At Surfdom, Ken Lovell writes that Howard’s decision to send an additional 70 Australian troops to Iraq makes no apparent sense. Ken does concede that the decision can only be political, contradicting as it does many of the Dear Leader’s previous statements (but when has that ever stopped him?):
But of course it’s fantasy to think the decision’s got anything to do with the welfare of Iraqis. As soon as it was announced Howard was getting stuck into Kevin Rudd for opposing it. Except that seems pointless too, because the polls suggest the majority of Australians agree with Rudd.
But it’s not pointless at all.
Howard knows that the commitment to Iraq is deeply unpopular. What he’s fashioning is a weapon to use against the “phased withdrawal” strategy recently lauded by Rudd and Labor foreign affairs shadow Robert McLelland. That’s premissed on setting benchmarks for the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, and progressively withdrawing combat troops. The number of troops fall, but a rapid response deployment is still possible to support Iraqi forces. This is the Iraq Study Group proposal, embodied in legislation proposed by Barack Obama.
Hence the trap for Rudd - Rudd’s argument is premissed on the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own security. Howard can now point to an inconsistency in Rudd’s position. Rudd, he argues, opposes measures which seek to achieve just that.
Howard doesn’t care that his own position is unpopular. It’s a clear message, and it’s supposed to reinforce his image as a leader prepared to take a decisive stand in the face of public opinion if he thinks it’s right. He’s trying to fragment Labor’s position on Iraq, taking advantage of the opening Rudd gave him by talking up consultation with the Americans, as opposed to Beazley’s “just get the troops out” stand. The Obama debate last week also put pressure on Rudd to articulate his own position on Iraq, which he’s now done. This is an outcome Howard welcomes, as he’s now found the wedge he was looking for.
The comparisons with Simon Crean made last week are an object lesson. Howard’s strategy is to paint Rudd as having a confused and contradictory position. Crean lost much credibility among anti-war voters through having a complex take. Howard’s game plan is to trap Rudd between appearing “responsible” on national security and muddying the antiwar message. If this wedge works, it could knock some primary vote support off Labor, as left voters return to the Greens. It’s also no coincidence that the government have been highlighting Rudd’s “all things to all people” approach, pointing to his rightward moves on a large range of issues. Howard’s hope will be that as Rudd moves right to try to win over swinging voters, the ALP’s base and the left will start to bleed off Labor. Expect more moves in this direction from the Dear Leader.
Despite the polls, this election ain’t over by a long shot.
The other political benefits are a sop for Cheney, and probably blowing water off the front pages at a time when, as Chris Sheil suggests, water is Rudd’s message of the week.
It’s a cunning play. “Rat cunning” is an expression which springs to mind.
Oh, a wedge. Who could have possibly seen that coming?
Perhaps Kevin could do much worse that read Glenn Greenwald’s account [link] (second item down) of an interview with retired general William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and head of Army intelligence.
Some snippets:
Entire interview here [link] It’s a hoot.
… he’s now found the wedge he was looking for.
Can’t see this at all. Rudd has already promised to provide more training as part of the combat troop withdrawal package. Looks like Howard has punched himself in the face again, for mine (and appears to have rushed the announcement out early to avoid looking like it is in response to the Veep).
Fair points, Mark. This move by Howard also serves to maintain momentum through the months for his use of the imagery of being a wartime PM. That imagery holds a basis for all sorts of pushes and shoves. It could be argued that the more unpopular Howard’s warlike strivings are, the more successful they may be electorally: illusions of strength, heightened fear, emotional leveraging off troops, etc.
It’s an early call, and Howard can ramp it up or let it be: the addition of troops arguably electorally affects those who have decided one way or another, hence does no harm (sick as it is).
It’s so irksome the response is to want to have Rudd go Howard, for all it’s worth, on the rank opportunism of it - but unless it strikes at the heart that merely heightens the effect Howard is wanting. Treated with gentle contempt, Howard might yet get to stew in it.
It stinks, but we’ve a long, long way to the bottom, yet.
ps. it also serves as attempt to show Howard is not kicked around by Cheney, by pre-empting any considered upcoming public request by the latter, and claiming it as Howard’s own. Howard can now deflect any Cheney remarks onto his ‘decisive’ stance.
