Brandon GayAustralia should send more troops to Iraq
January 10th 2007 14:02
If John Howard is to be believed he should be offering George Bush, in the wake of the presidents "Strategy for Iraq" speech (where he is expected to announce the commitment of more troops upwards of 20 000), to send more troops to help the US President’s plan to overwhelm the militias and insurgents in Baghdad and remove them from there
.
John Howard has made much of the Labor policy of withdrawal of troops accusing them of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq.
He bases this on his belief that regardless of why and how we got involved in Iraq that now we are their we cannot just leave them to fend for themselves.
He argues to leave Iraq would be seen as a victory for Islamic terrorist and insurgent forces and would lead to a total collapse of any order there still is in Iraq. This would on the face of it seem to be a logical argument that most people could easily recognise.
Where his argument falls down is in his actual commitment to Iraq.
If he really believes that what is needed to restore Iraq lies in the strategy of his good friend and buddy George Bush then he should firmly stand with him and commit more numbers to help implement the strategy.
One can be sure though that this will not happen.
Howard knows full well things are not going well in Iraq and that there is a general feeling that Iraq is spiralling out of control. He has been lucky that there has been no deaths or serious injuries by troops already stationed there and this has kept much of the criticism at bay. Was he to increase troop numbers and suffer some casualties he would be under enormous pressure both from outside and within his own party to withdraw.
This would appear to be an area of Howard’s Iraq policy that could be exploited by Rudd and his Labor colleagues.
If Howard feels it is ok to criticise Labor for proposing to withdraw the question can be reasonably asked if Howard believes so strongly in the U.S. Iraq strategy then why is he not fully supporting it by helping to bolster numbers?
.
John Howard has made much of the Labor policy of withdrawal of troops accusing them of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq.
He bases this on his belief that regardless of why and how we got involved in Iraq that now we are their we cannot just leave them to fend for themselves.
He argues to leave Iraq would be seen as a victory for Islamic terrorist and insurgent forces and would lead to a total collapse of any order there still is in Iraq. This would on the face of it seem to be a logical argument that most people could easily recognise.
Where his argument falls down is in his actual commitment to Iraq.
If he really believes that what is needed to restore Iraq lies in the strategy of his good friend and buddy George Bush then he should firmly stand with him and commit more numbers to help implement the strategy.
One can be sure though that this will not happen.
Howard knows full well things are not going well in Iraq and that there is a general feeling that Iraq is spiralling out of control. He has been lucky that there has been no deaths or serious injuries by troops already stationed there and this has kept much of the criticism at bay. Was he to increase troop numbers and suffer some casualties he would be under enormous pressure both from outside and within his own party to withdraw.
This would appear to be an area of Howard’s Iraq policy that could be exploited by Rudd and his Labor colleagues.
If Howard feels it is ok to criticise Labor for proposing to withdraw the question can be reasonably asked if Howard believes so strongly in the U.S. Iraq strategy then why is he not fully supporting it by helping to bolster numbers?
| 47 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
When the world is overtaken by militant muslims will you still be complaining about Bush and Howard.