Over at Troppo, D. W. Griffiths (whose presence as a blogger I hadn’t noticed – he must be taking a break from being dead) questions when Howard and Downer will be held to account for Australia’s part in Iraq. I’m not convinced by the narrative that the Australian public don’t care or aren’t paying attention (recent polls have shown a similar collapse in support among Liberal voters as is evident in the States). But Griffiths seems to go along with the “Teflon John” theory that Howard hasn’t suffered politically over the war. I’m not sure about that, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Iraq was one of the factors that has helped the ALP stay in front in the polls for almost all of the last year. Just because Dennis Shanahan doesn’t spin it that way doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
I tend to think that the fact that the Government have been saying as little as possible about Iraq lately implies a recognition that public opinion in Australia does matter. We’re now spared the sort of grandiose and hyperbolic rhetoric that Downer used to specialise in when he was in his neocon phase. I think they’re well aware that people are distressed and angered by the chaos and suffering and want to squirm out of their “accountability momentâ€? through downplaying our involvement and responsibility. “Just don’t mention the war” appears to be the new PR watchword. And Howard is being pretty blatant in maintaining a largely pointless troop presence well away from the action while refusing to sign on bar lip service to Bush’s latest mad fantasy driven escalation.
I hope Labor starts running on it, but with the general “don’t frighten the horses� approach of the Ruddocracy, perhaps they’ll keep their heads down too.
I do wonder what Iraq has done to the “national security advantage� that the pundits used to tell us was the government’s strong suit. But maybe that argument lost in the American midterms along with the GOP.
‘Teflon John’ has signed on to the ’surge’ coming away from his holiday retreat to commend the Bush plan after a 20 minute phone call. Lord Downer of Baghdad can’t be far behind now, but obviously it wasn’t enough to leave reaction to stand in Mark Vaile who has said no more Australian trrops will be sent. Gee I hope the shine is coming off our Johnny who also said Bush hadn’t asked for more troops. Is that a signal of a coalition split?
The US PBS Newshour revealed a split between Bush spin about the surge all being requested by the Maliki Government in Baghdad when the NY Times man on the spot said quite the opposite. Johnny should be nervous.
So much for the fiction about the “sovereign Iraqi government”. Shouldn’t they be the ones asking or not asking Howard for troops not Bush?
Maliki’s got everything to lose from the surge – if the Americans really do try to “clear” Shi’ite areas, there goes his support base aka puppet masters – al-Sadr and co.
Indeed. Didn’t Maliki order the Americans out last time they tried to go into Sadr city?
I think he’d be scared shitless about the new “even handed” clearance thing. And about the fact the US will be clearing from the air. The whole place might end up looking a lot like Lebanon did last year, or the Gaza strip at the moment. It’s very likely that TEH SURGE will lead to al-Sistani letting loose the dogs of war, and the Shi’ite militias turning their attention to kicking the Americans out instead of killing, intimidating and ethnically cleansing Sunnis. Way to create two simultaneous insurgencies.
Well, Howard can’t even admit that Bush has admitted responsibility for mistakes that were made. In response to Bush’s speech, Howard said something like “He admitted that mistakes have been made”. Not surprising – after all, this is the man who last year averred that it would be in bad taste for him to disclose any doubts he may have had about Vietnam (if he had them at all). So if there is to be any accountability, the public certainly won’t get it on account of Howard’s own volition.
I agree with you, Mark, that there’s substantial ground here to be made by Labor. I’m not sure exactly what Rudd could have to be deeply worried about. If the Libs go with their “anti-American” slander, Rudd can easily outflank this by pointing to the fact – as Tim Dunlop has – that America |= Bush. Australia’s commitment to the US-Aus alliance need not require unquestioning commitment to the US’s bad foreign policy, and surely that’s a distinction almost every voter can make (and are making).
There are lots of ways in which the ALP could turn this to their advantage, and rebut any attacks. But I’m very pessimistic about the hyper caution the Ruddocracy is likely to show.
