Here’s what the Australian PM said recently (get the rest of the speech here).
What Iraq and her people now need is time, not a timetable. They seek our patience, not political positioning. They require our resolve, not our retreat.
In March 2003 I was very clear about the reasons for taking decisive action against Saddam Hussein. I simply remind people of the strategic realities we faced.
That Saddam’s regime was a real and growing threat to the stability of the Middle East. Containment was breaking down.
That Saddam had form, both as an aggressor against his neighbours and as a tyrannic ruler of his own people. And that his non-compliance with 17 UN Security Council resolutions over a period of 12 years was weakening the credibility of the United Nations.
That virtually all governments (including opponents of the war such as France and Germany) as well as the now Leader of the Opposition agreed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and had designs on developing nuclear weapons. Mr Rudd said that Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was “a matter of empirical fact”.
That the Middle East has always been very important to Australia’s security and broader national interests.
And that the strength of our alliance with the United States is based ultimately on the preparedness of each party to share risk and the overall security burden on behalf of the other.
For the record, let me state clearly why I believe a timetable for premature withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq would invite disastrous strategic and humanitarian consequences.
First, it would undercut the forces of moderation in Iraq at the precise moment when they have a chance – perhaps the last chance – to stabilise their country. Sectarian violence would escalate, with the Sunnis abandoning the unity government and parliament.
Second, it would lead to more widespread and extreme human rights abuses, more internally displaced Iraqi civilians and further outflow of refugees to neighbouring states.
Third, a precipitate withdrawal would give a green light to those looking to make Iraq a platform for global terror. With Al Qaeda and other extremists claiming withdrawal as a victory, this would likely inspire more terrorism outside Iraq, including in South East Asia.
Iraq is undeniably a frontline in the fight against international terrorism. The terrorists view it as such.
Fourth, it would further destabilise what is already the world’s most unstable region, perhaps igniting a wider war in the Middle East. Any prospect of resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict would lie in tatters.
And fifth, it would be a crushing blow to America’s global leadership, emboldening those who, like Osama Bin Laden, have argued all along that America is a “weak horse” on which no one should depend.
, it may be clever politics to portray Afghanistan as the ‘good war’ and Iraq as the ‘bad war’, but it is a position cloaked in folly.
Why is it right that Australia and its allies prevail in Afghanistan but fail in Iraq? Why is it okay for Iraq to become a safe haven for global terror but not Afghanistan?
Why is building Afghanistan’s security capability more compelling than building Iraq’s? And why is a massive setback to American global leadership fine in one place but not in another?
I am prepared to accept constructive criticism of the Government’s position on Iraq. But our opponents also have to take responsibility for their position.
