Four years of bad luck

This week has been dominated by the fourth anniversary of bad decisions and bad execution. Iraq.

The Economist describes Iraq as “George Bush’s nemesis as well as Saddam’s”. Although being hailed as liberators, the Iraqis’ view of the coalition is far from savoury.

It is hard to imagine any post-war dispensation that could leave Iraqis less free or more miserable than they were under Mr Hussein.
- The Economist

Various reasons given included “a good idea badly executed”, the idiocy of the Bush administration, or even the Iraqis’ inability to accept the Americans as their saviours and liberators. Time described the situation as a case where “reality ambushes intention, leaving people at war with even themselves”.

The consensus is obviously negative, but leaders continue to endorse and justify the current situation in Iraq, and the need to continue the war. While George Bush’s appeal to US Congress for more troops is old hat, John Howard this week pleaded for more time to help stabilise Iraq.

I am not asking Australians to discount the enormous difficulties in Iraq or to change their views about the original decision. I am asking them to consider the situation we now face and the stakes involved.

What Iraq and her people now need is time, not a timetable. They seek our patience, not political positioning. They require our resolve, not our retreat.

I share the concern and distress of all Australians about the continued violence and suffering in Iraq, and their frustration that it is sometimes hard to see progress.

- John Howard, in an address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (21st March, 2007)

Labor (unsurprisingly) disagreed with Mr Howard, jumping on the bandwagon in saying that the war ”was poorly planned and Iraq is a mess”.

The report to the Congress of the Iraq Study Group bluntly stated that “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating”, and recommended the withdrawal of troops and the launching of a “robust diplomatic effort”.

However, Mssrs Bush and Howard continue to claim that leaving Iraq now would “look too much like declaring defeat” (The Economist, March 24) and “would undercut the forces of moderation in Iraq” (John Howard, March 21). How the war will pan out, time will tell.

With David Hicks’ trial drawing closer, speculation mounts as to whether he will plead guilty to terrorism charges in order to return to Australia. Alexander Downer, Australia’s Foreign Minister said (with some conviction) that Hicks will be able to get out of Guantanamo Bay regardless of the outcome.

When the trial has concluded, Hicks will be able to get out of Guantanamo Bay. He will be able to get out of Guantanamo Bay because if he is convicted and he has to serve a sentence, he will be able to serve that sentence in Australia. If he is acquitted, he will of course come back to Australia anyway.

- Alexander Downer

The Prime Minister expressed his sentiments about Hicks’ trial, saying that he is “pleased the arraignment is coming” and that he looks forward to a “speedy trial”.

The Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, although “no defender of Mr Hicks, of what he’s done or alleged to have done”, said “I defend the legal rights and human rights of every Australian citizen and he will not be receiving a fair trial through this US military commission”.