Neville Chamberlin
The Howard government is painting Mark Latham’s intention to bring Australian troops home from Iraq by Christmas if he takes the Prime Ministership in the elections this Fall as a dangerous incentive to Al Qaeda, an act of political appeasement similar to what’s happened in Spain, if you’re listening to the Bush Administration that is. E. J. Dionne rebuts the Spanish election analysis on Working for Change (found clicking links provided by Outside Counsel, one of which pointed me to The Gotham City 13), and I think it’s worth reading in respect to Latham’s statement as well. The stated intention of the new Spanish government and Mark Latham, doesn’t represent appeasement, but reflects opposition to the sitting government’s behavior that put Australia in Iraq and a dissatisfaction with the relationship as its developed between this country and the U.S. We have to take the point seriously, however, that following Spain’s new direction could provide the answer to the question we’ve all been asking since the 1970’s: does terrorism work? Thomas Friedman’s column in the NY Times voices that fear effectively. Having gotten into Iraq, it would be wrong to get out without having accomplished the stated objective, or at least having stabilized the situation sufficiently for the Iraqis themselves to govern themselves (with or without democracy). But to do so in support of the Bush government’s policies only perpetuates the damage already done to the goal of eliminating terrorism. This is the moment for the U.N. to reassert its relevance, but I doubt its ability to do so. Australia has other, more immediately regional concerns, although there appears to be plenty joining Al Qaeda into the mix, and pulling its troops out of Iraq may be the right thing to do. I’d like to see the Americans able to come home, too, and I’m sorry that won’t happen for a long time to come.