Over the weekend, Australian Prime Minister John Howard committed a classic gaffe, saying that a proposal by newly minted presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw troops from Iraq would only encourage the civilized world's terrorist enemies. Said Mr. Howard: "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 Mr. Obama but also for the Democrats."
Talk about an inconvenient truth. Mr. Howard's remarks were immediately denounced as an inappropriate meddling in U.S. politics. Sen. Ron Wyden called them "bizarre." Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the DNC, dismissed Mr. Howard as "a great friend of George Bush's," adding, "We don't care what he says."
Mr. Howard's real sin was to say what few in the U.S. have been willing to say for fear of giving offense or being accused of "questioning the patriotism" of the war's critics. As detailed in the latest New Yorker magazine, Sen. Joe Lieberman is a rare exception -- and is regularly viewed by Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) as having crossed the line into unacceptable behavior for observing that insurgent attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are meant to provoke U.S. politicians to wash their hands of the war.
But this is exactly the victory the enemy seeks. How can the war intelligently be debated without acknowledging the enemy's fundamental strategic principle -- to turn the U.S. lack of staying power against it? That's a good question, but one only a foreign ally can perhaps raise at this point.
With 1,400 troops in Iraq and as a stalwart supporter of the U.S. global war on terror, Mr. Howard is right to fear for his own nation's security if the U.S. goes wobbly. He pointed to the potential ripple effects of a withdrawal in emboldening groups closer to home, such as Indonesia's Jemaah Islamiyah, responsible for the Bali terrorist bombings. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee who is also running for president, put it this way: "I think the Aussies have earned a right to comment on the world stage about their partner in this endeavor.
(Thanks for the insightful commentary, Joe!)
Talk about an inconvenient truth. Mr. Howard's remarks were immediately denounced as an inappropriate meddling in U.S. politics. Sen. Ron Wyden called them "bizarre." Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the DNC, dismissed Mr. Howard as "a great friend of George Bush's," adding, "We don't care what he says."
Mr. Howard's real sin was to say what few in the U.S. have been willing to say for fear of giving offense or being accused of "questioning the patriotism" of the war's critics. As detailed in the latest New Yorker magazine, Sen. Joe Lieberman is a rare exception -- and is regularly viewed by Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) as having crossed the line into unacceptable behavior for observing that insurgent attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are meant to provoke U.S. politicians to wash their hands of the war.
But this is exactly the victory the enemy seeks. How can the war intelligently be debated without acknowledging the enemy's fundamental strategic principle -- to turn the U.S. lack of staying power against it? That's a good question, but one only a foreign ally can perhaps raise at this point.
With 1,400 troops in Iraq and as a stalwart supporter of the U.S. global war on terror, Mr. Howard is right to fear for his own nation's security if the U.S. goes wobbly. He pointed to the potential ripple effects of a withdrawal in emboldening groups closer to home, such as Indonesia's Jemaah Islamiyah, responsible for the Bali terrorist bombings. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee who is also running for president, put it this way: "I think the Aussies have earned a right to comment on the world stage about their partner in this endeavor.
(Thanks for the insightful commentary, Joe!)
Comments
"If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.
While there's no law requiring you to respect Australia's contribution to OIF, here's a factoid you might want to take into consideration.
One grizzled old Ausie officer came out of retirement to serve in Iraq (with only one good eye to boot) and gunned down an advancing suicide bomber and saved 15 US Marines at a roadside checkpoint.
I met him the next day.
Even if he were the sole Australian soldier Howard comitted to the cause, I would still give him thanks.
Smaller nations may have smaller armies, but that doesn't diminish the size of their commitment, or diminish the the importance of their service.
Romania has just 830 troops in Iraq. You wanna bag on them too? Because I know a guy who was brought back from the point of death by a Romanian nurse who would beg to differ with you.
I'm no hero. I was just priviledged to meet a few. And win or lose, I will tell their stories.
That Ausie was five foot nothing if he was an inch, his weathered face twisted into a permanant squint. When I thanked him for saving my Marine brothers he brushed it off (as heroes do) and gave me the finest compliment I ever received:
"Noithin' yew wouldn't do in my place, mate."
You still don't get it, do you?
I said there's no law requiring your respect, I didn't say I wanted your pity. You do realize that it's the non-support from Americans like you that's gonna cost us a victory in Iraq, right?
I take it back. You do indeed, "Get it."