A guest post by Mick…
People have been saying it for months now, Howard thinks that he can win this election by playing the “man of conviction” role and talking up his government’s economic credentials. In the past week we’ve seen him try to play his great international leader shtick, only to have his message drowned out by the Santoro scandal.
You have to hand it to him, the plan was beautiful. Last week he signs the defence pact with Japan, jumps a plane to Afghanistan, and then to Iraq. This is all meant to build a perception that Howard is a leader full of resolve who is serious about victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. More importantly it was designed to look like Howard has control over the situation in these countries.
Then comes this week and the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Howard, having been seen to be micromanaging the Australian involvement in the previous week, quite obviously has “a plan” and so is immune from all sorts of sticky questions like “what do you think of the fact that George Bush didn’t say the word ‘victory’ once during his address to the American people?”. Then, Howard gets the opportunity to get back on the front foot against Labor by giving a speech marking the occasion. He puts on his “great leader of the nation” face and suggests that Iraqis need “our resolve, not our retreat” and “patience, not political positioning”. The whole speech is designed to build the perception that Labor’s withdrawal policy is confused and to push the line that victory in Iraq will come with conviction. He leaves it unsaid that obviously he has plenty of conviction and resolve and all sorts of really great leadership qualities.
Howard asks Australians to leave aside any issues that we might have had about going to war in the first place and to focus on the future. However, what we don’t hear is anything about what his brilliant strategic vision for success is. His only attempt at addressing this key issue is to presume that “the surge” will actually work if given enough time. What happens to Iraq if the surge is a failure? Do we put in more troops? Do we pull them out? Do we re-deploy? Do we stay the course and hope that things will change? None of these questions are discussed.
Howard’s speech is all about perception and has little substance. That’s the take-home message. It will be interesting to see who in the media realizes that nothing in Howard’s speech is new, it has just been framed with a whole lot of new rhetoric. His language is designed to give Australians the sense that victory in Iraq requires nothing but grit and determination, that somehow the Iraqi civil war is simply a test of our nation’s character. Behind his words he is pushing the mythical message that Kevin Rudd and the Labor party do not have the strength to lead Australia because they do not share his conviction.
Howard’s whole game reminds me of this classic line of Kodos’ (masquerading as Bill Clinton) from the Simpsons:
“My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!”
Cross-posted at Quantumbiodiscs
Nice post, mick.
I wasn’t surprised that it was just a strung together heap of tired cliches.
More rhetoric than resolve. Whoever wrote the speech has a way with words though, really punchy lines. I’ve gotta admire that even though there was little substance.
Has Howard hired a new script writer? Same ideas but a more lulling, nodding off delivery than I’m used to. I was feeling a whole lot more relaxed when I woke up.
c’mon baby! papa needs a brand new car.
No? Well how about a cigarette?
No, no Janette.
So anyway it’s christmas and the iraqi people are looking at their christmas presents under the tree and they look at the first present and they say “battle of the concrete factory!” and John Howard says “wow!” and then they look at the next present and say “bridge no-one’s ever seen!” and John Howard says ” that’s amazing how did you know that?” and they reply
WE FELT YOUR PRESENCE!
thank you and goodnight
Howard has the luxury of commanding a completely irrelevant presence in the area – so he doesnt really need any plans, strategies for victory.
Problem is, his “stick with the US, it’s a no-brainer” line is already confused, and offers plenbty for RUdd. Which US? The lame duck pres with record low public cred, and his deeply unpopular war, or the democrat controlled houses, and the pissed off public?>
The challenge for Rudd, and I guess anyone opposed to Australia’s involvement in Iraq is to convince people that Howard is following a lame duck president. The media in Oz is struggling to pick up on this.
I notice that the old line that this debate is about the US alliance got trotted out as well. Anyone who followed Cheney’s visit to Australia last month knows that this is a complete furphy. Cheney made it pretty clear that the alliace is much stronger than this issue.
wbb: “No, no Janette.”
Well, jaysus to jaysus and eight hands around. Whenever somebody makes a joke about “No, No, Nanette,” whatever the circumstances, then I do think they deserve to be fully congratulated.
Onya!
The full text of Howard’s speech can be found here. [link]
As I said above, there is nothing new here except a shift in the language. He discusses at length the role that Australian troops are playing in Iraq but without any sense of long-term purpose, other than to support the Iraqis. He paints a picture of success in the Australian operations in Iraq, and indeed it seems that the Australian soldiers have performed very well. Yet success can only reasonably be measured by the ongoing fate of the entire country, this ties Australia’s fate to the fate of the American venture which currently seems to be unsuccessful.
His language is designed to give Australians the sense that victory in Iraq requires nothing but grit and determination, that somehow the Iraqi civil war is simply a test of our nation’s character
It reminds me of a litmus test one can use here in the US to pin down someone’s political leanings quickly: ask them why they though the Vietnam War (err…”American War in Vietnam”) was lost. If they give some line about the lack of support or grit or determination or such, then you can bet they’re backing Bush.
Oh and you left off the best part of that Simpson’s episode, one of the best summaries of American political divisions ever aired:
The most telling point was the good war/bad war jibe at Labor. It will have some traction among the punters, many who now think basically we’re wasting our time and dough in these ‘monkey countries’. The sad truth is they also have the evidence of ET and the Solomons to support that view. It’s hard to believe in hindsight that Saddam was the best option for Iraqis, without also believing the Indos were the best option for the Timorese. For us too given the Timor Sea treaty we had with the Indos.
