Show us the real war

I finally got around to watching the 2001 film Black Hawk Down and recommend that the loyal readers of AFP do the same. The movie tells the story of a 1993 US military incursion into Mogadishu, Somalia that went horribly astray. The planned 30 minute mission degenerates into an overnight siege that cost the lives of 19 American troops and more than 1000 locals. The majority of the movie shows the struggle of the US troops to get to safety, confronted with hordes of local militia men – in gruesome details. While there are critics of the historical accuracy of this film, it reminded me of two things relevant to our current predicament in Iraq: 1) war isn’t a good idea. You don’t sell a war; you go to war to defend (or so sing The Herd in The Metres Gained). Real people get maimed and die – and 2) our media do a pathetic job of conveying this message to us on a consistent basis.

So it’s not a new idea that war is a bad idea and people get killed. It’s just that we easily forget. Iraq is a long way away. The nearly 4 years of war have passed quickly, with few reminders aside from the occasional troop death toll update (3,075 US and 235 coalition). The mainstream media quickly grew bored with news from the gulf and actual footage from the battles is rare. For an hour or so each night, our TV’s are filled instead with feuding neighbours, P-plate driver accidents, petrol prices, and commentary from people on the street about who thinks a Muslim candidate should run for parliament. It’s all irrelevant on a world or even national scale. It serves the purpose though of distracting us from serious, distressing, even sickening events around the world that make us feel helpless and out of control. Keep us arguing about whether Sarah Murdoch is better in the mornings than Jessica Rowe – and we’ll all sit quietly in our homes and do as we’re told.

Think about it enough and it’s depressing. The true yet upsetting aspects of the world are hidden from us (in the mainstream anyway), and replaced with meaningless filler to help us feel in control and get us to sleep at night. After Black Hawk down, I felt that a little bit of reality had slipped past the censors. I imagined the teenage marines driving their humvee’s through Baghdad and getting blown up by hidden IED’s. Getting sniped from rooftops by faceless gunmen and coming home without an arm or a leg (or both). They are images we should all be digesting every night, because it’s happening in Iraq everyday.

Now, despite all that I’m not for withdrawing from Iraq now. It’s too late for that. It was dumb to go in there in the first place, but dumber to leave another mess behind (the US have done that all too often in the past). We need to stay until some peace can be brokered. Still, during the time that it takes to achieve ‘stability’, each and every citizen should be reminded of the sacrifice of the troops and the horror of war. Maybe then next time we won’t be so hasty to wage war in the first place.

Keep it Up Kev

Last night Kevin Rudd delivered his vision for education in this country, using a catch cry that will no doubt be overplayed during his campaign: the education revolution. While the ad was a little corny and the whole bush setting a bit folksy, I think Kev accomplished two important things: 1) he showed that he is a viable alternative to lead Australia, breaking down some perceptions about his nerdiness (and being the opposite of Mark Latham) and 2) he showed some vision. No wonder the Libs are running scared and reshuffling their bench. For the first time since Keating, Labour seem to have a credible, electable leader who conveniently has some personality and imagination. While he's certainly no Bill Clinton in the charisma stakes, if Kev can keep up this sort of public image and stay out of trouble until the election, the people might just get what we're crying out for - the end of the Howard dynasty.

Patriotism for Good and Not Evil

I’ve waited patiently over the last few days to read or hear a single reasonable comment on the Big Day Out flag banning issue. I guess it shouldn’t have come as that much of a surprise to me that I’ve waited in vain. All of the mainstream media in Australia has taken the announcement that Aussie flags were being discouraged at the concert as an invitation to whip up nationalistic hysteria and to cry political correctness murder. Prominent politicians have also joined to the chorus of outrage, including the obvious suspects: Howard ("The proposition that the display of the Australian flag should ever be banned anywhere in Australia is offensive…”), Rudd ("This is political correctness gone mad") and Premier Iemma ("You can't stop people from showing pride in their country in this way”).

Everyone, it seems, has missed a couple of key points. Firstly, the concert organisers are right to have concerns about misuse of the flag (as a “gang colour” or otherwise) after a series of incidents at least years events. Big Day Out patrons were allegedly harassed and assaulted by flag waving idiots. Last years concert also closely followed the Cronulla Riots, where similar racist behaviour sought cover beneath the Southern Cross. In short, there are a minority of people who are seeking to misuse the Australian flag, as a rallying call to xenophobia and racism. This clearly needs to be addressed, but a ban has created to kind of hysteria that obliterates reasonable conversation.

