wedgie in a post-partisan world

Is the Iraq War the most blatantly politicised war in history?

Its difficult to pick another where almost each and every decision is dictated not by the military, but by reactions to political considerations. Why are we there, because the republicans in the US determined that we should be. Why are we sending more troops into Iraq, because a democrat on the election trail suggested that our PM was given smaller than average testicles. Also it means that our PM can vainly attempt to wedge his increasingly more popular opponent on a single issue. The political football being kicked around here is so immoral, perhaps the australian electorate is finally getting a little tired of the constant fudging of the facts and the laughable excuses which were sounding tired three years ago, and now just smack of hysterical over reaction to a downward spiral in the polls for the Liberals.

From AM, GILLIAN BRADFORD: So how long have you been sitting on this advice from the chief of the Defence Force, that we need to send in more trainers?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, the Chief of Defence, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and I, in response to discussions we've had with the Iraqis and as I say with Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister last year, and discussion with the Iraqi security forces and army, the British Defence Secretary and also our American allies, we've been developing a plan since before Christmas to give options to the Australian Government to send more trainers to Iraq.

(then comes the wedge, the reason why ..and ours is not to reason why)
But it does really beggar belief that Mr Rudd on the one hand criticises the Iraqis for not doing enough to look after themselves, and on that basis demands that Australian and allied troops leave Iraq, and then on the other hand he refuses to support the decision to send more trainers to Iraq to actually get the Iraqis to be able to look after themselves.

But here comes the rub, rather than allow himself to be wedged, as Beazley could be with his blanket agreement on any security issue, while at the same time trying to hold onto Labors consistent troops out message, Rudd answers thusly

AM

HAYDEN COOPER: But isn't this what Labor and you have been arguing for, helping the Iraqis help themselves? How can you argue against sending in military trainers?

KEVIN RUDD: We've argued for a long time that there are different ways in which you can provide security assistance to the Iraqis, one of which is to provide training services in Amman in Jordan, to bolster Iraq's border security defences. We've argued that consistently over a long period of time.

HAYDEN COOPER: Is that, just on that, is that really feasible though? Sending troops across a border and training them, and then bringing them back?

KEVIN RUDD: It's sufficiently feasible for a number of other governments to have been doing this for quite some time, in Amman in Jordan. It's a practical form of security assistance. And on top of that, the whole rationale of the Baker-Hamilton strategy of a staged withdrawal over time is to place pressure on the Iraqi political system, the Sunni and the Shia, to fashion a political compromise to end the civil war. It's that civil war which underpins Iraq's continuing strategic instability.

Check

KEVIN RUDD: You know Mr Howard's political tactics on this Iraq debate sounds increasingly desperate. Desperate because Mr Howard is trying to dig himself out of his gross error of judgement on Iraq in general, and in particular, why are we having this debate now?
Because he's trying to dig himself out of a debate he began 10 days ago when he accused the Democratic Party of being the terrorists' party of choice.

check

Mr Howard's strategy on Iraq is the greatest single failure of national security policy since Vietnam, and Mr Howard himself represents a national security risk for this country in the future. Why? He's refused to say that he's learnt any lessons from this Iraq debacle, and he's the man who says that Vietnam still stands up as a success of his party's foreign policy.

not yet checkmate, but its gotta hurt.

One more poll leader for the Liberals (national security) is not simply neutralised, it gives a clearly defined choice that is entirely feasable and reasoned, and closer to the mood of the electorate. I know its still politics, but at least its good politics, a clear articulation of the central theme that Labor has consistently held, get the troops out and condemn the entire basis for why we are there. Something neither beazley not latham could do with anything like the degree of clarity that has emerged from Rudd.

a good line which could equally apply to our PM from the Guardian:

George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality.

No, not a line from Colbert, but the truthiness is there in shovel loads

Vulture Funds

While listening to Democracy Now a day or so ago, I came across a topic that I felt should be much more widely known, considering the amount of press third world debt relief gets. Campaigns such as Make Poverty History draw large crowds of celebrities and well intentioned citzens, but like much of the celebrity driven poverty reduction programs, scant regard is paid beyond bumper sticker sloganering on incredibly complex issues. Should a country with notoriously corrupt rulers be given aid to cover thier own disasterous policies which left their peoples in a dreadful mess, and by what criterea do we judge that the same rulers have changed? What role does our aid play in heightening poverty, after all, our country and especially the US, place conditions on aid such as only buying goods from us, thereby destroying the internal markets of the country we are trying to help, while boosting our own?

And then there is debt relief, a noble cause, fur sure, but also incredibly tangled, especially in light of the workings of numerous funds whose chief aim is buying up third world debt at hugely discounted prices, then sueing the debtor country for the full amount of the debt.

eg Peruvian debt bonds bought for $US3 million, Peru is then sued by the vulture fund for the full debt value in US/UK courts, result, Peru is forced to pay $US 58 million or face being in default before the courts and its permanent record stained. Net profit for the billion dollar fund $US 55 million, a neat little earner. The nom de plume of the head of this particular Vulture Fund is Goldfinger (real name, Michael Francis Sheehan owns Debt Advisory International), and suprise, suprise, he is a massive donor to one G.W.Bush and his cronies.

They have so far netted hundreds of millions from many 3rd world countries across the globe in full knowledge of 1st world governments, with bush and blair particulary culpable due to their refusal to legislate against the practice in full knowledge of its morally bankrupt aims, and in light of the knowledge that their debt relief efforts are also being funnelled directly into the pockets of these Vulture Funds. Both Bush and Blair have spun an incredible amount of goodwill their way through championing 3rd world debt relief, while at the same time directly benefiting in terms of campaign contributions from the vulture funds.

A win for all, except those in poverty.

In making poverty history, it pays to read the fine print and the footnotes, they are a lot more damning than the slogans we cling to to make us feel ever so good about ourselves.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f9684f5c-bf78-11db-9ac2-000b5df10621.html

check through the archives, several shows on this (mid feb, 2007), all more than a little eye opening, and ....well lets just say my overheated hate machine lost its telfon coating.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/1528209&tid=25

http://www.democracynow.org/