| Sports |
By TOM PLATE
Is this Howard’s end?
AUSTRALIAN prime minister John
Howard, often the most patient and sure-footed of Western-style
political leaders, is reported to be losing patience with the
current Iraq government and mulling over options for a troop
withdrawal.
Howard, who has served as Australia’s prime minister longer than
George W Bush has been US president, is no dummy.
The Australian people have soured on the war effort, to which
their country has committed a troop contribution of about 1,500.
And the facts on the ground in Iraq do not seem to be improving
rapidly
America does not go to the polls until late next year, but
Australians will choose their next government later this year.
Howard, prime minister since 1996, has seen his opinion ratings
deteriorate and faces the prospect of leading his Liberal Party
to defeat. Time is not on the chiseled veteran’s side.
The squeeze has begun and the wily Howard is looking for a way
out that avoids the appearance either of defeat or of a
timetable. Judging from his public statements, though, Howard,
it seems, thinks timetables for withdrawal are sort of unwise
and unmanly.
Just a few months ago, in an utterly gratuitous commentary on
the US presidential debate, Howard lambasted Illinois Senator
Barack Obama not so much for advocating withdrawal as for
proposing a specific timetable – sometime in the spring of next
year.
The prime minister was suggesting that this very idea was
problematic, if not unpatriotic.
“I think that will just encourage those who want to destabilise
and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the
terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” he told
Australian Nine Network television.
“If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around
March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a
victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”
But if Howard is aiming to time the beginning of the Australian
withdrawal to the country’s impending election, then why should
al-Qaeda not “put a circle” around an even earlier date than
Obama’s?
In fact, those running Obama’s presidential campaign might well
be justified now in throwing Howard’s angry words right back in
the prime minister’s face. Petty get-even politics aside, the
Iraq tragedy raises the very important issue of excessive
alliance loyalty, if not dysfunctional geopolitical
co-dependence.
Sure, president Bush had put it on the line when the unwise
decision to invade was made.
“You are either with me or against me,” was the un-nice way he
put it.
And, as if in response to the snap of the president’s fingers,
three prime ministers were in short order at Bush’s feet – Tony
Blair of Great Britain, Junichiro Koizumi of Japan and, of
course, Howard of Australia. Two of them – Blair and Koizumi –
have since resigned.
Each calculated that it was in their country’s national interest
to leap at their master’s command.
But with the benefit of hindsight (which admittedly always does
put tough issues into perfect focus), we can now ask the
question – was it in America’s interests to have allied leaders
who were such yes-men?
Might not it have been better for the US to have had friends
courageous enough to challenge the administration’s thinking,
instead of pimping it to their domestic public and around the
world?
After all, the US has lost more than 3,600 soldiers in Iraq –
and more than 27,000 have been significantly injured. The
British have had 168 killed, as of this writing. The Japanese
have had none from combat; the Aussies have lost two soldiers.
In Japan and Britain, the governing parties remain in power and
there is still time for Howard to pull out a victory from the
jaws of defeat in Australia.
After all, none of these governments staked everything on this
awful war, as did the Bush administration. It is the Bush
administration’s legacy that will be largely coloured by this
unnecessary war. Worse yet, history will be even more
condemnatory of Bush if it turns out
Afghanistan (which was a necessary war) is to be lost because of
the diversion of too many resources to Iraq.
So thanks a lot, Britain, Japan and Australia – you were good
old boys in the end. “Let’s go get ’em, George. We’re with you
all the way!”
So it may be asked, with miscalculating, fawning friends like
Howard – and Blair and Koizumi – Bush, in the end, really did
not need enemies, did he?
And so it is Howard – far more than Senator Obama – who has
blood on his hands from this awful tragic mess. – newmatilda
Note: UCLA Adjunct Prof Tom Plate is a veteran American
journalist. His syndicated columns appear in newspapers and on
websites around the world, from the Providence Journal to the
South China Morning Post.
 
|
