Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

US prestige at stake

By Graham Cooke - posted Wednesday, 4 April 2007


American Democrats have been loud and long in their criticism of the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq. Presidential candidate Barak Obama’s call for a March 31, 2008 deadline for a drawdown of forces there has even prompted Prime Minister John Howard to make an unprecedented foray into US politics with his suggestion that al-Qaida will be praying for a Democrat victory.

However, Australia’s Ambassador in Washington, Dennis Richardson, believes the debate in the US is more nuanced than is often reported here, and that a Democrat win in the November, 2008 presidential poll will not result in the US abandoning Iraq.

“There is agreement across the major Democratic candidates that there should be a continued military presence in the region that supports five major objectives,” he says:

Advertisement
  • to continue the fight against international terrorism, however one might define that;
  • to train the Iraqi security forces;
  • to provide logistical support for those security forces;
  • to ensure border security; and finally
  • the presence, either in Iraq or just outside, of a rapid response capability which could go to the assistance of the other four components if they run into problems.

Speaking at a meeting of the Canberra branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs recently, Mr Richardson said this would mean a force of between 40,000 and 80,000 US military personnel remaining in the area.

“The core of Senator Obama’s policy is to have a drawdown of US combat forces by March 31, 2008, subject to certain conditions being met,” he said. “The word ‘combat’ is more often than not left out of media reporting within the US and Australia, yet he uses the word very deliberately because this does not include the different component elements I have mentioned.”

The suggestion here is that the Democrats, led by leading contenders Senators Obama and Hillary Clinton, will be walking a tightrope between now and next year’s primary season leading up to the nominating conventions and finally the general election. On the one hand they will be conscious of the polls showing that something like 70 per cent of Americans now harbour grave doubts or are openly hostile to the war. On the other they are conscious of how the world might view a chaotic, Vietnam-style withdrawal, the damage it might do to US prestige and the possibility of domestic public opinion forcing a retreat into isolationism and the ominous international power vacuum that would create.

Mr Richardson rejects this possibility, pointing out that five years after the fall of Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War President Ronald Reagan won election on an internationalist program of rebuilding the military and fighting global communism.

“It is highly unlikely that the US would dramatically retreat unto itself over the longer term even though, depending on how Iraq unfolded, it would feel bruised with implications for the way it pursued certain aspects of policy,” he said.

Advertisement

Whatever the outcome in Iraq, it seems almost certain that the hard decisions will be left to the next president, whoever he or she may be. Veteran foreign policy analyst and national security adviser in the Carter Administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski believes the Bush White House has essentially circled the wagons around a core of true believers - “perhaps not more in number than the fingers on one hand” - determined to stick with the current policy to the bitter end.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Brzezinski regards this situation as particularly ominous. “If the United States continues to be bogged down in protracted, bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination of this downhill track is likely to be head-on conflict with Iran and much of the Islamic world,” he predicts.

He worries that a White House bunker mentality may eventually lead to attempts to promote al-Qaida to the level of the threats posed by Nazi Germany and then the Soviet Union, with the attacks of 9-11 re-branded as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbour assault that precipitated US involvement in World War II.

Using the World War II analogy, Brzezinski maintains the US prevailed in the postwar defence of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies.

“It soberly deterred aggression without initiating hostilities and all the while, it explored the possibility of negotiating arrangements,” he writes. “A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is urgently needed [in the Middle East]”.

For the moment, most of the Republican Party leadership is going along with the current Bush strategy, prepared to give the policy of “surging” additional troops into Iraq some time to work. Presidential contender John McCain has even put an optimistic face on the latest developments claiming that things are beginning to turn around there.

However, the grim scenario for any Republican with White House ambitions in 2009 is that they must first capture the Republican heartlands voters - the 30 per cent of the electorate that are still ardently pro-Bush and pro-war. They will go nowhere in the party without them, but have no hope of winning the general election if they cannot then reach out to the more moderate Republican wing and independents.

Maybe the only hope left for Republican contenders is to adopt a moderate Iraq withdrawal policy similar to that of Senator Obama and other Democrats.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Cooke has been a journalist for more than four decades, having lived in England, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, for a lengthy period covering the diplomatic round for The Canberra Times.


He has travelled to and reported on events in more than 20 countries, including an extended stay in the Middle East. Based in Canberra, where he obtains casual employment as a speech writer in the Australian Public Service, he continues to find occasional assignments overseas, supporting the coverage of international news organisations.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Cooke

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Cooke
Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy