|
October 15, 2006
Iraq is an unpopular war in the US, UK and Australia. Australian troops are not repelling invaders from our borders. They are far overseas waging a 'war on terror'. The national interest case for their doing so depends on the assumption that they pre-empt future terrorist threats.That assumption is questionable. It could be argued that Australia's foreign policy over the last few years has reinforced a sense of insecurity, fear and isolation within some of our own communities.
We increasingly realize that utopian schemes for imposing democracy in Iraq, which would then become a beacon lighting the way for pro-western reform in the region, are a neo-con fantasy. We have developed an awareness that government politicians have glossed over a disaster in which the fate of Iraqis grows ever more hideous.The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) assessment is bleak: the conflict has displaced 1.5 million people inside Iraq; a tide of refugees swells the 1.6 million living outside the country. The Lancet's estimate is 655,000 deaths since the conflict began.
I see that there has been a critique of the crisis in Iraq from the head of the British army---General Sir Richard Dannatt. He said in a newspaper interview that Britain should aim to withdraw troops from Iraq soon, that their presence in the country was, in some areas, a cause of violence not its remedy, and that the Army could be broken in Iraq. Strong words--'tis the language of politics.
Martin Rowson
In doing so Dannatt has questioned the strategy laid down by his political masters in Westminister. He actually accused Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, of being 'naive' in thinking the UK could install a liberal democracy in Iraq. It is a significant moemnt when the Chief of the General Staff publicly undermines the authority of the Prime Minister.
Dannatt makes the right call on this---there was a serious strategic failure in Iraq after the original military victory and there is a need for "a change of course" in the Iraq strategy. The US regime in Iraq failed to managed a successful reconstruction programme. That did not happen. All foreign troops are now deeply resented and the sectarian violence is akin to a civil war.
In voicing his views Dannatt is speaking for his own troops, who have been obliged to fight the Afghan and Iraq wars under-resourced in terms of manpower, paypackets or equipment. What we have is an increasingly stretched army and an open-ended troop commitment in Iraq could 'break' the army.
|
