There’s been some comment here on a previous thread about why Australia’s withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq has stimulated so little debate - either in the media or in the blogosphere. My comment on why that might be so is here, and I’d add that the rather narrow concept of the political in Australian public discourse tends to mean that issues which are “politically neutralised” are quickly forgotten. That’s most unfortunate - because going to war on the basis of specious legal justifications and distortions and lies about intelligence is hardly a trivial matter. We owe it to ourselves as a nation to ensure this never occurs again, and the risk of it occurring again is surely heightened by a failure to remember.
I want to highlight in this post two exceptions to the rule of silence. First, in the blogosphere, Gandhi has written a comprehensive post analysing the week’s news and developments, highlighting the attempts of some in legal and activist circles to bring John Howard’s actions before the notice of the International Criminal Court, a move supported by Democrats leader Lyn Allison. Similar action in the United Kingdom was the subject of much publicity and debate, but there’s been little reporting of the substance of the brief prepared or its justification in this country. It’s important to remember that John Howard - I suspect on legal advice - ruled out “regime change”, human rights abuses or democratic goals as sufficient conditions for the Iraq War in a speech to the National Press Club on 14 March 2003. According to Howard at the time, only Saddam’s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction constituted an appropriate ground for the decision to go to war. All his later bloviating, by his own standards, was just political piffle.
It may well be that Howard had advice that the only legal justification for war was the resolutions of the UN Security Council regarding weapons inspections. That was certainly the advice given to the British government, as we know after a series of inquiries in the UK. I’m no lawyer, but it might well be that this figleaf provides sufficient legal cover for Howard to escape any culpability for his actions. It may also be that the subsequent UN recognition of the occupation of Iraq would provide some sort of retrospective immunity. Nevertheless, given the enormous importance of clarifying the legal basis or otherwise for wars of pre-emption, it seems to me eminently desirable that such an argument - an argument based on international law - be tested in an international tribunal.
That takes us to the issue of intelligence, because as we now know, Saddam Hussein had ended his WMD program in the 1990s. Writing in yesterday’s Financial Review, Brian Toohey makes the point that Tony Blair’s claim that the invasion was justified because he believed at the time that what he was saying was true is an attack on the very concepts of truth and responsibility. Toohey also points to the fact that Australian intelligence disputed the purported evidence for the continuing existence of WMD, but that this was shunted aside - Howard’s speeches were only checked by intelligence agencies to ensure the accuracy of quotes about British and US justifications - including the false claim about uranium in Niger, which the CIA falsified before it was made by George Bush and Tony Blair. Toohey argues that Howard subsequently shifted ground to his arguments about the alliance, but draws the brutal conclusion that:
Instead he swallowed a load of nonsense from the US and the UK that was more reminiscent of the ravings of a medieval soothsayer than the calm analysis a modern statesman should rely upon before declaring war.
That appears to me to be the crux of the matter. Regardless of your view of the outcome in Iraq (and I certainly agree with Toohey that none of the promised outcomes have eventuated, and the war remains a continuing atrocity), it is simply not good enough that Australia can go to war - based on false premises which Australian intelligence demonstrated at the time were likely false - and that unlike in the UK and in the US (where a Senate committee concluded last week that the administration recklessly disregarded intelligence) we’re seemingly happy to accept this without any investigation into how it occurred.
Malcolm Fraser is spot on here:
“I don’t believe that the fabrication of evidence and the false intelligence that was used to justify war has been adequately exposed for what it, in fact, is.
“I don’t think the leaders of Britain and the United States have really had put on their shoulders fairly and squarely the responsibility of what I believe was to be a most disastrous venture.”
And that goes for John Howard too.
OK somewhere I read that some mob, somebody official, in the USA, has reported that Bushco knew that they were lying and misleading the public at the time.
Based on some analysis of the available intelligence.
Howzat for a precision statement?
I’ll go search, but maybe someone with search skills will do it for me in the meantime.
I shall return!
Its at Tim Dunlop’s Blogocracy.
I think you’ll find it from the link in this post to the Senate Committee story, hannah’s dad!
oops
Mark:
I do wish that were true. Hope the troops enjoy their leave and the precious time with their families …. before their next deployment.
As the possibility of universal military conscription [”National Service”] increases so then the possibility of charges being laid against Mr J W Howard and his fellow culprits [for deliberate rather than erroneous actions] decreases.
Graham, I can’t make much sense of your comment.
I don’t think there’s any prospect that any form of conscription or national service will be introduced in Australia, if that’s what you mean. And nor can I see any relationship between that prospect and whether or not the ICC does anything with the brief that’s been submitted to it.
‘ Sittin’ in a dock at the Hague…watchin’ the tide roll away…’
Any attempt to haul Howard before the ICC will have to be all extra-parliamentary. The people’s house will close ranks over any attempt to prosecute one of their own no matter how compelling the evidence. But it would be nice to see a Senate test after July and it would be some sort of victory if it were to become public that the Attorney General or similar legal office were to quietly advise Howard that his safety (from a summons serving) could not be guaranteed by the Australian Government should Howard venture overseas.
Now can we interest him in an African adventure. Kenya perhaps..Tanzania..Somalia?
Mark/Gandhi…did Australia have a Katharine Gun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Gun
Mark:
Soon enough we will find ourselves in a situation where our survival as a sovereign nation will depend on a very rapid expansion of our armed forces. In its present form, the ADF cannot possibly cope with such a rapid expansion so there is little alternative a form of universal military conscription; ADF has gone way too far down the road of specialization to change rapidly enough.
At the time of such a military emergency, national unity is vital - so Mr J W Howard and his fellow culprits are likely to be trotted out as some sorts of “heroes” on a leash to drum up enthusiasm for a presumably unpopular move [that would not be the strangest thing to have ever happened in the history of propaganda]. In such a situation, there is no way in the world that Howard would be charged with anything.
Conversely, if the possibility of a serious military emergency for Australia remains in the background, the chances of charging Mr J W Howard and his fellow culprits improves quite a lot.
Pablo [comment 8] has hit the nail right on the head
In fact, I would expect both sides of the House Of Solicitors to fight tooth-and-nail against handing over one or more of their own.
So, if our Parliament is certain to hinder all efforts to have Mr J W Howard and his fellow culprits explain themselves before a properly-constituted international judicial body, just how do ordinary citizens ensure that it happens anyway?
Both of you have mentioned Andrew Wilkie:
Until he quit nine days before the attack on Iraq, Andrew Wilkie was a senior analyst in Australia’s premier intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA).
Of all the Australian, British and American all-source intelligence analysts with direct knowledge of how intelligence was abused in the run-up to the war – Wilkie was the only one to resign in protest and speak truth to power.
Those who dismiss such efforts as an exercise in futility should know that on Oct. 7, 2003, the Australian Senate, in a rare move, censured then-Prime Minister Howard for misleading the public in justifying sending Australian troops off to war.
The Senate statement of censure noted that Howard had produced no evidence to justify his claims in March 2003 that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and castigated him for suppressing Australian intelligence warnings that war with Iraq would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
One senator accused Howard of “unprecedented deceit.”
Ask the American FCM why they ignored that story.
(and)…
VIPS invited Andrew Wilkie to Washington in July 2003 to speak at a briefing arranged by Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in the House Rayburn Building. There were 14 TV cameras in that room, but not one minute of TV coverage that afternoon or evening.
After his presentation, we strongly encouraged Wilkie to keep throwing light on this dark chapter of history; he was pleased to join VIPS/East.
We expressed our hope that U.S. intelligence analysts who also watched the deceit close-up would soon join him in speaking out. With a wan smile, Wilkie shook his head and pointed to the cost – including the character assassination to which he had already been subjected at the hands of his government.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33870
————-
I believe that a thorough investigation into who knew what & when needs to take place. Gandhi & Mark & others have convinced me of such.
This issue is far too important to be left to the spin-merchants…the too oft complicit corporate media & other war justifiers.
Sending those brave Aussie troops, who are willing to sacrifice their lives for our Country, as part of a pre-meditated attack on a sovereign nation based on seemingly CONSTRUCTED, cherry-picked evidence, much of which may have derived from bogus &/or unreliable sources, is just not good enough.
Particularly when top level officials in the Trade & Foreign affairs departments apparently missed or ignored information that pointed to bribes being made by individuals representing AWB & such that might have got into the hands of the Iraqi regime & be used to purchase weapons that said Aussie troops & their COW allies might have to run up against.
My post linking to Katharine Gun is missing.
It’s not a hot topic because the media already knew it was on the books even should a fifth-term Howard government have eventuated. Because not only isn’t it the public’s decision to make (and thus mull over), it’s barely the Australian parliament’s either.
Why attempt a to Have a National Debate about something for which there’ll be no press releases?
Graham and others, the brief about which I linked has been sent to the ICC for the chief prosecutor to determine what happens. My understanding is that the ICC can only initiate any action if allegations against an individual are not dealt with in the justice system of the signatory state (to the Rome treaty) of which they are a citizen. So I don’t see it going anywhere, unless those who are seeking to bring this matter before an Australian court. However, because of the separation of powers, whatever either House of Parliament thinks or doesn’t think has no bearing on what Australian courts take cognisance of with regard to Australian law. As I don’t know anything about Australian law that might be relevant, I refrain from further comment, but my feeling would be any prosecution of Howard would be most unlikely. What I’m interested in - as I’ve said in the post - is a proper debate on and investigation of what occurred - which would be within the power of the Senate for instance to initiate. But again I’ve got no particular confidence that anything will happen - but I hope someone (Allison or another Democrat, one of the Greens) tries to at least get these matters debated in the Senate.
Graham - the trend in every Western country over the last few decades has been away from conscription and towards a voluntary defence force. I don’t know what sorts of possible deployment needs you are talking about and/or whether you envisage something above and beyond what we’re involved in now, but I still don’t see any government going down that route - that really would be a good way for them to revive wide spread civil dissent - one of the major reasons why conscription isn’t around much any more - along with other military problems conscripts caused particularly in Vietnam. And I’m still not seeing your logic in connecting it with any action or discussion of Howard’s responsibility for Australia’s participation in the Iraq War.
nasking at 11, I’ve retrieved your comment from the spaminator.
Mark [13]:
I really do not think there is a chance in the wide world of charges ever being laid against Howard and his fellows nor of there ever being a Royal Commission or Senate Inquiry or whatever into Australia’s involvement with the Bush adventure in Iraq nor into the surrender of our sovereignty to a foreign ruler.
