[GreenOz]

PM boosts Iraq troops, breaks promise

http://news.ninemsn....e.aspx?id=21053
21:49 AEDT Tue Feb 22 2005


Prime Minister John Howard has announced a shock doubling of troops in Iraq, breaking an election promise not to substantially increase Australia's military presence.

Mr Howard admitted that the $300 million decision to send an extra 450 troops to Iraq to protect Japanese engineers for as long as a year would be unpopular and could put Australian lives in danger.

The Australians, who will arrive in Iraq in 10 weeks' time, will replace 1,400 Dutch soldiers - two of whom were killed during their deployment in the relatively peaceful Al Muthanna province.

"Any military deployment involves a risk of casualties - I do not run away from that and I openly acknowledge that possibility," Mr Howard told reporters.

But he denied breaking any promises, saying circumstances had changed since last October.

"The fact of the matter is that in the four and a half months that have gone by there have been changed circumstances and I don't accept for a moment that it's a reversal in that sense - we have to respond to those changed circumstances," Mr Howard said.


Five days before the last federal election, Mr Howard said the government had no plans for a "dramatic increase" in the level of forces in Iraq.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said Mr Howard had misled voters and had to explain what had changed to justify the decision.

"There are many people in this country that think John Howard should have levelled with them about these intentions in that election campaign only four short months ago," Mr Beazley told reporters in Perth.

"If he was prepared to contemplate such a dramatic increase in Australia's involvement in Iraq then he should have at least indicated to them before they had a chance to vote that he was of that cast of mind."

Mr Beazley said the decision was not sensible when other countries were deciding to leave the country.

"The future of Iraq now needs to be resolved by Iraqis and clearly many other countries who are involved currently with support for the occupation effort are arriving at the same conclusion," he said.

The 450 Australian troops - 50 of whom are already training in Iraq - will protect Japanese military engineers helping to rebuild the Shi'ite stronghold of Al Muthanna province in southern Iraq.

It is the first time Japanese troops have been deployed to a combat zone since 1945.

But the nation's post-war constitution renounces the use of military force, and its soldiers can use weapons only in self-defence.

Their compound in Al Muthanna has come under mortar attack several times since last April.

No Japanese have been killed but two Dutch soldiers have died in hostile attacks, putting pressure on the Dutch government which announced it would withdraw its troops next month.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi rang Mr Howard last Friday, urging him to send troops and warning that the Japanese would have to leave Iraq if they had no protection.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair rang Mr Howard the following day, backing Mr Koizumi's plea.

Federal cabinet agreed to the request on Tuesday morning.

Mr Howard said Al Muthanna was relatively benign and a much safer part of Iraq then the Sunni triangle, the insurgency heartland north of Baghdad.

The Australian deployment will comprise a company of infantry soldiers, a cavalry squadron plus 40 Australian light armoured vehicles (ASLAVs), a headquarters unit and training team, mostly drawn from the Army's Darwin-based 1st Brigade.

Australia already has some 400 personnel in Iraq, most in Baghdad at the headquarters and providing security.

Mr Howard said the taskforce would deploy for six months, followed by a second six-month rotation, at a cost of up to $300 million.

The Australian Democrats said Australia should be planning to get troops out of Iraq, not sending more in.

Greens senator Bob Brown accused Mr Howard of misleading voters by creating an impression that Australian involvement in Iraq would be scaled down.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the government had agonised over the decision.

"But we thought this was the right thing to do and I do think it's the right thing to do," he said.

"We just cannot afford to allow Iraq to fail."




©AAP 2005

[Mowlana Vector]

Quote

Our Oz Government Lies Again, so, What's New?

Nothing new, actually ...

[inward]

you can always tell when howard is lying- his mouth is moving.

[Abu Umar]

inward, on Feb 22 2005, 10:27 PM, said:

you can always tell when howard is lying- his mouth is moving.

I don't think he lied because if you go back over his quotes of the last year or so, he would say things like "We have no plans to increase our committment..." etc which would mean that you can't actually say he lied unless he said, "we promise that we will never increase our commitment". If someone has a quote where he actually promised never to increase the number of Australian troops, then please provide it.

[Sam]

I think Abu Umar is right, politicians are very careful with their words nowadays, they always give themselves a back door out of any comment they make (a few notable exceptions aside, such as the "no child living in poverty" promise by Hawke).

[rmus]

I think Abu Umar is right too. Howard only said he didn't have any plans.

