed universe of an authoritarian logic. That logic now sounds like a crazy parody in the hands of some of our media commentators. In contrast, the D'hage report's 'View from Istanbul' has its feet grounded in a conversation in civil society.
|
I totally agree with you. Paul Sheehan's logic is completely perverted. It is instructive of how weak his argument is that he resorts to asking futile questions that could so easily be reversed to attack his POV. Eg. What was PS doing when SH invaded Iraq/gassed the Kurds?
All debate has been poisoned since GWB came out with his most infamous Cowboyism: "You are either with US, or you are against US" Not much room for argument left is there? No wonder JWH and the conga line of suckholes (extending beyond the Liberal Party into the opinion pages and warblogs) are so infatuated with the man.