It’s pretty tame, really, and probably necessary from Howard’s point of view. The guts of where Howard is headed with this is yet to unfold.
Mark
Fair points, but Rudd is made of stuff that blimps like Beazley and Crean could only ever dream about (memo to the ALP. Drop the nepotism!). Howard may land a few nicks here and there, put out a few fires over there, but if Rudd plays his cards right, he has the stuff to tap into Australia’s barely latent rage towards Howard’s lies and cynical bandaid approach to policy.
May we all live in interesting times!
I’m not necessarily saying this is a brilliant political move by Howard or anything, just trying to tease out what I think his strategy is.
A sound analysis. The real hope is that, after 11 years of Howard, lefty voters decide that the only real hope of getting rid of him is to vote for a Rudd they’re disappointed with and get a Labor Govt, rather than vote for the Greens and get another three years of Coalition rule.
mike
Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhh…….You STILL don’t get it! Lefty voters are irrelevant. The only relevant voters are the working class and petit-bourgeois voters who bolted to Howard and Pauline in disgust when Keating took over the reins!
(memo to the ALP. Drop the nepotism!).
They have now, unlike the Downer and Ruddock families.
When the Ruddocks and Downers are losing four straight elections for the Libs, then I am sure they will take up your advice. In the meantime, they seem quite content with their petty-bourgeois strategy I feel.
Mike,
But surely most lefty voters who vote green still preference labor above the liberals/nationals?? I sincerely doubt that it is green voters who have cost labor federal elections…
I agree that this is likely Howard’s plan. Largely the same one he used against Latham. However we shouldn’t assume that the same tactics in a changed electoral landscape will produce the same effect; see US elections, 2004 vs 2006.
I don’t think this is going to fly. The onus is on the person with the controversial plan to get every nuance perfect. Two years ago it was getting out that was the outlying view, relatively speaking, so Latham’s inconsistencies hurt him. Now, getting out commands large majority support, which is based far more on the state of Iraq itself than on local political manouvering. So now it’s Howard who (whatever he tries to paint it as) who needs to reconcile the steps he’s taking with the fact that those steps wouldn’t be necessary if he hadn’t had the brainfart idea of going there in the first place.
If Howard’s rationale is as you suggest Mark the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister certainly didn’t do him any favours last night on ‘Lateline’:
Sounds like explicit endorsement of phased withdrawal.
Rudd needs to hammer away at this line of Howard’s that ‘if it’s good enough for us to go it’s good enough for the US’. It’s illogical. The Iraqi Deputy FM was a help there too:
“it also serves as attempt to show Howard is not kicked around by Cheney” - Robert
But if Rudd has got any smarts he’ll paint it as being kicked around by Obama. “Obama asked why we didn’t put our money where our mouth is and send another 20k troops and John Howard responded by sending 50. It’s pathetic.”
And if Rudd’s got both guts and smarts he’ll publicly give Cheney a hard time (not by rudeness, but by asking some very tough questions). There’s nothing to lose politically, and it’s not “irresponsible” in alliance terms because Cheney’s hour has passed.
But then Rudd is too much of a cautious bureaucrat for that. I’m starting to miss Mad Dog Mark.
Heh. Good one DD.
Rudd looks to have just said his “no more troops” line and then let it go through to the keeper. I imagine Howard is sweating over the Google News: “C’mon ya bastard, you’re wedged, admit it; and if you don’t, I’m going to reannounce these extra troops for Iraq everyday until you do. That’ll fix ya”. Err.
Essentially Howard knows he’ll probbaly go over Iraq now, but he’s not backing down from his historical stance. In the long run withdrawl from Iraq will be up to his successor, or at least that’s the way Howard will force it. Any timetabled withdrawl stance will ultimately backfire because of Afghanistan. Basically the same logic will apply there too if Iraq is abandoned. Ultimately that will stain Howard’s successor more than he.
It could be Costello of course. Imagine a tight election with the Coalition just scraping over the line and Howard losing Bennelong. At long last, thinks Pete somewhat wistfully and apprehensively.