This brings me to my second point. In a pitiful attempt to score cheap poll points, our political leaders have cashed in on the flag banning hype and have not even gone close to addressing the real concerns at the heart of the crisis. The media have been only too willing to inflame the situation with emotionally charged headlines and sound bites from outraged citizens. Nothing was cheesier though than the Channel 10 phone poll asking “should the Australian flag ever be banned?” – unsurprisingly 96% of 10,000 or so respondents voted no. What does that even mean?

Had I been running the country this week, my approach would have been to seize upon this opportunity to promote the sort of nationalism (patriotism, if you prefer), that can be healing for a nation. Nationalism is a two-edged sword, and can be used both positively and negatively. The distinction between racism fuelled nationalism (the Nazi type) – and the type that is inclusive of all is crucial. I have commented on taking back nationalism before. I would have lobbied the Big Day Out organisers to give out free flags to all concert goers and to emphasise a message of unity on Australia Day. The troublemakers would’ve been lost in a sea of red, white and blue flags – try gathering your gang at a banner that everyone is displaying.

It’s really a dangerous time for Australia on this issue. Premier Iemma, challenges Muslims in Lakemba to “bring it on” (he’s been watching too many Bush re-runs) and the Liberals stance on phasing out multiculturalism (and on mandatory detention) is well documented. Division of the country on racial or religious lines is no longer out of the question. The cure is inclusion, the good sort of patriotism and the sooner we move in that direction the better.

The Troop 'Surge'

By now its become pretty clear that US President George Bush is sending 21,500 more of his troops to Iraq, whether the congress (or the American people) like it or not. For now, Australia has not committed more forces, though it hasn’t yet been asked to. Since Bush’s announcement last week, much of the media attention has been on the number of soldiers (is it too few, or too many?), semantics (what’s the difference between a surge and an escalation?) – and of course, will this increase make a difference to the situation on the ground?

Most of the Democrats are arguing that an increase in troops means only an increase in casualties – and it’s hard to argue with them. Some Republicans though like John McCain feel that 50,000 troops is more like the number we need to bring about real change. Secretary Rice told congress that the increase was most definitely not an escalation in the war, while Stephen Colbert (of the Colbert Report) insisted that escalating was what old people do at shopping malls (he’s a funny guy). Despite all of this though, I think there are some real differences this time in Bush’s Iraq policy, here are three:

1) Ding Dong the Witch is dead….

Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has been replaced by Defence Secretary Gates, and that makes a real difference in how the war is prosecuted and in the information reaching back to the President. Gates, at least so far seems to be everything his predecessor wasn’t: calm, intellectual, thoughtful, articulate… the type of man that breeds confidence inside the Pentagon and in public.

2) Clear. Hold. Build.

The Bush Administrations new mantra in Iraq, cribbed from counter insurgency manuals written from the lessons learned in Vietnam. The current plan of patrolling unsecured neighbourhoods and fighting gunmen as they crop up is being replaced by the more holistic approach of clear, hold and build. It makes sense that securing suburbs and emphasising reconstruction (and therefore jobs) is the way to quell civil unrest. The US is employing this strategy about 4 years late, but hopefully this renewed interest in Iraqi infrastructure and economy is better late than never.

3) The Iraqi’s are in it.

Sensibly, (but surprisingly for Bush) this new plan was apparently worked out in consultation with the Iraqi government. Much of its success depends on the increased effectiveness of the Iraqi troops trained by the US (some 300,000) and on these forces even handedly prosecuting both Sunni and Shia who break the law. Both of these will be bolstered by increased numbers of US troops embedded with Iraqis. Members of the Iraqi government are also claiming that militias and death squads (including those of Shiite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr) will be disarmed and leaders instead invited to peacefully join in shaping the future of Iraq.

This is no slam dunk. Chances are that sectarian killings will continue and Iraq will slide further away from peace and closer to chaos. In fact, given the current political climate in the US, not only does this plan need to work, but quickly – an outcome with even higher odds. Still, this Administration dares to hope that Bush’s change of philosophy on some keys issues will bring about a resolution of this war, our troops can return home – and those that have died will not have done so in vain.

Barack Update

While Barack hasn't yet confirmed that he will run for President, his position on Bush's troop surge is clear:

"Tonight, against all military advice to the contrary, the President announced his intention to plunge us ever deeper into the quagmire of Iraq. I have no doubt that the President is sincere in believing that his strategy is the right one. But escalation has already been tried and it has already failed, because no amount of American forces can solve the political differences that lie at the heart of somebody else's civil war."