This is all I can find from the Ruddster so far:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/PM-backs-Bushs-new-Iraq-plan/2007/01/11/1168105101484.html
I’m afraid the first bit shows the instincts of a bureaucrat rather than of a pollie. I think this is one day when Beazley would have shown what he was capable of.
I’ve noticed that Government accountability is only a phenomenon that operates in the presence of a viable opposition.
Labor’s gross ineptitude is as much to blame for “Teflon John” as anything.
Mark, I think you are being a bit too tough on Rudd’s approach. At this stage, Rudd cannot afford to make even a minor mistake, particularly when it comes to ‘national security’.
Rudd has a ‘brand’ to build that is the complete opposite of Latham’s ‘off the cuff’ approach. Usually, oppositions like to throw political grenades using the unstated rationale of ‘no care no responsibility’.
Rudd will not go for the cheap shot. And IMHO, nor should he.
Rudd will attempt to corner Howard and tighten the vice, screw by screw. There will be no grenades, just a series of well prepared booby traps that will lock Howard in to particular and peculiar positions.
I don’t particularly like the ‘Rudd’ I worked with, but I do respect him. Unlike Latham, he is no intellectual lightweight and his energy is boundless. Actually, I pity his yet to be appointed staff.
Rudd should not be underestimated.
Surely any decent xtian-socialist worth their salt would be calling loudly now for a tactical retreat to the Murtha line, a strategic review and a call for a virtual summit of all interested parties around a virtual oval table.
That would be demonstrating leadership – we can’t simply ‘ hurry-up-and-wait’ before the new Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt battalions arive and clear-and-hold the entire theatre now can we?
wpd, well maybe so, and I hope so. Perhaps I’m being impatient. But on the other hand, there’s precious little time for Rudd to engage in long term strategy and image building. We might be six months out from polling day in a few weeks if Howard goes at the earliest feasible time. And for a lot of that time unless the message is articulated clearly, people won’t be listening. He’s got a small window of opportunity to establish what he stands for, I think. And I don’t think he’s done it yet.
All this flows from the danger of changing leaders just before a campaign. In political terms, that’s where we’re at.
To be clearer, he may have established the fact that he’s “not Latham” and “not scary” but those are necessary but not sufficient conditions for winning. If the “we’ve only got some ideas at the moment, we’re looking into it” phase continues for much longer, he’s toast unless Howard loses the election for him. “I haven’t been briefed yet” isn’t a good sign, and it’s something we’ve heard from him a lot. Sure, he doesn’t have to react like an excitable lunatic ala Latho, but surely he’s leader and politician enough to get a stance out there on the spot.
Sure Alex. Just recall the caning in the media (especially in shockjock land) that Labor got when Mark Latham dared to suggest troops home by Christmas (oops, there goes that phrase again, what is it with those people?). Where’s the ineptitude?
Ladies and gentlemen, note the change in rhetoric. First it was “cut and run”, the less negative “stay the course”, now it’s “surge”. Note how each time the new buzzword comes out, Alex is into it like a rate up a drainpipe.
I predict that Costello will move away from Downer at some date in the future, in the way in Robocop those Omni Products Corporation board members moved away from their fellow exec when he was in the sights of the Robocop cyborg Mk 1.
I think it will get much nastier very quickly.
I think the two main difficulties are that the US now intends to “clear� Shi’ite areas and this risks both the implosion of the Maliki government and temporarily uniting all or most of the militias/factions against the Americans.
Secondly, the new strategy is urban guerilla warfare – the US (and perhaps Iraqi) troops will be “holdingâ€? areas that are “clearedâ€? – the problem being that they are unlikely to be in any real sense unless they are destroyed. And throwing air power – ie helicopters and missiles into the equation which is part of the surge strategy is going to cause much more destruction and loss of life than the current strategy. Thus parts of Baghdad will most likely come to resemble Lebanon last year or the Gaza Strip now – and that will be exponentially more destructive of life and limb and produce much worse tv pictures.
Sir Henry – Being in the bush, I’m fortunately immune to the ranting of the shock jocks, though I guess I’m silly to forget their influence.
One more thing. Tonight on the 7.30 report I heard an excerpt from Bush Jnr’s “surge” speech. I noticed he was holding the Iraqi government accountable by saying something like – If the Iraq administration fails to come to terms with insurgents, then they can no longer rely on support from the US.
Brilliant tactics by the dubya. If the situation continues to deteriorate, then a graceful exit can be politically justified by blaming the Iraqi government.
Mark your comment that:
is only valid when applied to insiders such as yourself in my opinion. I believe that Rudd still has some way to go to ‘brand’ himself as ‘non-scary’; particularly among ’swinging’ voters where elections as you know are won or lost.
Already, we have seen all sorts of attempts to paint Rudd as the ‘radical’ ranging from the ‘dam buster’ to the ’social democrat’.
‘I haven’t been briefed’ and therefore should not make irresponsible comments can stand in sharp contrast to Howard and Downer et. al. who were briefed but didn’t remember or didn’t recall.
Integrity, honesty, propriety, truth telling, god fearing, and so on, will, I suspect, be a feature of Rudd’s brand.
The ninemsn vote today (Jan 11) is ‘Should Australian troops be withdrawn from Iraq?’ At 10pm, the vote stands roughly at 32,600 saying Yes, 12,200 saying No. I know this isn’t necessarily representative of anything, but my guess is that it’s a true manifestation of public feeling on the issue. I agree Mark that Howard et al will know from their own polls the unease people feel about involvement in Iraq. But I also agree that they’ve been let off the hook by the ALP, although the media (especially Murdoch’s) are even more guilty of not holding this government to account.
Mark I think you are being retrospectively romantic about what Beazley would have said. I’ve seen Rudd interviewed about Iraq many times, not least during the last election campaign, and he always struck me as strong on the issue, whereas I always suspected that Beazley, left to his own devices, would have supported the Americans too (‘too’ meaning along with the British).
When you say “I think it will get much nastier very quickly”, is it possible for it to get any nastier? Air power is already being used.
There is no acountability in Labors scumbag monologist, Marxist, mass government Leftoid secret agenda post 2007.
Down with Labor.
Down with abortion.
I’ve still got an open mind about Rudd, wpd, even if it doesn’t always seem that way
You might be right about the Beazer, suz. But I don’t know there’s that much difference between him and Rudd on this one – both would have supported war if the UN Security Council had been able to be brought round to approving it, but I just get the impression that sort of process issue is what galls Rudd whereas I think Beazley started to feel very passionately the whole enterprise was wrong and counter-productive.
I think the key thing in Bush’s speech is changing the rules of engagement.
surely the only solution to iraq for the incoming dems and the incoming labor govt (sorry hopelessly optimistic) is to crank up the UN again.
the dems and labor should be putting out policies on how to best quickly reform the joint in readiness for the carve up of Iraq into 3 states with the security council, all middle east players (even the evil ones) israel, and representatives from the 3 groups – shiite, sunni and kurd working through the issues.
there is no end to this war otherwise – there is no happy little Iraq after this 30 years of pure hell and a few more, just to add insult to injury.
surely the only solution to iraq for the incoming dems and the incoming labor govt (sorry hopelessly optimistic) is to crank up the UN again.
the dems and labor should be putting out policies on how to best quickly reform the joint in readiness for the carve up of Iraq into 3 states with the security council, all middle east players (even the evil ones) israel, and representatives from the 3 groups – shiite, sunni and kurd working through the issues.
there is no end to this war otherwise – there is no happy little Iraq after this 30 years of pure hell and a few more, just to add insult to injury.
re: Mr Howard – this is a bloke who went to vietnam this year, and said the war was justified…irrespective of what opinions you have on the vietnam war, you dont stand in their country, where millions have died and say it, like it was some pathetic partisan alp-lib branch stacking stoush. he’s an embarrassment to humanity, not just australia.
damn, double paste disaster. must be time for bed…
“I agree with you, Mark, that there’s substantial ground here to be made by Labor. I’m not sure exactly what Rudd could have to be deeply worried about.”
What Rudd has to be careful about is kneejerk responses to what could quickly become the Clash of Civilisations. As a serious contender for leader of this country he has to take a sober long term approach to Iraq, because waiting in the wings is Afghanistan, that other Axis of Evil Iran and the possibility of nuclear Pakistan falling into Islamist hands. This scenario needs cool heads and Rudd is wise to keep his. wpd is right that Rudd can afford to slowly toast Howard over Iraq and not overplay his hand here. He needs to assume he will be PM after the next election and will inherit the status quo, not some esoteric leftist wish list. If Iraq falls, your precious UN Afghanistan is next and only a Sunni/Shia conflagration across the ME will stave off the rising threat of Islam for the West then. Iran is making a power play now and noone should be optimistic they’ll back away from going nuclear. The West is not going to let that happen and Bush is clearing the decks in Iraq for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities later this year. Notice the Nov deadline for Iraqis. That’s no masterstroke just pragmatic reality. Get your shit together quickly Iraqis, because we’re off to take care of that other Axis of Evil real soon.
Accountability? What accountability? By the time anyone gets serious about accountability, Howard, Downer and that mob will have the lot of you believing that the lack of a great victory and the dearer petrol are all the fault of the Australian troops serving in Iraq.
Link http://ungrateful-troublemaker.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-howard-will-ditch-war-veterans.html
Alex said
Can’t disagree with that.
I really think more work has to be done in separating Australia’s interest in Iraq from that of the US. What applies to Bush and the Americans does not necessarily apply to Australia. They have more skin in that game than we do and they have the capacity to be decisive in a way that we don’t.
All of which could also be taken to show that Rudd ought to press Howard on Iraq.
Surely Rudd has every right to go straight back to Simon whatshisname who bravely opposed Australian involvement – even going dockside to tell departing troops it was nothing personal. Okay it may no longer be Labor policy but with two rounds of the Beazer and one of mad Mark between, who can remember exactly what ALP policy was. I agree that Beazley would have acquiesed to the new Bush surge, but Rudd should be looking at that decisive poll and reminding the public of Simon …you know who I mean.
And Australian troops should be in the region if and when this batshit crazy scenario becomes reality?
Howard’s visit to Viet-Nam didn’t impress me either Jo
Link http://ungrateful-troublemaker.blogspot.com/2006/11/long-tan-john-howard-and-vietnam.html
“Over at Troppo, D. W. Griffiths (whose presence as a blogger I hadn’t noticed – he must be taking a break from being dead) questions when Howard and Downer will be held to account for Australia’s part in Iraq”
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
Is this building on the groundwork of all these leftist lies or WHAT?
Make an accounting for yourself!
“If the “we’ve only got some ideas at the moment, we’re looking into itâ€? phase continues for much longer, he’s toast unless Howard loses the election for him.”
But the opposition always was toast — and will be toast — unless and until the Liberals screw up badly or the economy goes south. I mean no criticism of Labor or Rudd with that comment. I have been quite impressed with what I’ve seen of Rudd so far.
But in a low unemployment, (relatively) low inflation economy, with a very experienced and comfortable PM, regarded as “safe” by the electorate, there is no conceivable way for Labor to snatch victory by themselves.
The task for Labor is to position themselves as a safe and conservative choice for the electorate in response to a Government stumble. That stumble might be an unpopular replacement for Howard, some major corruption scandal (i.e. more damaging than the AWB affair), or a sudden and large rise in unemployment. Iraq simply doesn’t count unless there are significant Australian casualties, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
The launching of the Iraq war generated protests throughout Australia — and yet didn’t seem to have any impact on the Federal election a year later. With the heat and energy of the anti-war movement considerably less now than in 2003, Iraq will surely have even less impact in the next election.
