Abbott scratches his itchy trigger finger By ABCs Barrie Cassidy Fri 22 Aug 2014, 7:31am Cooler heads have prevailed in recent days, and it appears the Prime Minister has scratched his itchy trigger finger when it comes to the Iraq conflict, writes Barrie Cassidy. The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has scratched his itchy trigger finger. He told ABC radio in Brisbane this week that were not going to get dragged into a new Iraqi war; no one is talking about putting combat forces on the ground. That was unequivocal, with none of the ambiguity that surrounded some of his tough rhetoric at the height of the rescue of thousands of Yazidi refugees trapped on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. And though Ukraine is a different situation, his distaste for the use of ground forces in Iraq was not replicated, apparently, when, according to Paul Kelly in The Australian last weekend, he seriously considered sending 1000 troops into the disputed territory to safeguard the plane crash site. According to Kelly, Abbott changed his mind when the action became unnecessary. Why it became unnecessary is not clear, given that a proper investigation at the site is still elusive. Whats more likely is that he was persuaded the initial proposal wasnt a good idea. Still, weeks later he went to The Netherlands and then London, essentially to thank and acknowledge those who had put in the effort in Ukraine, though it had the appearance of simply further identifying himself with the issues. There are parallels with the Governments decision months ago to take the lead role in the search for the missing Malaysian airliner, MH370, which disappeared on March 8. Its never been clear just how strong was the evidence that the plane went down in the Indian Ocean in the area specified. Or why the Abbott Government took it upon itself to lead the search and spend potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Of the 239 passengers and crew on board, six were Australian. Yet Australia is now locked in to leading that operation for a long time to come. The Prime Minister said in that same Brisbane interview: We went to the market to engage the best possible underwater search experts and they are now going to search the entire probable impact zone which is, from memory, something like 60,000 square kilometres of the ocean floor off the coast of Western Australia. My understanding is that theyre going to start in the next month or so, that the search could take up to a year. If the plane is down there … there is a reasonable chance that well find it because we are using the best possible technology. Were determined to do the right thing by the Australian families who lost their loved ones in this plane, were determined to do the right thing by all of the bereaved families and weve got a long way to go before were going to give this one up. Those who have been around Tony Abbott for a long time understand his thinking, both on his strong commitment to the search for the plane and his tough rhetoric on Iraq and Ukraine. One former Coalition adviser put it this way. He is a true believer in the western civilisation paradigm, you know the sort of thing, that good men should step up. He once had an ambition to be defence minister and he has an enormous respect for people in uniform. But he does have a schoolboy enthusiasm for going the biff. Be that as it may, in more recent days, it seems wiser heads have prevailed. There will be no troops on the ground in Iraq, for example, whether under a humanitarian banner, or any other. That wont please everybody. The Spectator Australia, for example. In a considered editorial this week it conceded that George W. Bush made a mess of the toppling of Saddam Hussein; and that Hillary Clinton made the opposite mistake by not toppling the equally dangerous Bashar Al Assad. So why on earth would Australia embroil itself anywhere near this hell-hole? the editorial asked before answering its own question. The answer is as simplistic as it is obvious: goodies versus baddies. For all our moral equivalence and collective guilt and shame about previous western military incursions, the bottom line is that our democratic conscience will not allow the existence of pure totalitarian evil to thrive. The alternative view is covered by Tom Allard in The Fairfax media. He quotes Clarke Jones, who used to work in national security specialising in counter terrorism and is now with the Australian National University. Whats happening is that they (those who beheaded the American journalist) are trying to get Western intervention in Iraq and Syria. That would enable them to develop a new and powerful narrative of western oppression of Muslims that would help attract a new wave of recruits. Monash University terrorism expert, Greg Barton, argued in the same article that the terrorists are trying to shift public opinion in the West in favour of the use of ground forces. An angry public is more likely to call upon their governments to do something drastic, he said. That is clearly in prospect. Though isolated, these horrific and barbaric acts tend to whip us hysteria and invite overreactions. Bernard Keane, writing for Crikey.Com, picked up on the theme. It takes a particularly dramatic case of domestic violence to even get media coverage, let alone a front page, despite the dozens of women and children killed each year by partners and parents in Australia. The point is not to equate terrorism and intimate partner violence, but to note that for anyone focused entirely on the lives and health of Australians, the obsessive preoccupation with terrorism is a bizarre case of prioritising a threat that harms far fewer of us than car crashes, crime or easily preventable diseases. The response from the Abbott Government, when it comes is likely to be closer to The Spectators logic. There will be no troops on the ground, but there could well be significant fire power from above. In a speech this week, the Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshall Geoff Brown, said he did not believe that either our government or our people have much enthusiasm for long term nation building operations away from our immediate region. However, he went on to argue that air power provides our government with multiple options for exerting coercive influence, or delivering precise blows or merely putting an adversary at risk in order to influence his behaviour. Air Marshall Brown said : It is obvious that air power must take its place at the centre of our national security strategy. Even allowing for the need for relevance, the Chief of the Air Force made a strong case to deploy air power, - the most agile and most responsive military instrument available to government - in the event that the Americans ever ask for it. Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders abc.net.au/news/2014-08-22/cassidy-abbott-scratches-his-itchy-trigger-finger/5687838
Posted on: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:20:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015