Mark pays tight-lipped tribute to Howard’s skill as a political scrapper.
Howard has a losing hand but he is playing it as well as can be expected.
Overarching and dooming Howard’s wedge tactics is the insight of the Australian electorate.
No, I’m not claiming that Australian voters are endowed with huge widsom.
But this is what they know:
1. Australia is in Iraq only because the US is in Iraq.
2. The US is still in Iraq in 2007 only because the US governmental system is not the Westminster System. Otherwise, Bush would have already been voted out of executive office by virtue of a vote of no-confidence.
3. Barring a miracle, the next president of the US will withdraw troops from Iraq.
4. Therefore, why waste time, resources and possibly lives, by delaying the inevitable? The troops should be removed sooner rather than later. And Rudd has promised this.
Howard’s only hope over Iraq is:
1. The situation stabilises. This permits the apologists for persisting to claim progress.
2. Military action commences against Iran. This may refresh the credibility of the argument favouring supporting an ally (the US) in its time of need.
[I sincerely hope that the latter possibility isn’t driving Howard’s politicking on this issue.]
“Rat cunningâ€? is an expression which springs to mind ………sayeth Mark.
“Smelling a rat” is what I’m thinking. The population is now much better trained in the ways of the rodent and it just aint working as effectively, as it did, any more.
The man is ,’on the nose’, ‘passed his use by date’ and heading for the wheely bin….. IMHO.
Howard is now in dangerous territory, for him. People learn to ‘read’ the patterns and responses of the people around them, especially leaders. Howard has reached the point where people have learnt to ‘read’ him, and so everything he does falls into the expected ‘pattern’. Rudd can reinforce this tired familiarity by the simple expedient of being ‘not Howard’. His natural caution and bureaucratic instincts will serve him well in this period of manoeuvre, prior to the actual event.
Howard is simply trying to tease out how far he can go before Rudd is forced to acquiesce in something, and then he can call him on ‘ticker’ like he did to Beazley. This is his version of ‘messing’ with Rudd’s mind. This is the source of the ‘chameleon’ jibe.
Rudd should continue to hammer his point that Howard got us into this mess, and he (Rudd) is going to get us out. This position is both simple, easily understood and has the political virtue of being popular.
See Tim Dunlop for the good oil on this so-called “wedge”.
“But if Rudd has got any smarts he’ll paint it as being kicked around by Obama.” was what derrida derider had to say earlier in this thread. Below is part of A.M. transcript, from this morning, which has just become available. Rudd has got the “smarts” all right and stuck it right back to Sir Wedge.
HAYDEN COOPER: John Howard says you’re contradicting yourself, that you can’t say that we need to let the Iraqi’s stand on their own two feet and then deny them the military trainers they need to get there.
KEVIN RUDD: You know Mr Howard’s political tactics on this Iraq debate sounds increasingly desperate. Desperate because Mr Howard is trying to dig himself out of his gross error of judgement on Iraq in general, and in particular, why are we having this debate now?
Because he’s trying to dig himself out of a debate he began 10 days ago when he accused the Democratic Party of being the terrorists’ party of choice.
You’re wrong about the electorate’s view of Iraq Katz. They’ve basically come to the same view of Iraq as the left naysayers did from the start. ie it’s a pathetic fantasy to think these tribal, mediaeval Muslims can be led to any reasonable form of decent civil society like our own and what’s the point of refereeing their theocratic butchery? Time to get out and leave them to find their new Saddam, well you know in the appropriate manner, yada, yada. Problem for the UN loving left, Rudd or any successor to Howard, is they’ll come to exactly the same conclusion about Afghanistan, just as soon as the focus shifts from Iraq. It’s not too hard to imagine a Rudd govt, having pulled out of Iraq, facing an Opposition using all his arguments back at him, to get out of Afghanistan too, all in the name of the electorate’s wishes. Still I don’t expect those who still believe COW countries as diverse as Aust, Japan, Portugal, Netherlands, Poland, Italy, etc all behaved like lemmings in Iraq with the US Machiavellian grand plan, but somehow suddenly have such astute judgement with same bogeyman US in Afghanistan. The electorate won’t wear that scenario either.
