Kevin Rudd's announcement for a phased withdrawal from Iraq lacked all the pizzazz of Mark Latham's "troops home by Christmas" pledge.
It is the clear difference in style between the two men.
Latham was reckless and headlines-driven. Rudd is presenting himself as considered. Yet the costs of each of their pledges carry similar weight.
The difference is only in style.
Rudd has committed to a phased withdrawal of Australian troops. He will not be drawn on exact deadlines. Doing so is akin to passing the ball to John Howard when he is in full view of the goal posts.
Rudd acknowledged yesterday that deadlines would simply provide insurgents with a time line. Howard would also find some evidence that the Iraqi administration or the US Government says they are unrealistic.
But does Rudd's ambiguous withdrawal statement alleviate him of responsibility for the consequences of his commitment? They are significant.
He can't take the easy way out by saying he is "not in the business of providing a rolling external commentary". Sorry buddy, when you are the alternative prime minister you are.
It is impossible to predict what will occur if Australia and the US withdraw before stability has been achieved.
The suggestion that the insurgency will disappear is naive. It is more likely to turn the country into a bloodbath as US Ambassador Robert McCallum told the National Press Club this week.
Few are prepared to dispute this. Yet Rudd needs to justify the likely number of Iraqi deaths. He may argue that they are not responsible because they did not start the war.
This is true. However, Labor does purport to have a plan to end it.
If withdrawal is his option, he should defend the likely body count -- in line with the expectations he places on the Prime Minister.
As the alternative prime minister, the consequences of his policies, not just the rhetoric, matter. And the body count could be much higher on withdrawal.
Insurgents knew that the more they killed US troops, the weaker the Coalition forces would become.
The US mid-term election results and recent Australian polls show they are right. After withdrawal, insurgents will just redirect that energy to Iraqis of influence to increase their control.
The insurgents' battle is about getting America out and dictating who will subsequently gain control.
Even if Iraq were not the epicentre of the War on Terror at the invasion, it is now. The continued US presence provides impetus for insurgents from inside Iraq and neighbouring countries to maintain their fight.
Withdrawal is embarrassing to the US and damages its resolve to exercise its authority internationally.
Withdrawal will also hasten US action in future conflicts, even those they did not invite, despite the global expectation the US should use its military might to enforce resolutions in conflicts outside its borders.
Withdrawal will be akin to handing the country over to insurgents and their cause. The outcome will be to create a new shelter for training terrorists that was lost with the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Long-term consequences for Australian, British and American security will be dire. Terrorists will have found a new safe haven from which to launch their attacks.
In the short term, US and British troops may stop dying, but it will come at the long-term expense of citizens from Western countries at home and travelling abroad.
Should the US withdraw, there will be a void of authority in Iraq.
Rudd's phased withdrawal announcement is understandable. He is not going to be skewered in the same way Latham was. Howard is expected to quantify and justify the cost of his war policy. This obligation extends to Rudd as well.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment