Oceania Aussie troops in Iraq

Although I arrived a little late to this party, there are some misconceptions that need to be cleared up:

Sure they did, but not the national guard and reservists who joined up to protect their nation on it's home soil in the event of attack, instead of playing big brother in another country.

Well, this is simply incorrect.

The resreve forces exist to augment the full time forces in time of war. This is their purpose.

Some specialities, like civil affairs, exist completely in the reserve system, to be deployed when needed.

This reduces the manpower burden on the active forces, for specialities that have a specific function, let allows them to remain at a state of readiness.

The National Guard has always had a dual purpose mission, according to their charter. They fall under the authority of their govenor during civil disturbances, but can also be federalized as needed.

This has always been the case, and is nothing new to this conflict.

The actual manpower breakdown looks like this:

Active Duty
active reserve forces in feeder units
National Guard/Air Guard
inactive reserve forces (no unit)
stand-by reserve (no unit,list only)

If you have any other questions, please ask, instead of making incorrect assumptions.

And no soldier there asked there government to pass law making it illegal for them to leave the army for "the duration of this conflict" or keep extending their stay there without relief or rotation home.

Again, when you sign the contract, this is made perfectly clear that your tour can be extended during times of conflict. I don't know what new law you are referring to....

And E_S, the offical muzzle velocity of the M4 is 907 mps..

Granted, this is less than the AUG, but at least the M4 doesn't shoot around corners, even if you don't want it to...

Your arguments, whilst compelling and document driven, are laced with more than a smidgeon of arrogance.

Smidgen?

I'm not trying hard enough then!

my opinion is that they should not be involved anymore

But your opinion was based off the idea we were dying, which we weren't.

I'm struggling to understand the *why*.

Is it because you opposed the war? What good will this do now, other than look petulant and spiteful?

Is it because of fears of terrorism, a la Madrid? Because then you've let terrorists win; their goal, as Lenin once said, is to terrorise. If ASIS, ASIO and the AFP have failed in protecting us (which I don't believe), then pulling troops out of Iraq won't alter us as a target.

Is it part of a general disagreement with the use of military force? Because we've never shied away from helping people in need, which is what our troops are doing. For example, some ADF troops are teaching Iraqis to run airports. We're giving them a shot at something, and that my friends should be an object of pride, not something to recoil from.

And E_S, the offical muzzle velocity of the M4 is 907 mps..

I'm sorry I was off in my approximation by 7 metres per second...



Granted, this is less than the AUG, but at least the M4 doesn't shoot around corners, even if you don't want it to...

You're just saying that because the AUG is largely plastic!



E_S

I basically believe we should get the hell out of Iraq.

We should be concentrating on the main issue, that's terrorism and not be bogged down with this side show that Bush has created. I firmly believe we dropped the ball in terms of terrorism. For Rudd to say something so stupid as he did about the terrorists flocking to Iraq and it's good they are there shows how out of touch the man is.

Ender, I hope you are right about ASIO and the AFP having a grip on terrorism in this country, but I guess I'm a tad more cynical than you. Willie Brigitte showed how completely unprepared and how lacking our intelligence is. Don't get me wrong, we'll find out who and where and how and why very quickly after a terrorist attack, but I have no confidence we will prevent a terrorist attack.

I like Mark Latham but disagree in part with his more recent assertion that Australian Troops should be brought back by Christmas because it does not properly allow for the need to have them beyond such a date due to unforseen circumstances like terorrisms in car bombs and al qaeda going all islam on iraq during the provisional councils transition of power from the Coallition to themselves and then finally to a democratic and soverign Iraqi government.

I agree with Mark's earlier assertion which is actually in writing as an ALP policy (as opposed to his comments during the radio interview) which stipulates that despite the ALP's staunch opposition to the invasion of Iraq, it recognises that now the fact has occurred, Australia has an obligation under international law to see the construction and facilitation of Democratic self-governance in Iraq, and that this is best served in the current role as an occupying power.

Our role may change over time, Australia may became more an advisor or donator of specialists and equipment, or may remain as a military force in Iraq, this is still up in the air. Because it is up in the air it would be hard to ensure with 100% certainty that we can bring our troops back by X date.

It's a good thing then that Latham did quantify his assertion as this like all other matters of policy is subject to change, especially with a report from our Defense analysts due in July; so by the time of that report we may shift our stance on this issue.

I hate to dissaude Johnnie but if he thinks in this he has found another Tampa he has another thing coming.

I hate to dissaude Johnnie but if he thinks in this he has found another Tampa he has another thing coming.

And we all know how well he handled that...

Ender-Sai, okay, sure very few of our soldiers have died. Also, sure that they are in posts over there that are relatively out of harms way(compared to the American troops). However, the fact that they are there means that there is still a major risk to our personnel. The terrorist element that are still there seem to be rather indiscriminant as to who they target. Any 'western' military personnel would probably be considered a 'jackpot' for these animals. So I'm more concerned about the danger that they're in rather than the actual body count.

Pertaining to your question as to why I believe we should leave Iraq. Like I've stated before, I believe we have fulfilled our commitment to our alliance with the Americans. That is the only reason I can see as to why we are there in the first place. We are not involved(so far as I know), in the trouble between Israel and Palestine, nor are we connected with Northern Ireland's problems, or Spain's etc,etc. My point is that we are and have been for a while, a peaceful nation. Okay, East Timor was a different kettle of fish as it happened in 'our' backyard.

I am by no means 100% anti-war Ender-Sai, but I don't believe we should fight what is essentially someone else's fight. It's up to the Iraqis to sort themselves out. We have helped level the playing field over there(ie. the capture and de-lousing of Saddam), I'm absolutely all for that. However, once the handover of power(from interim Gov to Elected) is complete, I believe we should high-tail it back home. Again, this is all my humble opinion so be gentle with me.

**Winces and awaits the inevitable Ender-Sai tyrade**

Edit:- Damn I wish I could type.

...this side show that Bush has created...

Side show? This is the show! Since the Iraq war Libya has renounced its (secret) WMD and support for terrorism, Syria is desperate to suck up to the US and Iran is looking decidely nervous. This, combined with Pakistan and Afganistan creates a massive crescent of progess throughout the middle east with regards to fighting terrorism and promoting democracy (which are two parts of the same task). Also, it removes the need for US troops on Saudi soil which is handy should offensive action be needed there.

WMD? Who cares? That was just the legal pretext (which was legal BTW). The creation of a democratic Iraq is a feat of literally earth-shattering significance for peace in this century, and that is why we should stick it out til the job is done. And be proud of it!

I hate to dissaude Johnnie but if he thinks in this he has found another Tampa he has another thing coming.

And we all know how well he handled that...

By doing what the majority of Australians wanted him to do?

okay, sure very few of our soldiers have died.

Last I heard the count was 0.

However, the fact that they are there means that there is still a major risk to our personnel.

What do you think they are trained and paid for? It's a profession. You get what you sign up for.

It's up to the Iraqis to sort themselves out. We have helped level the playing field over there(ie. the capture and de-lousing of Saddam), I'm absolutely all for that. However, once the handover of power(from interim Gov to Elected) is complete, I believe we should high-tail it back home.

Just because the new Iraq government has been elected, does not necessarily mean that there will be stability. Our troops were part of the Coalition that gave the Iraqis this newfound freedom and, as such, it's our duty to ensure that their democracy is successful.

WMD? Who cares? That was just the legal pretext.

It's a pity that the governments in the Coalition of the Willing did not emphasise the liberation of the Iraqi people in their reasoning for going to war instead of the "WMD threat". If they had, most critics would be struggling to find things to bitch about. Click me.