As the old men used to say when I was a kid: all they’ll do is get the band to play “God Save The King” and everyone will go home. Meaning thereby that Australians were too docile and too lacking in tenacity to follow through in fighting for justice and what they believed [maybe that’s what saved us from religious fanaticism]. The operators of the news media are well aware of this - once an issue disappears from the headlines, it disappears from the consciousness of the general public.
Nice and all as it would be to see Howard and his cronies fumbling to find plausible answers in an international court, it will never happen.
Just on conscription: indeed the trend almost everywhere in the past few decades - even in the Peoples Liberation Army of China - has been away from conscription and into increasingly specialized and very capital-intensive armed forces. That can change in a flash if a general war breaks out …. and that is a situation that is rapidly going from the near-impossible two years ago to the moderately likely today. If the Iron Dice do roll, Mr J W Howard and his cronies will be busy giving stirring speeches to fresh batches of conscripts, not giving excuses to learned judges.
Well, I agree with your first three paragraphs at any rate Graham!
Thanks Mark. I Think Katherine Gun’s words from 2006 are worth taking on board:
“I urge those in a position to do so to disclose information which relates to this planned aggression; legal advice, meetings between the White House and other intelligence agencies, assessments of Iran’s threat level (or better yet, evidence that assessments have been altered), troop deployments and army notifications. Don’t let ‘the intelligence and the facts be fixed around the policy’ this time.”
(from article “Iran: Time To Leak”, 20 March 2006)
Some interesting revelations in an enlightening interview by Andrew Wilkie w/ Jeff Fleischer of Mother Jones in August of 2004:
MJ: How did John Howard and the government react?
AW: The evening I resigned, they told the media that I hadn’t been involved in the Iraq issue -– in other words, that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Which was a nonsense, as I’d been involved in the Iraq issue from the start, and I’d written the report in December on the possible consequences of a war. The morning after I resigned, one of the prime minister’s staff told the media that I was mentally unstable and shouldn’t be listened to. The foreign minister here, Alexander Downer, has been very outspoken about me and called me all sorts of things, and I have been vilified very strongly in our Parliament by government politicians. But, mind you, I’ve gone strongly in return and spoken very strongly against the Howard government in laying out my case.
(and)
MJ: What were the main gaps you saw in the intelligence relating to Iraq?
AW: The first main intelligence gap was the unaccounted-for WMD material. There wasn’t a lot unaccounted for, but that material became quite central to the official case for war last year. The other intelligence gap was what Iraq got up to after 1998, when UNSCOM pulled out. Now, I think that highlights the inadequacies in our intelligence services, that we didn’t have effective human intelligence operations going on, and were relying instead on Iraqi dissidents and whatnot, who all had an agenda. There were too many people who were trying to encourage a U.S. intervention and were prepared to say anything that the U.S. government wanted to hear. In that context, the intelligence database on Iraq just became increasingly contaminated with what I’d call garbage-grade intelligence. So it made it very easy to cheery-pick the database and basically come up with the case for war that the politicians wanted.
MJ: You’ve said the post-war focus on intelligence failures in all three countries lets the governments off the hook. How so?
AW: In all three countries, the governments have very deliberately kept the focus on the intelligence agencies and steered the focus away from the bigger issue, which is the government’s relationship with the agencies, and the government’s misuse of intelligence material. And we’re saying this in all three countries. The Flood report’s terms of reference were very specifically to look only at the performance of the intelligence agencies. Everyone knows they failed — the previous Australian inquiry found that out. The most recent British inquiry did the same thing — looked at the intelligence agencies. The U.S. inquiry did the same thing. I think the governments are being very mischievous in the way they’re keeping the focus on the intelligence agencies. Which did fail, there was a limited intelligence failure. But that limited failure in no way excuses the governments for their decision to go to war.
(and)
Then you’ve got the Australian media, and they haven’t got a good record on this. Australia’s good journalists are the best in the world, but too much of the Australian media was lazy over Iraq, sometimes incompetent, and often compliant with Rupert Murdoch’s empire. His papers, like the The Australian, were just mouthpieces for the Bush administration and, by implication, the Howard government. So it’s not entirely unsurprising that so many Australians have been a bit disengaged, and that’s certainly motivated me to keep speaking out.
MJ.com: What should the opposition do, then?
AW: The Labor Party just needs to focus more on it. We’re still engaged in an unjustified war. This should bring a government down, and the Labor Party just isn’t going hard enough. The Greens have gone very hard on this, which probably helps to explain my attraction to the Greens.
Much more here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/08/08_401.wilkieQA.html
Has it occurred to anyone that this is no longer the issue?
What is really best for the people of Iraq at this stage? I think that’s a far more difficult question, and I’m stunned by how many people seem to be mainly interested in clearing Australia’s collective conscience. I was against the war in the beginning but “lies about intelligence” half a decade ago ought not to be what the pullout is about.
“once an issue disappears from the headlines, it disappears from the consciousness of the general public”
The cost of the war, particularly in human terms, should be THE HEADLINES:
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports.html
Can’t understand why this thread isn’t flooded w/ comments when you consider that the Howard government’s support for the War enabled the Bush administration to sell the LIE far & wide…
And in turn, they stirred up the HORNET’S NEST of chaos, insurgency, hate for Capitalist Democracies in the Middle East & beyond.
In the late 90s essential BRIDGES were being built between communities & religions that were blown to smithereens by these profiteering chess players speaking BS as they made grandiose poses.