Oh goody, Birdy’s flapping about.
I once shot two ducks within 20 seconds, each from a barrel of the same 20 gauge shottie and would love repeat this feat online.
Unfortunately Birdy’s presented a very small and more incoherent target than usual so far on this thread.
I will now absorb some 18 year old Bowmore single malt, play Led Zep’s ‘Physical Graffiti’ loudly and attempt to flush Birdy out with a few choice beater crackery stuff.
The CIA is NOT staffed by leftists.
Saddam was NOT responsible for 9/11.
Kruschev and Castro did NOT organise to blow apart JFK’s skull.
Drunken aliens DID play around with the DNA of the sheep that often shared Birdy’s ancestral home in Aotearoa.
Now that should make Birdy take wing.
“But in a low unemployment, (relatively) low inflation economy, with a very experienced and comfortable PM, regarded as “safeâ€? by the electorate, there is no conceivable way for Labor to snatch victory by themselves.”
That’s about it really. You’ll never become a highly paid MSM pundit Paulus because you get to the point too quickly.
[Pssst, Nabakov, if those don't work, mention how excellent Keynesian economic policy has been and how the only fault of modern monetary policy is that credit is too hard to obtain. Those topics got Birdy going for what must literally have been hundreds of posts on Catallaxy.]
Oh stop it Paulus you big tease. I’m already trying to flush Birdy out – while currently inspired by John Bonham’s drumming on “Custard Pie”. Fuck he was good. Only Charlie Watts was a better white rock drummer.
But I may need to borrow your Lenin duck call to make Birdy really take wing.
NEP! Electricity! NEP! NEP!
I assume my previous comment here (the one that mentioned “army boots” and extreme maternal engagements) got yanked because the Bird parody bits were a little bit too realistic.
That’s cool. I can live with that. But I would like some kind of “comment removed” notificatian that I can pin on my chest alongside the Very Cross Victoria, the Medal of Horror, the Pour le Mérde and the Disgusting Service Cross.
Nabakov: “currently inspired by John Bonham’s drumming on “Custard Pieâ€?. Fuck he was good. Only Charlie Watts was a better white rock drummer.”
Oooch, now that’s opening up a can of worms! I reckon the mighty Keith Moon and the serpentine, precise, and ‘polutropon’ Bill Bruford might have a thing or two to say in dissent… Tho’ I suppose Moon is more of a great stylist than a great go-to man (Mo Tucker and John ‘Drumbo’ French also come to mind in that category). As a perpetual fan of underdogs, I’ll cast my vote for the vastly under-rated George Hurley of the Minutemen.
But at the end of the day, if you remove ‘white’ and ‘rock’ from your conditions, you’re inevitably left with the sublime Tony Williams and Elvin Jones. Time to spin ‘Nefertiti’ once again…..
nabs – surely mitch mitchell would feature in yr great white brit drummer lineup…..
Hey Keith Moon was crazed, brillantly majestic and touched by the Gods (mainly by Hephaestus for a tenner, a couple of fags and that hot chick’s phone number), Bill Bruford basically invented the late 20th century funk rock jazz art drum chair and Tony Williams is of course only and never anyone else but Tony Williams.
But Watts and Bonham consistantly and relentessly played to a brillant peak as the engine rooms of the two bands that defined white boy rock. They weren’t virtuosos (well yes they were), they were essential to epoch shivering sounds.
Sly Dunbar belongs in another conversation altogther.
Fuck me sychonristy at work again my itunes just threw up Sly and Robbie doing the Pete Gunn theme. Scuse me while I kiss the Lambsbreath, mon.
And hey Mo Tucker played drums like a Galveston tug boat pilot – thoughtful, precise, and with one eye always on the money, the other on the shore. And standing up as the song docked.