Sam, on Feb 23 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

I think Abu Umar is right, politicians are very careful with their words nowadays, they always give themselves a back door out of any comment they make (a few notable exceptions aside, such as the "no child living in poverty" promise by Hawke).

This post has been edited by rmus: 23 February 2005 - 09:58 AM

[inward]

okay, maybe he didn't lie. i think i will stick to the very good advice of the prophet and remain silent until i can say something good about him.

i maybe silent for some time.

This post has been edited by inward: 24 February 2005 - 12:00 AM

[Sam]

insward, just because he didn't lie didn't mean he didn't mislead the people... after all, only a few weeks ago he was saying he had no intention to increase troop numbers. And they wonder why people don't trust politicians.

salaams
sam

[rmus]

isn't lying and misleading the same thing? i'm starting to sound like i'm in question time. i better stop now.

[Mowlana Vector]

It is time for some fact-checking folks!

George Orwell eat your heart out, as here comes the titling point ...

So in this era of perpetual warmongering, (de)constructed 'TRUTH', civilised salvation, reductionist histories, offical tall tales, mediated popcorn propaganda, inflictive journalism and Insta-Punditism ... Every true lies and double speak is media-friendly and tailor-made for the misled glocal audience(s)

Okay, enough of the Newspeak, Rhetorical semantics and Bushlexia ... here are some somersaulting HowarDerrida P-R-O-M-I-S-E-S





Quote

How I'll Change Australia

What I’ve said is we wouldn’t embrace a major increase and we’ve always made it plain that we would not contribute to what you might call peace-keeping or a general troop presence ...

(Source: The Bulletin Magazine Interview, 9 Feb 2005)





Quote

Interviewer (Steve Austin): And we’re sending more troops back there to train the Iraqi Navy?

John Howard: "We are maintaining the general level of forces that we have there. We don't have plans for a dramatic increase, but we will continue to train people for so long as that is necessary because it's very important that the Iraqis be able to defend themselves and secure their own country and the worse thing that Australia could do is to pull its forces home by Christmas as is being promised by the Opposition."

(Source: Brisbane ABC Radio Interview, 4 October 2004)



SEE ALSO
The Prime Minister's News Room
=======================

FURTHER READING



Catalogue of Lies: Iraq

Army Shocked at PM's Iraq Order

Downer 'Left Open' Troop Boost

Release Iraq Troops Intel: Beazley

Howard Not Sorry For Iraq Backflip

Howard Under Fire For 'Duping' Voters



Experts Debate the Cost and Strategy of Troop Commitment

Polls Suggest Australians Pragmatic About Extra Troop Deployment

Australia Defends Extra Troops For Iraq, Polls Sour

Nation Split As PM Sends in More Troops

Howard Breaks Promise, Risks More Australian Lives

Howard Admits Backflip on Iraq Troops Decision

PM Admits U-turn on Iraq Troops

ALP: Additional Troop Deployment to Iraq

ALP, Democrats & Greens Attack Decision

Australia Doubles Military Commitment to Iraq

Howard Puts More Aussie Bodies on the Line in Iraq, Minus Mandate

Once More Into Shadows in Howard's Hands-off War

Wading Deeper Into the Mire in Iraq

Loose With the Truth (Again)

Getting on With the Job in Iraq

An Evasion of the Truth


RRELATED THREADS



Iraq: Operation Enduring Misinformation

An Idiot's Guide to the Ubiquitous WMD

The Truth Is Out There, Somewhere!

[sodapop]

Sam, on Feb 24 2005, 06:03 AM, said:

insward, just because he didn't lie didn't mean he didn't mislead the people... after all, only a few weeks ago he was saying he had no intention to increase troop numbers. And they wonder why people don't trust politicians.

Yes, the point is that a precedent has been set by our dear PM (no GST, like, EVER!/ children overboard?).

Technically, it may not amount to a lie in this case. But Howard definitely has a nasty habit of twisting the truth, dare we call it lying And now, in a nice "save face", it is just a case of misleading Australians. Either way, it's a disgrace

The evidence is compiled in the previous post if anyone needs convincing

[Mowlana Vector]

Courtesy of another friendly (Mid-Eastern) hotspot, Here is another tilting point (and a just cause) 4 U, Mr. Howard

[sodapop]

Lip service to conviction
By Mike Carlton
February 26, 2005

Only last week I wrote here that, with good reason, no one these days believes a word the Government says about the Iraq war. On Tuesday the Prime Minister showed why. Yet again.

His latest piece of sophistry is that the war is at a "tilting point". How he loves that White House jargon, those Pentagon mots du jour. Having sailed through the election campaign tossing out bland assurances that Australia would not be deploying more troops to Iraq, and having told The Bulletin magazine only three weeks ago that this still held good, John Howard has suddenly tilted another 450 diggers into the quagmire.

And all because our good friends the British, and our oldest ally, the Japanese, have asked politely. No arm-twisting from Washington, of course.

If you believe that you'll believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, or even that the Government doesn't appoint its handmaidens to the ABC board. But Howard, all wounded amour-propre, is now adopting that familiar lippy pout he does whenever he is caught out, protesting loudly that he has taken the right and principled decision.

Naturally, the sycophants of the right-wing media rat-pack have wheeled into line to trumpet their approval. Howard is a conviction politician, whatever that is. The Iraq war is going wonderfully well. Anyone who disagrees is aiding and comforting the enemy.

Singularly offensive is the slick line from the likes of Hugh White, the defence policy guru, who suggests that while getting into the war was a strategic error we must now muddle through and make the best of it. Unlike the tilted troops, White does not risk being blown up by a terrorist car bomb.

The trouble with the Prime Minister's many convictions is that they keep changing. Let me give just one example. In his victory speech to Parliament on May 14, 2003 (yes, he used the word "victory") he announced that "we are starting to uncover the evidence. We have found what appear to be mobile biological weapons production facilities, just like those described by Secretary of State Powell to the Security Council in February."

Lately we had the conviction that the Americans had not employed torture in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay and, most recently, the conviction that Australians had not taken part in the interrogation of prisoners. Each now thrown overboard, to coin a phrase.

Is there no end to the litany of deceit? I fear not. The conclusion is unavoidable. We have a prime minister who has sent young Australians to war by elevating slyness and mendacity to an art form.

Source

[Mowlana Vector]

Putting the Right Tilt on the Iraq Conflict
By: Matt Price*
The Sunday Telegraph (27 Feb 2005)

A few Sundays back I was watching Channel Seven's evening news.

The first story covered a series of rescues during a particularly rough day on Sydney's beaches. The second was a shameless cross-promotional puff piece about Lleyton and Bec preparing for that evening's Australian Open final.

The third story was a report on election day in Iraq. Why, by any measure, was an historic event and the culmination of a war in which Australia has been, and remains, intricately involved, deemed to be less newsworthy than tennis and some heavy swell.

This isn't to criticise the producers and editors who decided the rundown. Seven is a commercial network which relies on ratings to pay its bills. The people in charge believed ordinary Australians settling in front of the television at the end of a weekend would be more interested in images of crashing waves and soap stars than footage of Iraqis risking their lives to cast a vote. And they're probably right.

John Howard's controversial decision to redouble Australia's commitment to Iraq has revived public interest in the far-flung conflict. During last year's election campaign, the war was hardly mentioned. If polls showed a majority of Australians harboured doubts about Iraq, Mark Latham's stubborn Christmas withdrawal pledge made voters nervous. Neither Labor nor the Coalition saw much value in raising the issue. Little wonder Australians have become complacent about the conflict.

Last week's decision, albeit reluctant, to increase Australia's commitment is significant. Once Saddam Hussein was ousted, Howard swiftly withdrew the majority of active troops from the country. This was a political decision based on reducing casualties rather than an assessment of what was required in Iraq. It quickly emerged the Coalition of the Willing was hopelessly ill-equipped for maintaining order post-Saddam. Ever since, Australia has been under pressure to increase its presence.

Nobody can seriously believe the PM's insistence that the prospect of fighting an Australian election did not affect the Government's policy on Iraq. Howard was in campaign mode for almost 18 months; during much of that period Labor was close or ahead in the polls. Little wonder the PM felt compelled to  rule out increasing Australia's commitment.

Howard argues the situation has since changed – and he's right. The election exceeded expectations, insurgents continue to lay siege to parts of Baghdad, European governments are withdrawing their troops from the country.

Iraq is, and always has been, a changing, complex and difficult assignment. Simplistic rhetoric about the triumph of freedom plays well at home, but doesn't win wars. After months either ignoring or downplaying Iraq, Howard has been forced to admit the war is complicated. The PM's use of the phrase "tilting point" concedes the conflict could swing either way.

Whatever your opinion of the war, there are sound reasons for Australia to remain committed in Iraq.

As one of the three main invading nations, we have an abiding responsibility to ensure we leave the place in working order.

If the decision to increase troop numbers is unpopular, Howard has only himself to blame. There's been way too much politicking and duplicity in dealing with Iraq. It started with the PM denying the pre-deployment of troops was a portent to war. Some ministers still don't accept WMDs won't be found. The  statements about capping Australia's commitment were driven by electioneering, not events in the war zone.

Labor has leapt upon the troops decision, and fair enough. Howard should be held accountable for his past statements which deliberately played down the conflict and set up promises he couldn't keep.

But politics aside, it's difficult to criticise the essence of the decision to bolster Australia's troops at "tilting point" time in Iraq. Which way the conflict "tilts" – and whether Howard will need to increase troops or cut his losses and abandon Iraq – is another matter.

*Matt Price is a columnist with The Australian newspaper.
======================================

SEE ALSO
Iraq: PM Tells Japan He Weighed up PoW Issue

Suicide Rate Among Japanese Soldiers Soars

Their Country Needs U

[Mowlana Vector]

Decoding Howardspeak ...
=======================

Howard's Way With Words
By: Shaun Carney*
The AGE (26 Feb 2005)


(courtesy of Alan Moir 25 Feb 05)

John Howard found himself in a difficult spot this week. But not for long.

John Howard is the second-most successful politician in Australian history. How has he done it? An important element is his facility with the language - a conscious selection of key words that build defences around his weak spots, a demeanour that makes him look and sound more like an "ordinary" person than a programmed political operative stuffed into a suit, and an ability to fashion escape routes during interviews.

Tuesday's announcement of a decision to send 450 troops to Iraq, a blatant reversal of a pre-election pledge not to increase Australia's military commitment, was the first time during this term that Howard found himself in a difficult spot. His performance during an interview with Catherine McGrath on Wednesday morning's ABC program AM was a classic example of the way in which the Prime Minister attempts and often succeeds in talking himself out of trouble.

McGrath began by asking Howard why he had broken an election promise. Howard said circumstances had changed "quite significantly" since the election and that the level of troop commitment in Iraq "was hardly a central issue in the campaign". He was right but this was largely because he had put the issue to bed by ruling out an increased military involvement.

He then said the most important reason for the change was because the outcome of the January 30 election in Iraq was "more inspiring and impressive than I think anybody had expected". The logic seems to be that if the elections had gone badly, Australia would not have sent more troops, leaving Iraqis more exposed to the insurgents.

The Prime Minister emphasised that Japan - neither the US nor Britain, our coalition of the willing partners, was mentioned at this stage - had asked for the support. He also said there was now much greater emphasis on the importance of training the Iraqis, which was really just an invention on the Prime Minister's part; it's been important ever since Saddam fled in April 2003.

What follows is an annotated transcript of the next couple of minutes of the interview.

HOWARD: I'm not running away from the fact that I had previously said I did not contemplate a major increase, and that was a fair statement of the Government's state of mind at the time I made that. (Here the PM pulls a tried and true move, seeking to render himself as a virtuous "unusual" politician by not denying the obvious truth: he gave an assurance and he was now breaking it. He could not run away from it, anyway.)

But, in these situations, a government must have a capacity, if circumstances alter, and it is judged to be not only in our own interests but also in the broader interests of democracy in the Middle East that we make those changes. And I do not apologise at all for the fact that the Government has changed its position. I acknowledge that I'll be criticised for that, but in the end I've got to take decisions that I believe are right in the interests of this country and broader Western interest in the Middle East. (It's vital to portray the "toughness" of the decision. But in light of this answer, can Howard keep beating up on the Bracks Government for going back on its pre-election no-tolls pledge?)

McGRATH: All right, but in Davos, in late January, you received a formal request for this, yet you told The Bulletin magazine on the way home from that trip that you would not be significantly increasing our presence.

HOWARD: Well, um, Catherine, um, I'm not denying that we have changed our position, and this is a situation that has evolved over a period of weeks, and governments, unless they are to be absolutely frozen and immobilised in time, and notwithstanding a change in circumstances never change their position, are constantly going to have to do things of this kind. I mean, this is just, if I may say so, really playing with words. (A Freudian slip, surely. Howard is displaying mild agitation and by now his strategy is clear: not to answer this question and to repeat his earlier comments in the hope of exhausting McGrath.)

We are a Government that has assessed changed circumstances and decided that the right thing to do is to respond to this request. This involves a partnership with a country which is very important to us in our own region. It also involves responding to a request from one of the other Coalition partners, the British, but the Japanese element of this is very important because Japan is a strong regional ally and partner of Australia, and I think it is very important to the Coalition effort in Iraq that Japan continues to be part of that effort, particularly as the contribution Japan is making is of a very constructive humanitarian kind. (Constant mentions of Japan are an attempt to emphasise the "changed" environment in Iraq.)

McGRATH: All right, you have outlined your reasons for this, I'm asking the question though in terms of informing the public. Didn't you mislead The Bulletin then, when you said . . . (Uh oh, she's doing her job and still wants an answer. The PM needs to stop her from finishing the sentence.)

HOWARD: (Agitation now getting more obvious.) No, no, because no decision had, no, well I'm sorry, Catherine (Interviewer's name used here for second time to disarm, make the PM seem more human.), I didn't mislead The Bulletin because no decision had been taken. (New strategy required. Just deny it and get ready to confuse things.)

MCGRATH: But a decision was under active consideration at that time?

HOWARD: No, no, I'm sorry, (The PM stalls for a second here, scans the question for an escape hatch, finds it and settles on the convoluted logic that will hopefully confuse everybody and kill this thing.) you don't, a decision is not under active consideration, and no decision had been taken at that time, and quite frankly, at that particular time, which was only a few weeks ago, we were a long way from the decision that we have taken in recent days. (Now the room is starting to fill with smoke. At last the PM has what he wanted: the opportunity to split a hair. A decision is only a decision after it is announced. Lucky for him that McGrath asked if "a decision" and not "a change" had been under active consideration. Lucky? Maybe not. This man is always "on"; he makes his own luck.)

*Shaun Carney is an associate editor of The Age. (scarney@theage.com.au )
=================================================
SEE ALSO
Betrayal Again, Now With Contempt

[Mowlana Vector]

Howard Admits Troop Deployment Unpopular

A new opinion poll showing Labor had overtaken the coalition government reflected a lack of support for the doubling of troop numbers in Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard said on Tuesday.

The ACNielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers showed Labor led the government on a two-party preferred basis by 52 per cent to 48 per cent.

It is the first time the coalition has fallen behind the opposition in seven months and comes just three weeks after the government announced it would send an extra 450 troops to war-torn Iraq.

Mr Howard said he never promised not to send more troops to Iraq, but he realised the decision was not popular with Australians.

"I acknowledged at the time that our decision would not be popular and the polls would indicate that it's not got popular support," he told Brisbane radio 4BC.

"But occasionally governments are required to take decisions that involve unpopularity. I never promised there'd be no more troops. I said quite honestly and accurately when asked ... that we didn't have any plans to significantly increase our force."

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the government had misled the Australian people by reversing a decision not to increase troop numbers.

But Mr Howard said the decision reflected Australia's desire to cement its relationship with Japan.

"In 2005, it's in Australia's interests to have a close relationship with Japan and providing a secure environment for the Japanese forces in this province of Iraq serves a number of objectives and they are the reasons why we decided to send these people. It does not represent a broken promise."

But the poll was a sobering reminder his party could not be complacent, Mr Howard said. "These latest polls do ... remind the Liberal Party ... [the idea it] is guaranteed another two terms in office as a result of the last election is completely false," he said.

"The political fortunes can change and all elections in Australia are close and we have, as always, a fight ahead of us."

He admitted recent economic indicators had hurt the coalition. "We've had a couple of bad economic numbers and polls are going to go up and down."

Mr Howard also defended the prerogative of governments to change their minds, regardless of pledges they make during election campaigns.

"This proposition that you can never change a position without being accused of breaking a promise is absurd," he said.

"It's a new doctrine in Australian politics. Governments often change their positions in the light of changed circumstances. They would be foolish and stubborn if they didn't do so."

Source
==========================================

ALSO SEE
Spooked voters Put ALP Back In Front

[Mowlana Vector]

PM Says He's Put Us on the Map
By: Political Editor, Phillip Corey
The Advertiser ( 1 April 2005)

PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday said Australia had become stronger and more deeply involved in the world under his leadership.

Speaking to Sydney's Lowy Institute, Mr Howard said economic and military strength was making Australia an anchor of prosperity and stability in the region.

"When I became Prime Minister nine years ago, I believed this nation was defining itself in the world too narrowly," he said.

He said Australia's responses to the challenges of globalism and terrorism had given the country "a new clarity of purpose" and a leadership role in the world.

"By getting things in order at home, we can be a more active partner abroad," he said. "We have learned that if we make the right choices, Australians can shape our environment and our destiny."

Of Australia's high-profile military role under his leadership, Mr Howard said "peace-loving peoples must sometimes act forcefully if freedom is to be secured".

"Australia's ability to project armed force will remain a key instrument in the war on terror," he said.

Fighting terrorism, however, also required non-conventional tactics and that was why it was important to forge close ties with the U.S.

"There is no sharper weapon in this fight than high-grade intelligence," he said.

"In the age of terrorism, having privileged access to U.S. military and intelligence assets is vital to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks in South-East Asia."
=======================================

ALSO SEE
A Historic Shift in Foreign Policy

Australia, Asia & Cultural Diplomacy

[Mowlana Vector]

Additional Australian Troops Begin Leaving For Iraq

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Australian soldiers that are part of an additional troop commitment to Iraq began leaving from the northern Australian city of Darwin on Saturday.

An advance party of 43 troops flew out on Saturday afternoon, as part of a larger contingent totalling about 450 soldiers which will boost Australia's troop commitment in Iraq by 50 percent. Extra equipment and supplies will also leave on HMAS Tobruk on Sunday.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard will officially see off the main group of solders on Sunday, ahead of his departure on a trip to China, Japan and the World War I battlefield of Gallipoli in Turkey.

Australia agreed in February to send the additional troops, after the withdrawal of Dutch soldiers from southern Iraq, following requests from Britain and Japan.

But the extra deployment comes after the government contested last October's election promising no significant increase in the number of troops for Iraq.

Howard said when announcing the increase in February that the deployment came at a crucial time for democracy in Iraq following the Jan. 30 elections in that country.

Australia, a close ally of the United States sent some 2,000 military personnel to Iraq and the Middle East at the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

It had about 880 personnel in and around Iraq helping to rebuild the country and protect diplomats when it agreed to a request from Japan and Britain to strengthen numbers.

The extra troops will be based in Iraq's Muthanna province, and will stay for an initial six months followed by a second six-month rotation.

A Defence Department spokesman said most of the troops would leave for the Middle East in next few days, and then follow the advance party to Iraq.

"They will be setting up and getting everything right for the main group when it arrives in the next week or so," he said.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

Source
====================

RELATED THREAD
IRAQ: Operation Enduring Misinformation

[Astral]

And I was happy that my safety net card was almost half full :S - bum.

Well it doesn't matter if he lied about medicare or didn't lie. It's not like people voted for him because of medicare. And it's not like it's a huge shock.

[Mowlana Vector]

Indeed ... and the apologies are keep coming

Related Thread
PM Apologises For Breaking Medicare Vow, What's New?

[Mowlana Vector]

(courtesy of Matt Golding, The Sunday AGE, 17 April 2005)




(courtesy of Alan Moir, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 April 2005)



(courtesy of Bill Leak, The Australian, 18 April 2005)



(courtesy of Sean Leahy, The Courier-Mail, 18 April 2005)

[Mowlana Vector]

... and this is just for the records, folks
================================

PM Can't Rule Out More Troops
( 18 April 2005)

PRIME Minister John Howard says there are no plans at present to send more troops to Iraq - but he has refused to rule out sending more in the future.

The first of 450 troops bound for Iraq arrived at an airbase in Kuwait overnight ahead of their mission.

"We don't have any current intention of adding to it, but I am not going to get into the silly position by saying absolutely, definitely that's the end of it because circumstances could alter in the future," Mr Howard said.

"I don't think they will, but if you are asking me for an ironclad guarantee that there will be no further alteration in the force level in Iraq, I can't do that.

"But I can tell you we don't have any current intention of increasing it."

The troops are being sent to protect Japanese military engineers working in southern Iraq.

Mr Howard yesterday officially farewelled the majority of soldiers at a relaxed barbecue in Darwin, accompanied by Defence Minister Robert Hill and defence force chief Peter Cosgrove.

The troops, mainly drawn from Darwin's 1st Brigade, will leave Darwin by sea and air over the next few weeks.

The advance party, comprising 40 soldiers and their light armoured vehicles, flew into the Ali Al Salem Air Base, northwest of Kuwait City, on an RAAF troop transport.

The Australian navy ship HMAS Tobruk left Darwin yesterday morning and is expected to arrive in Kuwait with the task force's heavy equipment in 12 to 16 days.

The Australians will train at a US desert camp in Kuwait before crossing into neighbouring Iraq and heading to their Dutch-run base at Camp Smitty in Al Muthanna province.

The deployment will raise the number of Australian troops in Iraq to around 1370.

AAP
Weblink
========================================

ALSO SEE
Transcript of the PM Press Conference, Robertson Barracks Darwin

[sodapop]

Really like Moir's cartoons...