Ender, I hope you are right about ASIO and the AFP having a grip on terrorism in this country, but I guess I'm a tad more cynical than you. Willie Brigitte showed how completely unprepared and how lacking our intelligence is.

Well, they're taking steps to rectify this by enhancing ASIO's capabilities. Plus, we're very different in culture to the Americans on this. Whereas the FBI and Homeland security will boast about the number of prevented attacks, ASIO and in the UK, Five, will keep quiet about their successes. It's like when Richard Tomlinson was attacking MI6 in the press and his book, they didn't respond and cut him down. It's the culture of the commonwealth security apparatus' not to comment.

In short, we don't and won't know what success they've had.

Our role may change over time, Australia may became more an advisor or donator of specialists and equipment, or may remain as a military force in Iraq, this is still up in the air. Because it is up in the air it would be hard to ensure with 100% certainty that we can bring our troops back by X date.

Essentially, yes, you're correct and the conspicuous absense of any Labor support for Latham's populism on this front indicates they're embarrased about his rather short-sighted comment about "Home by Christmas." Gareth Evans, being both intelligent and loyal to the ALP, refused to comment, as did Kim Beazley.

Basically, I think we need to make Mr Latham his own version of the "PLEASE MAEK ME A ADMIN" gif that's floating around the boards:

MARK LATHAM:

PLEASE MAEK ME TEH PM!!1!

Vote 1, ALP



Ender-Sai, okay, sure very few of our soldiers have died.

If by "very few" you mean none, then yes, none of our soldiers died.

And I hasten to remind you guys that the SASR was deployed deep into Iraqi held territory, because they're known to be capable of handling the toughest of the tough opposition.

The point I'm making is that our guys not only went up against the most elite Iraqi forces and emerged essentially unscathed, they managed to win hearts and minds in the process. More importantly, they act as ambassadors for Australia.

We should be proud of these guys, every single man and woman in the ADF.

However, the fact that they are there means that there is still a major risk to our personnel. The terrorist element that are still there seem to be rather indiscriminant as to who they target. Any 'western' military personnel would probably be considered a 'jackpot' for these animals. So I'm more concerned about the danger that they're in rather than the actual body count.

Not necessarily. The Japanese soldiers are far less likely to die than the Americans. They have an area outside the Provisional Authority compound called "The Assassin's Gate", and it's claimed mostly, if not entirely, Americans.

As you can see, the Americans are still at the highest risk in Iraq.

Like I've stated before, I believe we have fulfilled our commitment to our alliance with the Americans.

What about the Iraqis? To them, we still owe our assistance in rebuilding a nation. You'd be crying murder had the US toppled Saddam and run; why must we be any different? We're contributing to giving these guys a future, and that's bloody important.

We are not involved(so far as I know), in the trouble between Israel and Palestine, nor are we connected with Northern Ireland's problems, or Spain's etc,etc. My point is that we are and have been for a while, a peaceful nation. Okay, East Timor was a different kettle of fish as it happened in 'our' backyard.

We are involved; Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri has named us explicitly as targets.

And sod him, and his ****head friends. We took a principled stand, and if they want to fight us, they will, but we'll nail the bastards to the wall if they do. You can be afraid if you want, and hope that if we're meek they'll ignore us, or you can stand for something and be damned what o

ES, you're a capital fellow, but I daresay you're beginning to sound a tad bitter and cynical in your old age.

A tad bitter and cynical?

Where have YOU been for the last year?

E_S

Well, they're taking steps to rectify this by enhancing ASIO's capabilities

Man, you are less cynical than me. Honestly, the Willie Brigitte saga didn't show how ASIO doesn't have enough powers, it showed them as being incompetent fools. How can a known terrorist get into the country, stay here for 6 months, do God knows how much work in preparation of terrorist cells and only get caught after ASIO were told about it TWICE. The first warning was ignored, some intelligence network we got there. Second time, nothing was done because it was a long weekend. What has been done about ANYONE he associated with? Nothing.