That’s essentially Howard’s problem of course and he would know it now. Shorter electorate- These are monkey countries John and time to get out. I said a long time ago such a scenario would be a pyrrhic victory for the left. That’s why they hate Bush so vehemently for proving them right in Iraq, with the logical conclusion for Afgahnistan too. But of course they have a psychological need to deny that and hence the frantic rhetoric to try and differentiate the two. The electorate will never buy it in the long run though and that’s the crux of Rudd’s dilemma now.
That’s not the left I adhere to, nor do I recognise your embittered, defeated caricature of it.
The mainstream, non-doctrinaire, libertarian left rejoices in the destruction of tyranny everywhere.
But we’re smarter than the average RWDB in at least two ways:
1. We recognised that Bush was simply incapable of achieving his proclaimed ambitions and that he’d make matters worse.
And we were right.
2. We suspected that Bush’s proclaimed ambitions weren’t his actual ambitions. We recognised that those suspicions would be evermore widely held. We recognised that ill-concealed glimpses of Bush’s hidden agenda would contribute to his defeat in Iraq.
And we were right.
So Obby, stop being a weird dude and start engaging with real people rather than frenziedly whacking your much-battered straw man versions of very nice persons (such as my good self) who are such a credit to decent civil society.
Shorter Howard of course- If I’m fucked I may as well at least be consistently fucked.
I see Katz. Just as soon as Hilary/Obama and Co are running the show in Afgahnistan things will be different eh? Forget Iraq because incompetent Bush and all the like coalition lemmings stuffed that.
With US military so tainted by Iraq, perhaps the French could take charge of the UN victory in Afghanistan? No wait a bit, they’ve only just pulled out and history tells us what usually follows the Frogs chucking in the towel. Gulp!
Sometimes you gotta laugh. Dig the bit on the bottom:
Mr Howard also dismissed Mr Rudd’s proposal to send the Australians to Amman, Jordan, to train the Iraqis. “Yes, that’s in another country,” he said. “Everybody knows as an exercise in commonsense that you provide far better training in the country, in the conditions in which the people you are training are familiar.”
So, if this is “comonsense”, let’s now test that with a Newspoll: “Should Australia help with training in Jordan or Iraq?” Howard, sub-wedged.
Oh and I did say way back at the very start Katz, that Bush and Blair were either going to be great statesmen in the ME or naive fools. I have always barracked for the former for Iraqis sake and will keep my fingers crossed for the new chums’ statesmanship in Afghanistan for similar reasons. I’ve got to admit the outcomes of liberal progressive affirmative action plans of late, does make one lean toward the conservative approach to these matters. I’ll try and keep the heart open against the overwhelming force of the brain for Afghanis sake.
I smelt an astute stunt the moment Howard made this announcement. Howard can paint this particular assignment as aiding an quicker withdrawal of troops by focusing on the training of Iraq’s own security forces. So Howard could, ironically, paint Rudd’s rejection as contradicting his own phased withdrawal plans. And rightly so… what the coalition needs to focus on primarily is the strengthening of the Iraqi state prior to their withdrawal. If this is not successfully accomplished then our troops will eventually be returning to Iraq in blue helmets anyway.
Sunk costs, Obby.
Time for our all-conquering World-Spirits to chow down on a king-sized helping of humble pie.
Oh, and contemplate how an intelligent dose of soft power might have given them much more bang for their buck.
Cs and a further laugh is this little bit from your link
Mr Howard is looming as an increasing risk for Australia’s long-term national security,” Mr Rudd said.
“He is presiding over the single greatest security disaster that Australia has seen since Vietnam.”
Methinks that ratty would have choked when he heard that ; rattled even as to what his wedge of the day was. Expect feigned shock and mock indignation from his trained galahs. The horror! the horror!