Nabakov — that’s quite a prose-poem in praise of Mo. Robert Creeley and Su Tung-p’o would be green with envy.
“Sly Dunbar belongs in another conversation altogther.”
You are speaking, I presume, of Mister Aynsley?
FLO & EDDIE: Some men say he could DANCE!
ZAPPA: They said he could dance,
And of course, they were right.
Ladies and gentlemen,
This is it: The Studebaker Hoch Dancing Lesson
And Cosmic Prayer for Guidance,
Featuring Mr. Aynsley Dunbar. Hit it!
(And, of course, they hit it.)
“You are speaking, I presume, of Mister Aynsley?”
Fuck no – Sly ain’t no caspar.
Talking ’bout him a half of the riddim twins.
http://slyrob.3va.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sly_Dunbar
You may recall Miss Grace Jones pulling up to the bumper in her long black limousine. Sly and Robbie were the engine and gearbox for that one – as they were for the several Grace Jones waxings they found the time to work on in between Bob Marley and Bob Dylan.
And then they fuckin all dat wid their own shit going 2. Some of which does not settle well on my own palate but there’s not doubting mon that Sly and Robbie are simply an A1 shit hot motherfucking rhythm cruise crew for all time.
Just go jpz to first link I proffered above and download Sly and Robbie’s version of “We Are Family” and listen to that utterly crisp yet funky drumbeat. Kinda like Charlie Watts if he was black on the outside too.
Or alternately play “Pull Up To The Bumper” LOUD! That’s Robbie’s brillant bass solo in the middle eight, nailed down by Sly’s crispy funky sticks.
Is it tomorrow, or just the end of time?
‘Scuse me, while I kiss the lambsbreath mon, with my man, mitch. hello!!
sly & robbie, like a stepping razor, they’re dangerous.
But what continues to astonish is Downer’s blithering about the Dem ascendancy keeping its fingers out of Iraq planning – has the fool failed to notice that these people will be chairing every House Committee that will be deciding US policies for at least the next six years? That Bush is being deserted by his own rats in a swarm of self-preserving terror? The accountability the Aust electorate can correctly call Howard & Co for is their stubborn, stupid refusal to shut up and quietly, diplomatically sit on the sidelines, until such time as the political landscape is clear – but instead, their continued playground buddy routine with Bush renders them ridiculous in the international community, and ensures that Aust relations with the US, certainly post Bush, will be difficult, and given to a certain vindictiveness. Just watch what the Ag House Committee does with the AWB. & I suspect Aust car exports to the US are suddenly going to have some compliance issues, say in the emissions area that haven’t applied before.
If Rudd was looking for anything to hang his Iraqi creds on – taking a neutral, thoughtful non-aligned possie over US foreign policy would be a bloody good start. Howard & Downer have left themselves very very vulnerable.
Good going, Nabs — flushed out a completely different (and much more endearing) breed of bird, and with a throwaway aside, too. A more entertaining (and much more coherent) exchange ensued than anything you would have got out of Teh Bird, but why has no-one mentioned Steve Gadd?
Obs: I think you need to look up the word ‘axis’.
Rudd will not go for the cheap shot. And IMHO, nor should he. – wpd
Wrong, wrong, wrong – Rudd and his followers have to realise he is Opposition Leader, not an Ambassador or Departmental Secretary. A good opposition leader doesn’t miss the chance of a telling shot, cheap or otherwise. Can you imagine the use Keating would have made of all this? Or Gough? Or Costello? Even Latham, with the advantage of being dead right both publicly and privately (unlike Beazley and Rudd) on the issue from the start, would have landed blows.
And the government’s performance on this issue really has been material for a cruel lampooning. It’s something that doesn’t come easy for Rudd the natural bureaucrat, but if he wants to become PM he should learn how to – fast.
It’s a weakness of democracy that the best natural PMs aren’t the best natural opposition leaders and vice versa. The former requires the attributes of a judge, the latter of a barrister.