Sure, they don't tell us everything. They are too busy taking down number plates at union meetings to be open and honest.

As for democracy in the middle east, I say wait 20 years and let's see if this was a side show or if it really changed anything.

I didn't notice you stopping Brigitte either!

E_S

I'd a stopped him if the frogs had bothered to give me a call about him!

[Frenchman]**** you, Mr Austraelien, you should 'ave kn'n he was on yor soiel![/Frenchman]

E+S

Latham's said of Iraq:

"I walked away from that briefing knowing and understanding that the government's policy in Iraq was a fiasco, an absolute fiasco,"

I was under the impression he'd not been briefed on the matter.

I'm sorry, but I find the protesting of a war that's already over to be silly, and the current climate is nothing short of spiteful. Right now, we're helping a nation rebuild after a war. We wrecked the old infrastructure, it'd be a bit selfish not to clean up afterwards.

Would you prefer we did it the way we are now, or that we had a Haliburton scandal and dead troops.

Moreover, what will bringing the troops home achieve?

It won't make us safer; I can tell you that now. If we've been listed as terrorist targets - which, as we've seen in the media, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri has seen fit to do - then we're likely already being plotted against. Withdrawing from Iraq won't change that. Again, as I said, let's hope that the intelligence services, customs and the AFP are more than well prepared to intercept and prevent terrorists before it's too late.

Will it restore a measure of humility to the US, which has almost been walking around with a case of post-traumatic stress disorder since 9/11? No, it won't, because America doesn't like being bullied. Moreover, Latham would have to be idiotic to assume that he'll be welcomed in Washington this year. Take Keating; he hardly was the model of diplomatic savoire faire (his hand, the Queen's arse, decorum faux pas) and yet he knew (and said) you never went to America to tell Washington it's wrong. He's a disciple of Mr Whitlam, so he should know the history of relations in 1973 between Nixon and old "Hero of the Left but from the Labor Right" Gough.

I still can't really see the logic behind the home by Christmas move. I can see why he said it, however - votes. Call me a cynic, but he's saying what he can to get elected. He figured that the Australian people would support such an idea, even though it hadnt been an issue before he brought it up.

SO I ask ye, fellow Australasians, what good can this bring about? What can this do for Australia?

E_S

You were under the impression of what? He had no discussions? Where did you get that impression, praytell? Maybe it was from Howard and Co, those fine upstanding models of truth and honesty. If you believe letters that Howard and Co have solicited from bureaucrats then you obviously have no idea of the climate of fear that pervades all government departments these days due to the heavy handedness of the Prime Minister and his cronies. Latham has proven he's had conversations and with whom, and the fact he's had to do that, in the process disclosing meetings of national importance is an indictment on how scared and rattled the Liberal party is. They are so desperate to manufacture an issue that may hurt Latham, they are abandoning the national interest for political point scoring. I'm not at all surprised by this though, I mean look at what they did in the last election with the Tampa and the children overboard.

It's a laugh - I honestly laugh - when the government start accusing Latham of not being able to run the country. I can count 5 times Howard has misled Australia and at least another 5 where he's hidden behind either ministers or bureaucrats when there's been trouble, saying "I'm the boss but no-one told me, I know nothing".

As for the troops, I'm with Latham. I didn't want us to be there in the first place and I think the troops should come home as soon as possible. That means after power is given back to the Iraqi's which is scheduled for the middle of the year. The traffic controllers won't be needed by Christmas. The troops, sure they will be needed, but the way I see it, they'll be needed forever there as the security issues will never be resolved in Iraq now. Iraq will deteriorate into yet another Pallestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan or Bosnia-Herzegovina. There will always be security issues there after this invasion.
We need to make a decision as to when we withdraw them, just like during Vietnam and I think sooner is better than later.

You were under the impression of what? He had no discussions? Where did you get that impression, praytell? Maybe it was from Howard and Co, those fine upstanding models of truth and honesty.

No, from the head of DSD dude.

