|
September 10, 2004
There are two myths created by the Australian neo-conservatives concerning the consequences of Australia's involvement in the Iraqi war. These are: that terrorist activity would be weakened as a result of the war in Iraq; and that Australia has not become a greater terrorist target because of our participation in the invasion of a sovereign country.
Both have been laid to rest by yesterday's events: Jemaah Islamiah's bomb attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta. This is a direct terrorist attack against Australian interests, and Jemaah Islamiah has warned of more spectacular bombing of soft targets, unless Australia withdraws its forces from Iraq. It is a very clear message.
Moir
Not for the neocons, such as Tony Parkinson, whose job it is to support the war by fostering myths. Parkinson's response is this:
"Yet still the concept of blowback clouds the debate about how best to respond...How soon will we hear that the Jakarta bomb is a vicious retort to the Howard Government's support for war in Iraq? This is a familiar refrain. After each atrocity, a similar pattern of argument emerges: that Spanish commuters paid for their government's folly in Iraq.... This business of attributing culpability to the targets of terror, directly or indirectly, is obnoxious. Worse, it leads into a metaphysical funk: paralysis via analysis."
The concept of blowback clouds the debate? It leads to metaphysical funk? This strikes me as incoherence. Parkinson's article is a covering up that dumps all terrorists into the one bag, and ignores the historical contexts of various conflicts. Parkinson points to, and supports, the neo-con view of an endless world war against terrorism and needing to do whatever it takes to prevail.
What Parkinson's neo-con "explanation" avoids is what Australia has done by intervening in Iraq. Parkinson says that the terrorists with malevolent intent are busy marking that milestone of the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks in blood and misery. The malevolent intent is spelt out by The Australian: the terrorists hate us and everything Australia stands for (ie., our democracy, the prosperity of our economy and our lifestyle). The neo-con explanation is the clash of civilizations. Their message is that we must stand strong and firm. No appeasement.
But why dismiss what Jemaah Islamiah says? What they say is rational: the decision to involve Australia in the invasion and occupation of Iraq has raised Australia's profile as a terrorist target. For them it is about what Australia has done, not what it is. Why fog that in Australia? Why pretend that account is nonsense, mad or irrational?
Why dismiss the idea of blowback as irrelevant? Isn't that kneejerk dismissal a flight from reality into myth by the neo-cons? Isn't saying that 'the terrorists hate us because we love freedom' less rational than saying JI bombed our embassy in Jakarta because we are supporting the Americans fighting and killing Muslims in Iraq? Have we not known since 2001 that Australia is a target of the global terrorism network? Osama bin Laden said as much. And we have known since 2002 that Jemaah Islamiah, which is the leading local affiliate of al-Qaeda, has Australia in its sights.
Iraq was a turn into a side alley since Al Quaeda and Jemaah Islamiah were not there in a military sense. Iraq was a bad call.
The consequences of blowback this time is that it is the Indonesians rather than Australians who have suffered the most. That is the tragedy. It is Indonesians, who opposed the military intervention in Iraqi, who are paying for Australia's involvement in the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. Presumably, this will both renew the revulsion within the Islamic community to the terrorist bombing tactics of Jemaah Islamiah, and undermine JI's efforts to achieve its goal of moving towards an Islamic state for Indonesia. Does it not mean that the support base for the Jemaah Islamiah groups inside Indonesia will shrink?
Australia should leave Iraq. It has no business in that country.The US military strike in Iraq is part of an tough guy, no nonsense US imperial foreign policy to establish a bigger physical presence in the Middle East. Australia's strategic interests are within the Asia Pacific Rim region, not fighting Iraqi nationalists in the Middle East, or supporting the neo-cons global Pax Americana to maintain and extend America’s unrivaled global dominance.
Of course, the tragedy in Iraq now undercuts American Greatness: US forces cannot stay without provoking further hostility; but neither can they leave precipitately without risking more serious civil strife. However Australian forces can leave, as they play no significant military role.
I expect both political parties are going to muscle up on national security and war after these events.
|
Thesis :
Complete Rebuttal