[Mowlana Vector]

Iraq: How We Were Duped

[Mowlana Vector]

... and finally, the long return of a missing titling point
======================


Afghanistan Requests Australian Troops

ELEANOR HALL: But first today, the Federal Government is considering sending troops back to Afghanistan, three years after Australia joined the United States in invading that country shortly after the September 11 attacks on the US.

Despite vows from the international community not to abandon Afghanistan once the Taliban had been ousted, violence has escalated in recent years and the Afghan Ambassador to Australia is now calling on the Federal Government to make a "healthy contribution" of troops to his country.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer acknowledges Australia's allies have asked the Government many times to send troops.

And today Afghanistan's Ambassador, Mahmoud Saikal, has told Louise Yaxley he fears there will be more terrorism in his country as the elections approach, and that Australian troops could help bring stability.

MAHMOUD SAIKAL: We have been urging Australia to move in the three areas – in the area of development, and I must acknowledge the fact that Australia has made a significant contribution in the field of development in Afghanistan – the reconstruction and development of the country.

In the field of defence and security Australia made a very healthy contribution in the year 2002, and we would like to see the continuation of that again in our country, and in the field of diplomacy.

LOUISE YAXLEY: In the field of diplomacy you're calling on Australia to establish an embassy in Kabul.

MAHMOUD SAIKAL: My feeling is that establishing a mission in Kabul would really help.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Australia's had many requests to renew its military assistance to Afghanistan, but hasn't agreed to them. What do you want it to do?

MAHMOUD SAIKAL: Let's not forget that for the past three-and-a-half years we have made significant gains in Afghanistan. We have made gains in every field, we've made political gains, we've made security gains, we've made economic gains, our trade is now taking off. Believe it or not the economic indicators are beginning to show some trade with Australia here.

These gains, however, need consolidation. Unfortunately the threats of terrorism and the threats of the regrouping of the Taliban have not been removed. They are still there. Leading figures of al-Qaeda and leading figures of the Taliban are still alive. They are still at large. They are still regrouping. They are still busy orchestrating military operations inside Afghanistan. They are highly active, as we have seen, we have seen a surge of violence in the past few months, and I've got no doubt that in the lead-up to the parliamentary election which will take place on the 18th of September this year they will do their best to destabilise the country, and even after the election, even once we have an elected parliament, I've got no doubt that for as long as they enjoy external support and they've got a safe haven somewhere outside the country, they will continue to conduct their violent operations inside Afghanistan.

So it is crucial that we make sure that they do not have external support, that they do not have a safe haven to run back to once they're beaten in Afghanistan.

LOUISE YAXLEY: What do you want to see it do militarily?

MAHMOUD SAIKAL: Well there is a range of options, I don't want to go to the details of these options. I do know that there is a healthy dialogue between Australia and Afghanistan on security matters. And I do know Australian defence officials have been to Afghanistan talking to our security agencies and to our international partners.

The details of the discussion and what will be the nature of Australia's contribution in the field of security, I think that's up to the experts. I just leave it there.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Are you disappointed that Australia hasn’t agreed to the requests that it’s had from the UN Secretary-General and others so far for it do more militarily?

MAHMOUD SAIKAL: Well naturally Afghanistan needs help. It has been needing help for the past three-and-a-half years. The stronger the resolve of the international community the better it is. The more attention we pay to the security of Afghanistan, the better it is for Afghanistan, and the better it is for the region, the better it is for the world, including Australia itself.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Why do you think it is that New Zealand has contributed quite a few troops and Australia at the moment has just one person from its defence forces in Afghanistan?

MAHMOUD SAIKAL: I think it might have something to do to the Australian commitment in Iraq. At some stage Australia was heavily involved in a number of places – in East Timor, in Solomon Island, in Iraq – so that could be the reason. But my understanding is that Australia has reduced its forces in Solomon Island to a great deal, Australia is no longer involved in East Timor.

So Australia now is in a very good position to make a healthy contribution to the security of Afghanistan.