E_S

It's a laugh - I honestly laugh - when the government start accusing Latham of not being able to run the country. I can count 5 times Howard has misled Australia and at least another 5 where he's hidden behind either ministers or bureaucrats when there's been trouble, saying "I'm the boss but no-one told me, I know nothing".

Oh come on, let's talk the positives.

Find the good things that the LNP coalition has done.

You can count a few instances. Mate, if you were applying the same standards, to say, Carr in NSW, you'd be out of fingers-and-toes to count on!

For all the whining that healthcare is only for the rich, and yet you'll privately concede ol' Headkicker Abbott has done a bloody good job with that portfolio.

You forget that we're richer, per capita, than we have been for years.

And I agree Latham's not fit to run this country. I still thinks he needs time as a front bencher. Keating, who he styles himself on, had plenty of time to learn the rope. Latham's basically been brought in because the ALP lacks anyone good enough to lead. He was thrown from the doldrums to the frontline because Labor's upset with it's woeful state - I mean, Simon ******* Crean?!? What were they thinking?!?!?!? - and it wants to play in the sandbox.

Latham needs more time to learn the ropes, because he has no agenda. He's good at tapping the public mood, but he'd be the kind of guy who'd, in the same day, support two contradictory positions just to get votes.

He also needs to get Crean out of the Shadow treasury and stick him somewhere that unionism will be useful. I'll be damned if I want Crean near this nation's finances...

Latham could make a good leader, if he used his talents wisely. It means the ALP caucus have to get patient, soon, but right now, Latham is a populist. He'll either have to make good on his promises, or be tremendously unpopular for his first year. During which time, if they're smart, the Libs will put Malcolm Turnbull into leadership. I know we love Mr Latham, but there's no way in hell that Turnbull, a Rhodes scholar and lawyer, won't kick the living **** out of Mr Latham.

But bringing the troops home before Christmas is yet *another* little attempt at populism.

What's next, Mark "Oh God I wish I was Whitlam!" Latham?

"It's time"
"The Light on the Hill"

Populism isn't an agenda, nor is it good for this country. Come back and see us in 3-4 years, Mark, when you've got some experience.

E_S

You want to talk populism? Let's talk about the Lib's effort of the last few years. The whole Liberal campaign in the last election was based on the populist notion that Australians don't approve of immigration, so the government beat the hell out of the issue of illegal immigrants. Why do you think they won the last election? Don't for a second say that Latham has the market cornered on populism.

One thing is for sure, Federal politics got interesting when Latham became opposition leader.

Just a quick aside so I may suggest that the only thing worse than a potential Costello government would be a potential Turnball government.

Turnbull is the bumbling fool that ruined any chance of Australia becoming a republic in the near future. He's Mr Holier Than Thou, I Know Everything, Do What's Best For You and Obey Me.

Even though I am in favour of an Australian republic, I'm glad Australia told him to go jump, based on his attitude throughout the campaign.

Uruk, I agree, the Grand Old Party of Australian Politics was a joke. I did become interesting when Latham came in, yes.

Just a quick aside so I may suggest that the only thing worse than a potential Costello government would be a potential Turnball government.

How? You care to explain that?

There are plenty of worse things; A Crean government, for one...

And Uruk, how exactly did he ruin it?

E_S

The whole Liberal campaign in the last election was based on the populist notion that Australians don't approve of immigration, so the government beat the hell out of the issue of illegal immigrants.

See: ALP
re: Same immigration policy

And, of course, you had the ALP also running their campaign on the populist notion of "OMG, Howard might retire and our most successful Treasurer ever might replace him! BE AFRAID! RUN PEOPLES RUN! Vote Labor."

Uruk, I agree, the Grand Old Party of Australian Politics was a joke. I did become interesting when Latham came in, yes.

Oh, don't sell yourself short. You were slightly interesting before he came in.


The whole populism debate is bullsh anyway. Politics is all about populism when they need votes.