Recently in Iraq Category

From Gerard Henderson's column in today's SMH ...

If Howard was undiplomatic in commenting on US domestic policies then the same can be said for Obama's response. Obama told reporters in Iowa that if Howard's comments were anything other than "empty rhetoric" he would commit 20,000 additional troops to the war. This is rhetoric in itself.

Australia has about 1500 men and women in Iraq. On a comparative population basis, an Australian force of 21,500 in Iraq would equate to some 320,000 Americans - almost double the US deployment.

In itself, this is true. But it also shows to have the same level of commitment as the US, Australia would need to deploy over 10,000 troops.

Sometimes it's better to concentrate just on the rhetoric, Gerry.

And it's not about global climate change ...

"I would also note that we [the US] have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400.

"So if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

It took John Howard's undiplomatic meddling in US domestic politics to provoke a US politician to draw attention to Australia's small contribution to the Iraqi war effort.

This small level of military involvement is 'the elephant in the room' that neither side of local politics wants to notice. The conservatives aren't about to admit that Australia's contribution doesn't match their rhetoric, and those against the war (thankfully) aren't going to draw attention to a fact that may well provoke the establishment into committing more troops.

Until now, the US has gratefully acknowledged any support provided by coalition partners. We now know that some in the US government have indeed noticed the difference between the tough talking of Howard, Downer and Co, and their willingness to commit Australian military resources.

Michael Mori, David Hicks' defence lawyer, commenting on recent statements from Hicks' tribunal prosecutor, Colonel Davis ...

MICHAEL MORI: Look, this is a regurgitation of the old charges laid against David in 2004. I haven't received any new charges. These recent comments are just a reaction to the growing concern over the treatment of an Australian citizen.

They're resorting to the old tactic of demonising David before trial, and trying to distract from the real issue, which is will David get a fair trial on valid charges?

MICHAEL ROWLAND: And you maintain that he won't?

MICHAEL MORI: No, of course not. And it's not surprising that Colonel Davis would say this and treat David this way and not really want to try his case in court.

Remember, he's part of the system that believes Australian citizens don't deserve the same rights and protections that Americans deserve, and I think that's intolerable.

Major Mori isn't quite correct on that point. What's really intolerable is that the Australian government thinks an Australian citizen doesn't deserve the same rights and protections that Americans receive.

I doubt it.

Every so often, one hears a news item that just doesn't ring true. This is one of them.

The story that a trained serviceman accidentally shot himself in the head with his own service pistol is far fetched, to say the least. I'm not surprised that the story has changed.

I have some experience in observing the military doing their thing. To say they are meticulous when performing safety procedures when handling weapons is an understatement.

The misplacing of the soldier's body while it was being repatriated to Australia is a disgrace, but it's a side issue. The real issue is how the soldier was shot.

The big question is whether the investigating authorities will ever get the truth. The military doesn't have an exemplary record when it comes to investigating incidents within it's own ranks. Perhaps the involvement of civilian authorities will unearth the truth.

For the sake of Kovco's family, I hope so.

The British High Court has overturned a decision by the Home Office that disallowed a UK passport being granted to long term Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

Hicks' mother was a British citizen so he's eligible to apply for British citizenship.

Barring a successful appeal (to the Privy Council?), Hicks should get his passport, placing the UK government in a delicious dilemma. They have already obtained the release of other British nationals from the Guantanamo Gulag. Should they do the same for Hicks?

Hopefully, they will, ending one of the most disgraceful episodes* attributable to the current Australian government, one where the authorities turned their backs on an Australian citizen who had broken no Australian law and detained without charge for years.

*And with regards to this government, that's saying something. (Is this seditious?)

It's been another hectic week with no time for the blog. Have been rearranging the IT at home, installing a new, faster Linux box for me, and upgrades for the server, the kids and SWMBO. Lots of software reinstalls accompanied by a few problems, now ironed out. Fingers crossed.

The shocking events in London have been dominating my reading this week. It's all the more poignant as I lived in the city for three years during the late seventies and early eighties. Since then I've been back several times for business and pleasure. Must have ridden the Underground hundreds of times. The thought of a large explosion in those narrow, deep tunnels fills me with horror.

It's predictable that after an event like this there are calls for ever more draconian measures to keep the fanatics in check, countered by a less noisy crowd warning of the dangers of impacted personal freedoms from those measures. It's the usual conservative vs liberal thing ... the conservatives feel that the correct response is to show no weakness, that person privacy and freedoms should not hinder the authorities in policing terrorism, and brook no thought that terrorist actions in London or elsewhere have anything to do with international events.

Sheik Taj Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly makes a statement to try to gain the release of the Australian hostage in Iraq, Douglas Wood ....

"We value your jihad and your efforts and we call upon you to do something for the sake of our community and all Australian society, which does not support (Prime Minister John) Howard's pro-American policies," he said.