It’s time to EXPOSE the LIES & TRUE MOTIVATIONS of the BUSHEVIKS & their ENABLERS…SPEAK FOR THE DEAD and damaged in the COURTS of LAW.
Rebuild those BRIDGES. Demonstrate we actually do have a WORKING, PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY.
Silence is only golden for the criminal & the deceitful.
And the comfortably numb ARMCHAIR IMPERIALISTS.
If we were ever to get full and true acess to all intelligence from all sources the probabilities are that most of it would broadly support that the BA’athists had not relinquished all WMD but that there would also have been some evidence suggesting they had. The COTW leaders had to go with the probabilities. It is going to be a very rare situation indeed where we are in full complete incontrovertible evidence prior to a pre-emptive war. So you either are opposed to Pre-emptive strikes full stop which strikes me as a very dangerous policy or you accept regrettably some times they are required and then you get into the far more difficult debate of what level of confidence in the evidence do you need?
The greatest problem I have with the lie/conspiracy theory is it involves so many leaders and so many Intel Agencies. As has been pointed out Andrew Wilkie saw a lot of it and resigned shortly before. He is 1 man, just 1. That’s not to say his views were without merit but I doubt the rest of the COTW Intel Community were happy to sit by and watch a clear cut “lie”. The obviously more likely explanation is there was conflicting evidence and different analysts gave different weightings to different evidence. To my mind the far far more likely situation here is it was an intelligence failure. To my mind the “bush Lied” brigade would do well to remember the old advice that if you have symptoms that marry up with a common cold or a brain tumour it is far more probable it is just a cold.
Indeed I wonder how many significant militay operations have ever been executed where there was complete and absolute agreement on the intel and on completion of the operation that agreement was completely vindicated. I’d humbly suggest none.
That said the intelligence failure was severe.
A very scary alternative scenario I have often wondered is if the War had been predicated say on Human rights at the UN level and the Intel community had said Saddam had no WMD and he did and used it on COTW troops. That should scare us too and to my mind might be the greater issue.
The Left is far too focued on trying to score a political point on their political enemies rather than focussing on reform how Intel is analysed and acted upon.
1. The Downing Street Memos prove that the British JIC know that the intel stream had been deliberately sullied.
2. Colin Powell called the intel “bullshit”.
Sometimes the rankest lies turn out to be true. Life’s funny that way.
The critical point isn’t whether or not the intel was a close representation of the facts of the matter (in point of act it was comically inaccurate). Rather the critical point is that crucial decisionmakers like the British JIC, like Colin Powell and probably also Cheney and Rumsfeld, misspoke the facts with malice aforethought.
It is the guilty knowledge rather than the contents of a statement that make it a lie.
Probably?
Again, probably?????
Katz, you are truly great of heart and generous in spirit to append that adverb to anything that that malignant duo were involved in.
Katz you need to go and research the Powell “Bullshit” line a bit further it was NOT a blanket the entire Intel effort was “bullshit”
The Downing ST memo likewise just shows there was dissent not incontrovertible proof that the entire intel effort was fabricated.
Now you could legitimately argue that with that level of dissent/disagreement that it was high enough to call off the invasion but that is not the same thing as saying across hundreds if not thousands of Intel analysts and pollies across multiple nations there was a blanket knowledge Saddam definitely did not have WMD but we’ll willfully push that line anyway.
Likewise you could maybe attack them for being cavalier and having adopted pre-conceived ideas to readily but a mass conspiracy to lie is beyond belief.
You also have to remember Saddams recalcitrance and history also formed part of the background to the decision. Now you could argue that only physical verifiable evidence of WMD should have been “submitted as evidence” but rightly or wrongly that ain’t how the security world works.
This I think is why the general populace has not adopted the “its was all a lie” line. They recognise the decision had to be made on incomplete info and it was a balls up but it was attacking Saddam not say Pakistan so we didn’t owe him any favours anyway. The genernal populace were rightly dismayed with the situation in Iraq in 2006 and early 2007 but it has improved and I thnk they see a situation slowly mending itself.
Did I claim the entire intel effort was miscued?
In fact the NIEs were full of caveats that had been excised from the declassified versions. Some excellent intel work was done. It was consigned to the cutting room floor.
But let’s review Powell’s situation. His UN speech was the most important of his entire career. He was given the grave task of explaining the looming bellicosity of the sole superpower on earth.
Are you claiming that Powell knew or suspected that there was better evidence than that which he delivered to justify going to war?
If there was better evidence, why not use it?
I’m fairly confident that Powell asked himself at least that question.
And as a man of experience, he knew the answer: there was no better evidence than the “bullshit” he shovelled out on that humiliating occasion.
But no sympathy for Powell: he accepted the role of Bush’s Step’n'Fetchit.
Of course the interests of the people of Iraq are of the utmost importance. However, given that we will soon be facing the election of John “bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran” McCain or Barak “Iran is a threat to all of us” Obama I think a bit of reflection on our reasons for going to war is very necessary.
Katz
“2. Colin Powell called the intel “bullshit”.
sounds pretty uniequivocal to me. If you did not mean it to be interpreted that way may I suggest being a little more careful in your choice of words.
