On the face of it, this sounds like unusually frank candour from a government I've come to regard as masters of spin. No victory in Iraq (something I've come to terms with ages ago), no magical utopia either. I think it's a worthy idea to help the Iraqis with their nascent democracy as much as possible, but I think there are limits to the assistance we can grant.No such thing as victory in Iraq: Nelson
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has warned that coalition forces will not achieve victory in Iraq.
Dr Nelson has told a defence conference in Canberra that no-one should expect a Utopia in Iraq once the current conflict is over.
He says there will be Al Qaeda-inspired violence across the country for the foreseeable future.
"There is no such thing as victory in Iraq," he said.
"And the Iraqis who've shown enormous courage to vote on three occasions to elect their own government, they should be the inspiration for what we do, but there'll be no such thing as victory.
"The most important thing that we do is to make sure the Iraqis have control of their own destiny, and have the moral fortitude and courage to see the job through until they're in a position to do it."
The article continues:
With the exception that those countries within the South Pacific and SE Asia region are next door to us, while Iraq is on the other side of the neighbourhood (figuratively speaking). Not to mention commitments vary by needs, so how exactly is it an equal obligation?Dr Nelson has accused critics of Australia's Iraq policy of double standards.
He says Australia's obligation to stay and rebuild Iraq is equal to its duty to the countries it is currently assisting in the South Pacific and South-East Asia.
Well why is it that Afghanistan was completely forgotten as far as the government and the media were concerned, when as a country they were the ones most responsible for the attacks on our allies? Maybe most Australians think going into Afghanistan was the right decision, whereas Iraq wasn't?And he says the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, is being inconsistent by criticising Australia's troop deployment in Iraq while at the same time supporting a possible increase in troop numbers in Afghanistan.
"Why is it that some people in this country think that the Iraqis have less a right to that security and support than do East Timorese and indeed even Australians?" he said.
"And why is that Mr Rudd thinks that it's important to fight Al Qaeda and terrorist networks in Afghanistan but for some reason we shouldn't be fighting them in Iraq?"
Honestly, I think Howard has woken up and realised that the Opposition Leader actually has more cognitive ability than the last three Opposition Leaders combined, and the public is beginning to shift their support.The Prime Minister says Australia cannot reduce its troop numbers in Iraq, even though Britain, Denmark and Lithuania are reducing theirs.
John Howard maintains that Australia will not set a timetable for bringing troops home, and he says Australia cannot reduce the number of its combat troops in southern Iraq.
"Reducing from 550 to what?" he said.
"To 300, to 200, you reach a point where the operational capacity of the unit is not very effective."
The Opposition Leader disagrees.
"Why is it not OK for 520 Australian troops to be brought home to Australia sometime next year?" Mr Rudd said.
I don't know if a Labor government would be better than the current chuckleheads in power, but I can't see how they'd be worse. To give some context for the above article, this year is an election year for the Federal Government.