ELEANOR HALL: The Afghan Ambassador to Australia, Mahmoud Saikal, speaking to Louise Yaxley in Canberra.
==================

ALSO SEE
Afghanistan May Quickly Become `A Mirror of Iraq'

US Endures Deadliest Year in Afghanistan

Bush Hails Iraq And Afghanistan As Models

Misery and Death in Afghanistan: Blair's Broken Promise

Afghan Protest Against The US Becomes Violent


FURTHER READING
SAS 'Triggered' Afghan Carnage

ADF Response to Time Magazine Article

PM Backs SAS Over 'Souveniring' Incident

Australian-Afghanistan Business Ties Showing Promising Signs

PM Recalls Troops From Afghanistan

ADF: Australia's Commitment to the Coalition Against Terrorism

Australia's War in Afghanistan

[Mowlana Vector]

We Should Be Ready For Call to Finish the Job in Afghanistan



Kabul Calls Our Troops

[Mowlana Vector]

Australia Considers Sending Troops to Afghanistan

[Mowlana Vector]

Afghan Role Conditional on Iraq, Says Beazley

[Mowlana Vector]

America Unaware of Afghan Plea

[Mowlana Vector]

Let's just hope that Operation Slipper to Afghanistan doesn't slip any further

(Image courtesy Ron Tandberg, The AGE - 14 July 05)

Quote

...
GEORGE NEGUS: Ahmed, today the Australian Government have indicated that they intend sending our troops back to Afghanistan, probably in the context of a resurgence by the Taliban, etc, do you think that's a smart move?
Do you think Australia should be sending their troops back and if they go back, what sort of role do you think they're likely to play?

AHMED RASHID: Well I think certainly foreign troops are desperately needed. I think Afghanistan has been very much forgotten because of Iraq and because of other issues. The fact is that there is an insurgency going on in the southern part of Afghanistan which is much worse this summer than it has ever been since 9/11 and since the Taliban were defeated.

GEORGE NEGUS: Do you think they should be sending the troops back to Afghanistan?

AHMED RASHID: I think certainly. I think if Australia is to show its commitment to the rehabilitation of Afghanistan and to the international community, to NATO, to the US, to all its allies in the West, I think it's very important that they do send these troops back into Afghanistan.

GEORGE NEGUS: Whereabouts in Afghanistan do you think troops like the Australian troop, SAS or otherwise, would be needed? where would they be serving best?

AHMED RASHID: If they are coming for a short term, that is to cover the elections in September, they could be deployed anywhere. But I think they are more likely to come long term.

The British and the Canadians are going to be taking over the American peacekeeping and operational duties in southern Afghanistan in Kandahar and in eastern Afghanistan early next year. And I think it's very likely that the Australians could well be joining them. That, of course, is the hottest spot in Afghanistan.
That's where all the military action has been in recent weeks. What we are seeing is new tactics again being used by the Taliban. We're seeing suicide bombings, we're seeing beheadings, we're seeing attacks on soft targets, we're seeing a much greater numbers, for example, you've had groups of 200 and 300 Taliban taking on American forces in the south and the local Afghan forces. By any standards of guerrilla war, these are very large numbers and given that the Americans control the skies, the Taliban are taking huge risks. So it is becoming quite a dangerous situation.

GEORGE NEGUS: So it sounds almost certain that if the Australians go back and they are going back, they will be seeing action?

AHMED RASHID: Well certainly if they're deployed in the south and the east. I think they will be seeing action, there's no doubt about it. And given the Australian record, of course, you know the Australians have a pretty formidable reputation in Afghanistan and there's every likelihood that everyone is going to be wanting to put them on the front line rather than keep them in the back for peacekeeping duties.

GEORGE NEGUS: Finally, is the war against the Taliban and the insurgency in Afghanistan winnable and if it is, how is that going to actually come about?

AHMED RASHID: I think it's winnable, I think partly the resurgence is a result of a lack of commitment by the West. When Iraq started and the Americans pulled out all their surveillance and their special forces and NATO refused to send large numbers of troops to Afghanistan because of the problems that the Europeans were having with the Americans over Iraq, I think, you know, that emboldened the Taliban and al-Qa'ida.

They said, "Oh, the Americans are sort of running yellow, they're about to pull out, Iraq has divided the Western camp" etc, I think that was a major factor.
I think what is needed here by the Western camp is to show a seriously long-term commitment to peace and security in Afghanistan. You know, it's a fraction of the cost, it's a fraction of the number of troops being used compared to Iraq. I mean, the total number of American troops in Afghanistan is 18,000 compared to 140,000 in Iraq.

The cost of development, I mean, you know if Afghanistan could get $2 billion or $3 billion a year for the next five years, I think that would be really - it would put it well on its way to recovery and becoming part of the international community and providing something to its people. That again is a fraction of the cost of what people are estimating reconstruction for Iraq, where they're talking about $20 billion a year for the next five years.  More ...

ALSO SEE
Afghanistan Crucial to Terrorism Fight, Howard Says: Interview with PM John Howard

Afghanistan Welcomes Australia's Decision to Send More Troops