"You know the Australian forces in Iraq are protected by American forces and don't do anything - it's all politics.

"We implore you to release him in the name of God, for the sake of the Islamic community in Australia ... and for the sake of the family of Douglas Wood."

.... only to find that his statements are criticised because they appear to give support to Wood's captor's cause.

Wood's prospects are grim, to say the least. I'm amazed that someone has to find something to bitch about when the prime aim is to try to get Wood released.

His former translator, Keysar Trad, was today critical of the use of the word jihad.

"I think one of the main reasons that he would have used this term is to win favour with the people holding Mr Wood captive, to show them that he understands their plight and what they're doing," Mr Trad told ABC radio.

"If this is what they think they're doing, then he's not disputing that with them but he believes that they're wrong in holding Mr Wood captive.

"Now he has used language that's not consistent with our expectations as Australians and I think he could have stopped at the first part of his statement without going this far and the message would have been just as clear."

The Mufti's views are clear and succinctly stated. A lot of Australian's would agree with the political points he makes. He's backing up his words by putting himself at risk by going to Iraq to negotiate directly with the Sunni powerbrokers. We can only wish him luck.

Brings back memories of the 60s. Australia's going to increase its involvement in an overseas conflict by sending more troops.

Never mind that only a few months ago during the election campaign the government categorically stated they wouldn't.

'Not enough military capacity' was the party line.

And isn't it interesting that the Brits asked as to send more troops? No toadying to those Americans!

Why am I not surprised by any of this?

I posted a previous piece about the cavalier way the government treated David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib during their incarceration by the US. Since then, Habib's been released, and despite threats to prevent him from going public and profiting from his story, he's appeared on commercial TV (for a fee) with allegations of torture and Australian officials' compliance to the fact.

Last night the Attorney General, Philip Ruddock was interviewed on the 7.30 Report .... an interview which showed just how disinterested the government was in the welfare of an Australian citizen.

The interview needs to be read in its entirety, but I'll pick out a few quotes to give the idea.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Attorney-General Philip Ruddock joins me now from Parliament House. Philip Ruddock, as Australia's first law officer, why don't you know the reasons that the Americans released Mamdouh Habib without any charges, without any trial, after holding him for 40 months?

PHILIP RUDDOCK (ATTORNEY-GENERAL): Well, it's a matter of what the Americans are prepared to tell us, Kerry.......

....... A decision was made in the United States that they did not have evidence that they could put before a military commission to obtain a conviction. That's the judgment they made. They came to that view.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And you haven't even asked them why? I mean, you might say they've got a right not to tell you, but you haven't even asked them?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, we know what they've told us, and they've told us they did not have sufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecution, and I assume it relates to a range of potential issues that might be involved in that. .....

We can take it that the question wasn't asked.

O'brien then asked if the reason the US didn't proceed in charging Habib was due to the fact that the evidence could have been extracted under torture.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: .... there are a range of other issues and some people have written about these matters. Even before the military commission process, there is no guarantee that sensitive security related information might not be jeopardised if it were adduced before a trial.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But my question was, you can't rule out torture as a possible reason and you haven't answered that.

So there is a real possibility that Habib wasn't charged by the US because the evidence was extracted under duress.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Are you in a position to deny that the Americans involved with Mr Habib in Pakistan may have worked with Pakistan and the Egyptians to have Mamdouh Habib taken to Egypt for tough off the books interrogations where the niceties of human rights wouldn't have to be observed?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, I'm not able to make observations on matters that I have no personal knowledge, and I have no knowledge...

KERRY O'BRIEN: That being the case, you can't rule out that he was tortured in Egypt?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I have no knowledge as to what may have happened to him in Pakistan when our officials were not there. I have no knowledge of what might have happened to him in other places, if he were taken to any other places.

Makes you wonder why we have a Department of Foreign Affairs. Obviously not to ask any difficult questions of an ally to find out what's happening to our detained citizens, it seems.

Reading between the lines it appears the government didn't really care what happened to Habib. They put no pressure on the US for answers regarding Habib's status, even though they knew he'd been shipped to Egypt. They took the American's word that Habib would be charged, and assumed that Habib wouldn't be a problem as it was unlikely he'd be back in Australia for many years.

Now Habib is back, and has the potential to embarrass the government if he goes to court to claim compensation for his treatment and / or to retrieve his passport. He's not been charged or convicted of any crime, so the government will have to defend itself by producing evidence of wrong doing or prove he's a threat to the community.

The episode shows just how compliant we are to the United States, even in relation to the welfare of one of our own citizens.

The UK is a strong ally to the US, but they didn't desert their citizens held at Guantanamo Bay. The relationship between the UK and the US survived.

It's about time we stopped behaving like wimps. Time to stick up for our own.

The lie's finally been admitted.