|
November 2, 2006
At the end of an important article in The Guardian on the failure of the British Parliament to challenge the executive Simon Jenkins comments:
Parliament at present regards Iraq much as does the cabinet, as an American problem which America must solve before Britain can do so. Blair has merely supplied an army to cover George Bush's diplomatic flank. If the present congressional inquiry can help get Bush off the hook, parliament hopes that it will do the same for Britain. This appears to be its strategy. I repeat, this is humiliating.
Gee, that is the case in Australia to isn't it.
Steve Bell
It's humilating that the Australian Parliament has not had a high-level inquiry into the war in Iraq. Are we are waiting for Washington to give us permission to hold Howard accountable for his Iraqi failure? What happens to our cheerleading for the Bush Adminsitration when the Republicans lose control of Congress? Howard is not exactly friends with the Democrats is he?
|
My guess is that Howard went into Iraq to just keep the Americans happy so that the US alliance didn't go down the bathroom. Hence the very low=level deployment of Australian forces compared to the UK or the US.
I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Of course, if we had an isolationist foreign policy, we wouldn't need to send troops on these wild goose chases after all. But a sensible debate on foreign policy in Australia is as likely as... the Parliament holding an inquiry on the Iraq war.