The former SAS deputy commander of Australia’s forces in Iraq gives his view.
c’ept Joe2 Howard doesn’t think Vietnam was a disaster.
amused:
Agree, if the politicking gets too complicated we tend to glaze over as it all becomes too much of a tangled web to read with any certainty. I think Howard simply wants the public endorsement of Cheney because it will provide a good photo op. He has specifically denied that committing these extra troops has anything to do with the VP’s visit. Which as we now know after ten years of being on the receiving end of the lying rodent means only one thing, stinky, whiff of rat.
IF Howard loses the election it won’t be because of Iraq or David Hicks or Workchoices or their lack of response on Climate Change for the last ten years, or the ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots, or our immigration policies, it will be foremostly because we are thoroughly sick of him, his rat cunning, his divisive tactics, his government’s mean trickiness, and he so clearly being in politics simply to play politics.
I don’t see that Rudd needs to make any decisive statements about Iraq given that the US Congress seem at present to be all at sea about whether they’re coming or going. The only reality is that it is globallly an unpopular and (always was) an unwinnable war. We should take the lead from the US, about withdrawing, something which thankfully is now on the horizon, and in the meantime, not commit more troops. We are there in a supporting role, not a leading role. Howard has no right to take any kind of lead by volunteering more troops when he has not been requested to do so.
I agree with Katz and Robert.
I think Howard’s agenda is short term. There are going to be no changes in US policy before the 2008 election, so you might as well wedge the hell out of Labor, try and make them look shaky on what is traditionally good territory for the Conservatives.
On Robert’s point, I think Howard might be trying to stave off a further request by Cheney by going early. “Oh shit no, we couldn’t possibly make any more commitments. We’ve just upped our commitment, and we’re already close to our capacity. We are only a small country…”
Again, wedge away. Good article Mark.
Thanks, Nahum.
Cliff [at 2;43pm]
Yeah. You’ve got a point there.
My guess is that Howard will introduce widespread and very cheap military conscription fairly quickly ….. before his own party rolls him ….. and as soon as the first Australian combat deaths occur [and in brutal political terms: the more the merrier].
It would make him more popular than a winning Ashes team for a khaki election. He would be seen as getting all those bludgers off the dole and giving all those young hoons in jail a bit of military discipline. I said military conscription, nothing so thorough, expensive and troublesome as National Service. Just the minimum of basic training by private training contractors, straight into purpose-raised units [so as not to upset the regular ADF], a couple of quick field exercises then straight into Iraq, Afghanistan and who-knows-where with the least equipment possible. What Howard needs is large numbers of disposable cannon-fodder that will go into the thick of the fighting as quickly as possible - if some or even all of them become casualties then too bad. He doesn’t need to have more expensively-trained and equipped regular ADF personnel put at risk; in fact, he could actually pull a lot of the troops out while having a massive increase in the numbers of armed Australians in military-style units in Iraq. Naturally, the conscripts will have to sign contracts that exclude them from the services of the Dept. of Veterans’ Affairs; the survivors will get a couple of medals and a one-off cash payment …. and then back onto the street. The last major obstacle to this sort of military conscription, employer concerns about a labour shortage, was eliminated by the widespread introduction of 457 visas.
And, of course, it would make his American buddies happy too.
One more term as Prime Minister ……. or Prime Minister For Life? HHmmmmm….
The right wing surrender monkey talking points?
Obs, you’re weird, dude.
Everyone;
Further to my post at 7:20pm {God’dOwnCountry Time} yesterday evening.
Of course I was talking about a two-tier armed forces.
That was quite common throughout military history: samurai and peasant-soldiers, the French armed forces and the illustrious though rather underpaid Foreign Legion, etc,. The Ottoman Turkish Empire in its heyday, for example, was chock-a-block full of forces each serving under different conditions. Until the 20th century, the British Army belonged to the Crown and the Guards belong to the King [apologies to any ex-Guardsmen for oversimplifying the actual situation for the purposes of this discussion here] and then there were the private forces from the East India Company to those which operated well into the 20th century …. all absolutely loyal to Britain.
Now, I wonder what the market for Scutage will be like? ….. and how profitable will it be to invest in Substitutes futures? [ No, no, “futures” as in market; not the future of the actual conscript concerned …… betting on that might be handled by one of the gaming and gambling corporations].