I’m not claiming Powell knew of better evidence all I am saying is he had to work with what he had and he made an assessment that the evidence he chose to present was worth presenting. There is no evidence of deceit on Powell’s behalf at all. Perhaps he should have been more sceptical but that’s a different charge altogether. Perhaps the benchmark needs to be higher but that doesn’t make any member of the Bush Admin a liar.
All those of you who are accusing Bush etc of being liars are able to show is they gave stronger weighting to evidence supportive of Saddam having an active WMD program no more. That is not lieing.
It was an Intel failure I would have thought that would be enough for the Left to crow about.
I stand by my choice of words.
You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you don’t understand the context of Powell’s remarks.
There are several accounts of this incident. They all agree on the material facts. Powell was presented by Rumsfeld and Tenet with a pre-written speech. Powell was given no invitation to construct his own case or even to edit the speech that he did give. As I said above, Powell swallowed the Kool-ade. So no sympathy. Powell’s “bullshit” remark referred to the Rumsfeld/Tenet speech and to nothing else.
Thank you Mark for staying on this very important issue. I only wish other social commentators in Ozblogistan (and the media) would make an effort to keep this story alive.
Nobody should be expecting Rudd or the media to act responsibly here: if we bloggers cannot keep this story in the public eye, I fear it will die - and a part of our once-great nation will die with it.
Both sides of parliament have a vested interest in not pushing too deeply into such delicate matters of national “security” and/or our increasingly bizarre off-the-record relationship with the USA. Rudd will use this story to score political points against the remnants of the Howard Conga Line as needed, but he won’t push too hard because he knows the skeletons in the closet could end up dancing over his political grave.
Meanwhile, the Murdoch media are still desperately pushing their US neocon agenda, wherever that’s going now. Other players on the Oz media landscape are reluctant to cover this story unless there is some “hard news” to report. And even then (as we saw with the ICC Action story and Fraser’s remarks) they would prefer to leave it well alone.
“Iraq?” say the editors. “Oh, you know - the public are very tired of hearing about it these days…”
The good thing about blogs is that we can (still) say whatever we damn well please. So why is there not more heated debate here? Has everyone simply thrown up their hands and given up ever seeing justice done? Does nobody stop to calculate the damage such de facto capitulation does to our democracy?
Leon’s comments at #18 are very much in line with the official mantra these days:
“What is really best for the people of Iraq at this stage? I think that’s a far more difficult question, and I’m stunned by how many people seem to be mainly interested in clearing Australia’s collective conscience. I was against the war in the beginning but “lies about intelligence” half a decade ago ought not to be what the pullout is about.”
That’s almost exactly the line pushed by politicians and the corporate media these days. The implication is that all these dirty f***ing hippies who pretend to care about the Iraq people are just selfish fools indulging their holier-than-thou exercises in “revisionist history”. Those who really, really care about the Iraqi people are of course more interested in talking about the future, which just happens to involve ignoring the recent past and staying in Iraq forever.
We are all supposed to maintain the pretense that this was a “failure of intelligence”, even when countless revelations have now shown that the intelligence was deliberately cherry-picked, fabricated and distorted for 100% political purposes!
We are all supposed to pretend that Australia’s military pullout is real, even when over half our troops will be remaining in Iraq!
We are all supposed to forget about people like Andrew Wilkie (thanks Nasking) and Trent Smith, we are supposed to forget that millions of people around the world (the greatest global protest in history) marched against the invasion, we are supposed to accept ridiculous casualty figures for Iraqi civilian deaths, we are supposed to believe that senior ministers like Alexander Downer were never informed about anything, and nobody ever told John Howard, ever, and the war was NOT about Oil, and it will out turn out for the best, any day now.
Are we really all that stupid, or gullible, or just plain lazy?
Australia’s wars have always ended quietly. There was a shipping shortage after the World Wars that meant Australians had to be demobilised gradually, blunting any national celebrations in favour of private family celebrations at the return of a loved one. This war has ended quietly, just as other small-scale involvements have (Namibia, anyone? Solomons?).
The question is what political lessons have been learned from this war. The Liberals really thought they were doing what they had to do in the name of the US alliance. Howard really bought all that permanent conservative majority bullshit that the US Republicans went on with. I can foresee a party in government or opposition proposing (or being verballed into proposing) military involvement in a similarly questionable venture into the future and getting belted. Apart from that, what lessons are there to learn? Breaking with the US is a dead letter, and not every bureaucrat wants to be Andrew Wilkie when they grow up.
True, there is the case of Vietnam, where veterans returned by the ship- and planeload and were targetted by protesters critical of the war itself. However, as time passes it seems that the 1970s was more and more of an aberration in our history - in the same way that Labor governments can no longer be beaten with the Whitlam stick.
Katz - are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I am making the point there was differing views and analysis.
You claimed without qualification that Powell said the intel was bullshit now you claim he was merely referring to the draft speech the CIA prepared. Which is it?
The articles I have read is Powell was angry ( justifiably too I suspect) with the lack of quality sourcing of intel. That is a lot different to saying the entire WMD case was a deliberate fabication.
You seem very confused. I think the fundamental problem here is I have checked the “context” of Powell’s quote as I did when you previously claimed this on another post. I’d suggest not using it in future if you are trying to use it as support for a deliberate fabrication of evidence of WMD.
Further to some of Mark’s comments:
It may well be that Howard had advice that the only legal justification for war was the resolutions of the UN Security Council regarding weapons inspections. That was certainly the advice given to the British government, as we know after a series of inquiries in the UK.