And I might add keeping onside with the Indos to clamp down on people smugglers, which the ALP was always at pains to stress was pretty much the best answer to the boat arrivals, keeping onside that is.
I hope I’m not representative of the populace generally, but I’m afraid Mick that I missed all the speeches etc because I was too busy giggling at Howard running off his smoke filled plane and looking like a scared, lost schoolboy.
Howard’s language is contrived to make a quagmire appear to be a good place to be.
What is a quagmire? A place where one gets bogged. One can neither go forward nor go back.
Howard is opposed to sending more troops to Iraq.
Howard is opposed to removing troops from Iraq.
Howard is in favour of maintaining the current inadequate level of involvement.
Ergo, Howard is in favour of being stuck fast in a quagmire.
Killing questions for Howard:
How do you justify committing Australian arms to a defence of a regime committed Sharia Law?
Has the current level of commitment brought about an improvement or a deterioration in the situation in Iraq?
Do you want to perpetuate failure?
Why, then, do you refuse to change the level of commitment?
So, the Iraq Civil War is a test of our honour.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention the “ANZAC spirit” and our great military tradition of Standing Tall Against the Heathen Turk at Gallipoli.
No, wait. I seem to recall that we were forced to cut and run from that one too. Bummer.
it has just been framed with a whole lot of new rhetoric
I must have missed the new rhetoric. All I heard was the same old rhetoric, about “staying the course”.
Oh, I guess staying “as a matter of honour” is a bit of a new twist. The Anzac approach to warfare – take part in a military disaster and depict it as an honourable event.
Exactly. It was merely a cut ‘n’ paste job from all the other drivel he has been insulting us with from way before the start of the invasion. And what, in the end is it all about?
The sooner we eject this douchebag from our Parliament, the better.
“The sooner we eject this douchebag from our Parliament, the better.”
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Boy it didn’t take long for someone to come up with the lie of the people smuggling from Indonesia did it. Because it is a lie, the only people smuggling from Indonesia is by Australia.
Here is how it worked. Australia had federal police tracking refugees as they landed in Indonesia and knew they could not stay in Indonesia. They had been smuggled out of places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran because getting legal travel documents is not possible.
Once in Indonesia they hid until the agents managed to get them a boat. In the 89 cases of this type I tracked through the senate and courts not one person has gone to jail for so-called people smuggling.
The fact of the matter is that refugees are allowed to travel anywhere without documents so long as they can reach a country that is signatory to the refugee convention. By trying to force people to stay in Indonesia and even paying to set up a UNHCR office we are circumventing our law and international laws and treaties by demanding they shoulder our responsibilities for us.
Every refugee who came to Australia’s mainland from Christmas Island was flown to Australia by the government without visas, under armed guard, not allowed to go to the toilet, no food, no water, and the federal police watched them load the boats and rang to Canberra to say they would be arriving.
In the case of SIEVX we know from survivors that they were told by the UNHCR office in Jakarta to come to Australia as the Indonesians will not and cannot assess claims.
Indonesia has forced over 1,000 people back to the warzones of Iraq and Afghanistan although some 230 people are still rotting in Indonesia, unable to work, to go to school, to leave the cheap motels or have any legal rights and we are paying for it.
In short, Indonesia have not stopped any people smuggling because it never existed.
Simply ADORE the New Season’s “Quagmire Dior”, don’t you dahling?
Regardless of how the Rodent’s cloth is woven, the threads are always manufactured in Washington D.C. Independent Foreign Policys count for naught alongside brand loyalty.
Helen Clark told BushCo to take a hike on Iraq and now she’s chowin’ down with The Imbecile at the White House. Funny old world.
Bummer that i missed howard’s speech but i didn’t miss much obviuosly.
The other day in iraq he was addressing the brave REMFs and he said that the iraquis deserved a “kind of democracy” or words to that effect.
Is that anything like a real democracy or is it similar to waht they had under sadaam?
After all people got to vote then as well.
I thought negotiating defence pacts with foreigners in secret was a no no. The public MUST be informed well beforehand so a proper debate might be had.
I remember someone or other carrying on about it 11 years ago.
suz – maybe the rhetoric wasn’t new but there were some great snappy new one-liners in there. Thankfully, touring around the news and blogs today no-one seems to have bought into his rhetoric too much.
Dave, way to step out of the quantum world. I’ve wondered if that test would work in the US. I haven’t spent enough time there in the last few years to know. Oh, and I thought really hard about how to work that quote into my post but just couldn’t get it in there. I’m glad you brought it up!
Do nothing Howard is all hot air as the Man from the Democratic Party said,’ if the war in Iraq is so important to you send more troops’. 20000 or so is supposed to make some sort of a difference I am lead to believe and if they were drawn from the ranks of Liberal and National supporters, they wouldn’t even be missed. Otherwise just shut up and try to revert to mudslinging or whatever it is that you do best.
The thing that I have not been able to figure out a ‘sensible’ (he loves that word lately,doesn’t he?)answer for, is why Howard is so dead keen on supporting an Islamic Theocracy (which is what it will fast become once the infidels have finally been driven out)? Also why the general public are so accepting of his description of same as the flowering of Western-style democracy ?
He keeps rabbiting on about how the citizens of Iraq have braved the bullets and bombs of the insurgents to vote 3 times !!! for this nascent ‘democracy’. What he doesn’t point out is that , as with Saddam previously, 95% of them voted as they were told to by their local Imam/strongman.
Really worth supporting, huh ?