Of course, the UK Attorney General famously advised Blair that the invasion would be illegal without a further UN resolution, which the Three Amigos were unable to obtain. Lord Goldsmith only changed his mind under political pressure when it was made clear to him that the invasion would be going ahead anyway.
Also worth noting that the UK PM has been pressured to announce a full enquiry into Iraq, after a rebellion by his own Labor Party colleagues. Anyone hoping for Peter Garrett to act as Australian Labor’s conscience on this will note his silence to date. “Sometimes you’ve got to take the hardest line”?
Nevertheless, given the enormous importance of clarifying the legal basis or otherwise for wars of pre-emption, it seems to me eminently desirable that such an argument - an argument based on international law - be tested in an international tribunal.
There have been a few mock tribunals staged, some involving very eminent and respected legal personae, but as recent threads at Prof Q’s blog and Crooked Timber suggest, the chances that Bush, Blair or Howard will ever be tried by the Hague or the ICC remain at best minimal.
Under existing laws, for better or worse, it is up to the host nation to impose justice and THEN hand the culprits over to the ICC. The alternative is to contemplate UN seizure of alleged war criminals from within their borders, just the sort of “pre-emptive” action Judge Dredd might endorse.
So it’s up to us, ordinary Australians, to come together to see justice done.
The good news is that doing so will help us take back control of our government from the corporate elite, ensuring a far better future for our grandchildren.
BTW here’s a link to the Brian Toohey article in the Fin but you’ll need a (free 14 day) subscription to read it (”valid credit card details required” = you have to cancel it later). It’s a pity such important articles are not more freely disseminated: hopefully Toohey’s article will generate some more open discussion in the media, just as this thread might generate some further discussion in (what remains of) Ozblogistan.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I’m referring only to the speech and the purported “evidence” concocted by Cheney and Rumsfeld and cravenly acceded to by Tenet.
In his role as Secretary of State, Powell had access to a wide range of intel on Iraq. Most of that intel was collected and analysed by highly professional and competent persons. This stuff was not fabricated.
But this good intel was not reflected in Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s “bullshit” presentation. Powell knew this. That’s why he called Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s lies “bullshit”.
And then this:
1. You have merely repeated your previous mistake.
2. I have never asserted that Powell’s dismissal of the Cheney/Rumsfeld presentation is proof of the allegation that it was fabricated. Powell’s unfavourable response to the speech is merely proof of the proposition that Powell believed it to be an inadequate case for Saddam’s possession of WMDs.
The proof of fabrication exists at an earlier stage when Cheney and Rumsfeld redacted the good intel of the CIA in order to concoct the speech that they gave to Powell. I suspect that Powell knew of thie process, but that does not materially alter the case, it merely throws further doubt over Powell’s integrity.
That argument is all about UNSC resolution 1441, and whether it revived Resolution 678 (GW1 ceasefire resolution ). The first March 7 2003 advice Blair got from his AG Goldsmith is highly relevant, a primer if you will, to legal arguments as to (ultimately) whether Blair or Howard are liable for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the absence of the ICC’s power to determine whether a crime of aggressive war took place. (ie Signatory states to the ICC couldn’t agree on a definition although I would argue re the ICC that an international precedent has already been established with respect to the WW2 Nuremberg trials and the crime of aggressive war).
The advice is also notable for comparison to Goldsmith’s ‘retraction’ a week later, ie contrary “go go” advice which was, by some accounts “dictated” to him for signature.
pdf download here for the 13 page advice March 7 2003(scroll down):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm
The summary states:
And as it turned out, the worm turned for Goldsmith. But his March 7 advice is something that Mr Blair and Mr Howard may well contemplate in the future.
In other words, there is no legal cover for Blair and Howard based on Goldsmith’s first detailed and comprehensive legal advice.
For fear of setting a precedent it is extremely unlikely that any government will allow a prosecution of an erstwhile PM or minister for action taken when in office.
I suspect the Brits, if and when they get around to the long-promised Iraq Enquiry, might put us Aussies to shame. Then what would our politicians in Canberra do?
The political climate in Britain is quite different when it comes to Iraq: the issue hounded Blair to his political grave, and Brown still wears the stench of it around his neck. It was a principled rebellion within his own party which forced Brown to agree to the enquiry, and despite the obvious attempt to delay justice ad infinitum, the story still has legs.
Former colony Pakistan may also put us to shame:
We Aussies seem to be taking a very laconic, “she’ll be right, mate” attitude to any further enquiries on Iraq. But given the catastrophic fallout from the foolish decision to embark on this war, we shouldn’t be surprised if the rest of the world finds such a lazy attitude morally repugnant.
With Rudd now trying to take a global leadership role in issues like nukes and climate change, it’s not a good look. What’s the point bringing new international laws and treaties into effect when you have not honored your previous ones?
mark says:
Legal-technically Iraq was still in a state of war when the “Coalition of the Willing” attacked in 2003, governed by the terms of the cease fire agreement set down in the aftermath of that conflict.
The rationale for the Coalition attack depended on Iraq’s purported violation of said cease fire agreements, regarding issues of armaments disclosure. Iraq was still in a state of war, albeit suspended. Therefore that attack was still “post-emptive” in the formal legal sense.
The ADF’s role in the second phase of the Iraq war was mainly to protect Japanese engineers engaged in civil reconstruction work, building schools and hospitals and the like. This sort of thing is a war-crime alright, right up there with Eichmann and Mengele.
So obviously Howard must be brought to justice. We cant have people like that running around, getting off scot free, can we?
Kingsley [20 et seq]:
Delightfully plausible.
Well then, let us suppose that the Ba’athist regime did have quite a few more weapons capable of causing multiple civilian casualties [call them WMDs if you like] than we had imagined. Let us further suppose that these weapons were in good condition, under very strict control and in places well hidden from us.
Would it have been better to have allowed Saddam Hussein to use them as bargaining chips in delicate negotiations with us over his own future …. OR …. for us to have gone “Nah-nah, coming ready or not” [as we did] and then, some weeks later - after allowing sufficient time for swags of such weapons to slip unhindered across any of Iraq’s borders - for us to rush in kicking-ass [or, if you prefer, kicking-ar*e] in that wonderful display of pyrotechnics, shock-n-awe?
If such weapons did exist, my guess is that they are now being quietly looked after very well indeed and kept in readiness for whenever they might be needed …. and a very long way away from Iraq.
Steve At The Pub [34]:
Yeah, fair enough ….but that depends solely on the United States remaining powerful and not following the Soviet Union into the dustbin of history. If the United States does collapse then we mightn’t get too many choices about what we do with that great follower of President G W Bush, our former prime minister Mr J W Howard. Just think of it as a variation on Victors’ Justice.
Thnx Gandhi…One reason I brought up Wilkie, apart from the valuable insight he has to offer, is I felt he was an important potential witness who had been smeared in a way that I’ve seen so many who TESTIFY…speak to truth…or attempt to are….”Tin-foil hatters”…”mentally unstable”…”silly old drunk” (some don’t help their case…lol)…it’s bullying & diversion tactics over & over again by certain politicians & media outlets…the purpose is to try and GAG, DIMINISH REPUTATIONS & CREDIBILITY of THE SPEAKER…and DIVERT ATTENTION of the public.
And many in the Corporate media enable the war-initiaters…war constructors. Then act like guard dogs when one attempts to question the moral certitude stances & war-mongering views of certain politicians & media moguls.
Here’s a possible example of cheeky media-oriented distraction…& using unsubstantiated & wobbly evidence to help construct the case for invading Iraq, and the ABC involved is not the Aussie one:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/index.html
(The unresolved story of ABC News’ false Saddam-anthrax reports, Glenn Greenwald, Salon . com, Monday April 9, 2007)
The media stories & spin MUST be scrutinised more thoroughly in Australia as well. Kudos to blogs such as Lav Prod for doing so. Insightful comments & valuable links here, much of the time.
Good on ya Mark & the Collective….& commentors.
Ironic you should bring up Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting on the related thread ‘Lest We Forget’ Gandhi. I had it on my mind when I mentioned FORGETTING on Road to Surfdom a week or so ago. His views on totalitarianism are interesting, to say the least. Worth reading about his life, or the paintings of such.
Gandhi [28]:
Well put.
Yes, Gandhi’s done a wonderful job w/ his various blogs & comments. An inspiration to me…& many others.
Wasn’t this a strange bit of theatre by the government in the build-up to the Iraq invasion?:
GREG JENNETT: Unlike the other Western leaders, Mr Howard won’t be making the case.
He’ll let the Foreign Minister, fresh from talks with the Bush Administration, present the evidence against Saddam Hussein.
JOHN HOWARD: He is the person who should be making the statement on the issue I’ve outlined at this time.
Obviously if there’s a need for me to be directly involved later on, of course I will be.
SIMON CREAN, OPPOSITION LEADER: I’m asking the PM to show leadership on this.
I’m asking the Prime Minister to share with the Australian public what information he has that has not yet been made public.
GREG JENNETT: The PM promises Mr Downer will detail Iraq’s noncompliance with UN demands.
It’s unclear how much fresh evidence, if any, will be in his dossier.
SENATOR ROBERT HILL, DEFENCE MINISTER: We have evidence of the program of weapons of mass destruction and we certainly have evidence of Iraq’s state-based support for terrorism in other instances.
GREG JENNETT: But nothing linking Saddam Hussein’s regime with the September 11 attacks.
As it stands, next week’s debate won’t have any sting in its tail, no resolutions and nothing to vote on.
But that could change after President Bush gives his speech to the UN, and Mr Howard says more parliamentary debates could follow.
JOHN HOWARD: If any decision is taken by this Government to commit Australian forces abroad anywhere, I will be informing Parliament of that.
GREG JENNETT: And he says he’ll keep Simon Crean informed of any developments along the way.
(LATELINE, ABC (Australia) Broadcast: 12/9/2002
Downer to outline case against Iraq)
Speaking of drama…
I wonder if Aussies who tried to speak out against the Iraq Invasion & provide evidence regarding the “sexing up of intelligence” were treated to an “ambush” by the Corporate media’s go-betweens, character assassins & “blowhards” as we see attempted here on Bill Moyers?:
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/08/fox_news_porter_berry_ambush_of_bill_moyers_at_ncfmr_unedited.php#more
Fortunately the “ambush” backfired. It’s always handy to have a digital camera available just in case.
Jack, He may have a case to answer, as an accessory.
We already have a precedent SATP, his name is Pinochet.
Serbia and other nations can also be considered precedents, not to mention Nuremberg.
The point at this stage is not to organise a lynch mob for Howard, but to demand an inquiry that explains exactly WTF happened here in Australia. Were our intelligence agencies really duped by misleading info from abroad, as they claim? Did Howard, Downer, Hill and others deliberately ignore the more accurate intelligence for the sake of our relationship with the USA, or was it never presented to them?
What secret commitments did Howard make to Bush when he was in the USA on 9-11, 2001, and again on June 13th, 2002 (just a week after Tony Blair had visited Bush’s Crawford ranch)? Meetings documented in the “Downing Street Memos” around that time show British and US collusion to “fix intelligence around the policy” of a provoked or pre-emptive Iraq invasion. It is hard to believe that Australia was not involved in such top-level chicanery, but even if we were out of the loop it still begs the question “Why?”.
For example, >a href=”http://howardout.blogspot.com/2007/07/good-long-look-at-john-howards-war-in.html”>consider the British Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) report issued on February 10, 2003, and sent to Australian intelligence eight days later:
As ever, Howard’s modus operandi was shrouded in secrecy, and none of his compliant ministers have spoken up. We need to know to what extent our security and political apparatus is now subservient to Washington or London. To pimp my old blog post again:
Answers please, Mr Rudd.
Also worth noting Gerard Henderson today:
But of course that is not “accurate” - the decision to go to war was in fact based on a political choice of flawed intelligence over more informed and reliable intelligence. Is Rudd really embracing the official lie, or is Hendo just putting his own spin on things?
Hendo points out (quite rightly) that Rudd is not as anti-war as he pretends, and that both Left and Right parties in the anglosphere have made bad calls on Iraq. But what is this rightwing mouthpiece really trying to say? It seems to me the article is a subtle attempt to declare an end to the whole Iraq War issue as a political football:
So it’s over to you, historians, while the backroom boys quietly “finish the job” in Iraq. M’kay? Now let’s all “move on”…
Like I said earlier, nobody should be expecting politicians of either party, or the corporate media, to push for real accountability here. It’s up to us ordinary citizens to demand it.
Almost entirely correct.
I’d amend the highlighted passage slightly to read “political choice of falsified intelligence”.
Your point about the access that the Australian government had to the British JIC analysis is important. If Howard overrode ONA advice based on JIC analysis, then Howard has been exposed as a liar.
That possible lie helped Howard to justify Australian bellicosity.
First there must be an enquiry with the sharpest possible terms to investigate the veracity of Howard’s claim that he accepted all ONA amendments to his statements justifying Australian bellicosity.
Then, if Howard is demonstrated to have lied on this precise point, then there must be a Royal Commission into failures in Australian intelligence.
No nation should ever go to war on a lie.
And a democracy that goes to war on a lie does not deserve to be called a democracy.
That link you provide to your old blog at comment #42 Gandhi is superb. Takes us to a concise & articulate case for further Senate inquiries and such. I hope Kevin Rudd & Julia Gillard & the Attorney-General get a chance to read it. And those Libs w/ integrity. In fact, I recommend any visitor to Lav Prod click on that link & read thru the evidence.
Will the mainstream media in Australia do the right thing?
RIGHT thing…hmmm…maybe that’s half the problem.
Thanks again Nasking. Further to the media angle, here’s Dan Rather yesterday:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003813671
I note that Hendo took the opportunity to give Toohey’s article a slap.
From Hendo’s piece:
The UN mandates under which Australian forces currently operate expire at the end of 2008. The Maliki government has stated that this mandate will not be renewed.
At present, Iraq and the US are in intense and for the time being fruitless negotiations over the status of US forces in Iraq after the expiry of the above-mentioned UN mandate.
Yet I am unaware of any negotiations proceeding with regard to the status of Australian forces in Iraq after the expiry of the UN mandate.
Is there any discussion of the prospective status of Australian forces in Iraq?
I presume that ALP figures would be less than pleased were the status of Australian forces subsumed under the status of US forces in Iraq, whatever that status may be after the Iraqi parliament rejects Maliki’s acceptance of America’s colonising status in post-UN Mandate Iraq.
Katz,
It’s interesting that Al-Maliki is increasingly cozying up to Iran. Here’s Juan Cole’s analysis of his latest visit to Tehran:
It’s a nasty business, with un-democratic, un-representative players on all sides. But I don’t expect Australia’s legal status for remaining forces to be an issue that gets much attention. Officially, I imagine we will be staying on at the “invitation” of the “sovereign” Iraq government as a purely “diplomatic” mission, whatever happens with US “combat” troops.
OTOH maybe it’s time someone in the media looked at how many Aussies are still working as mercenary killers for companies like Blackwater. We never seem to hear about them till one gets shot.
Britain is still trying to get of Iraq:
The UK Labor Party is now polling at a miserly 25%. Brown is at a new low of 3.9 out of 10.
Meanwhile, the Saudis are calling for talks with oil consumingnations - could be a first step towards dropping the US dollar peg?
No, nothing fundamental except for the fact that the US$ has declined 50% against world currencies in the last two years.
So any, including oil producing nations, that have their assets denominated in dollar terms is now half as wealthy as they were two years ago.
If Saudi Arabia dumps the US$ peg, then we could be in for a very bumpy ride.
Curse those #$%* fundamentalists! LOL
Katz [44]:
<