Let's pencil him in as against continuation of the war. The most interesting development though for me is not that he's anti-war (we knew that), but that he's a cool guy. Watch him on Conan O'Brien and tell me he shouldn't be leader of the free world.

Peter Garrett: Making a Case for a Republic

While the Labor Party (as well as the Dems and Greens) have long held a pro-Republic stance for Australia, one of Labor’s newest recruits is making a new push for change – without even trying. Since his election in 2004 to the safe seat of Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett has been kept on a very short leash, at the expense of his considerable passion and creativity. The leftist Midnight Oil front man, renowned for his environmental views, conciliatory approach to aboriginals and anti-nuclear position has since been remade as just another Labor MP.

Let me clarify. Early on in this Administration, I outlined one of the key reasons for not only adopting a Republic but an Executive Model for said Republic: career politicians innately make bad ministers (and leaders). Given the usual decades long process to achieve political office in this country, and the multitude of compromises one is forced to make along the way, it is rare to find a minister with any fresh ideas by the time they can make a difference. More commonly, cabinet ministers have little expertise in the field of their portfolio and act merely as a mouthpiece for ‘the party line’, while trying to avoid getting snagged by the media. From where I’m sitting, that’s no way to run a country.

Peter Garrett couldn’t be a more perfect example of this scenario. After living his life as a celebrity (and not a politician) he had the time and the inclination to pursue a range of left-wing causes. He helped found the ill-fated Nuclear Disarmament Party, was President of the Australian Conversation Foundation and was active with Greenpeace. All this while his band sang protest songs and made political statements – none more public than the ‘sorry’ shirts they wore at the 2000 Olympics. However, since becoming an MP, Garrett has been muted on conservation issues, including recent headliners like uranium mining and logging of Tasmanian old growth forests. Following his promotion by Kevin Rudd to Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment & Heritage, Arts, Garrett has emphasised his role as a team player within Labor, and his obligation to support the views of the caucus.

Bob Brown isn’t the only one who thinks he’s a sellout - but I don’t particularly blame Garrett for sacrificing his beliefs for political success. It’s the nature of the beast. If you want to have a direct say in how this country is governed you either curb your ideas to fit within the party guidelines, or you start an alternative Administration and blog about it. (Clearly, PG has a federal seat and I don’t). The shame of it all is that even though I don’t agree with all of Garrett’s leftist ideals, I respected his convictions and his need to be heard. The sanitised, Labor Party version of Garrett is a shadow of his true self – a reminder that our current political system is a breeding ground for mediocrity.

Bomb Iran

A leaked report today allegedly gives details of a ‘secret’ Israeli plan to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age if it succeeds in its bid to acquire nuclear weapons. Rumors regarding such an invasion (both by ground and air) have been widespread since Iran’s nuclear ambitions have closed in on reality. While the media and UN diplomats debate the likelihood of such action by Israel (whether it’s legal, or whether it will work etc), I for one will sleep easier tonight knowing that someone will stand up to Ahmadinejad when the time comes.

The plan (at least in this iteration) calls for repeated air strikes on Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities and some suspicious nuclear plants. Specifically, (America’s highly publicised) laser guided munitions would be used to uncover the targets before dropping in low-yield nuclear ‘bunker busters’ to finish the job. The mention of these mini-nukes has been the cause of much of the stir surrounding this latest plan – but for mine, everyone is missing the point: Israel is trying to survive here.

While it is easy to join the chorus of condemnations surrounding the use of nuclear weapons, or to preach about the pitfalls of preemptive strikes, the simple truth of the matter is that Israel is being left to face Iran alone. That’s the same Iran that has vowed to wipe them off the map and the same Iran that is working on the full size, genocidal type of nuke – to achieve the task. Olmert has merely decided that America’s good wishes and the UN’s poison pen are not sufficient to secure the safety of his people (demonstrated by the months and months of negotiations at the UN that resulted in the weakest of sanctions).

My hope then is that somewhere in Olmert’s desk this plan really exists and that when push comes to shove, the fighter jets are scrambled. This Administration (if no other) will support their move to secure peace and security for its people – even at the point of the sword (or laser guided bomb).

It's Our Money

The Federal Government is projecting a budget surplus of around $9.7 billion for 2007/8, and some recent announcements show that they intend to protect it at all costs. While the next budget will not officially be handed down until May, both Howard and Costello are merrily slashing spending initiatives proposed by their own Liberal ministers.

Education and particularly science have been the most publicised casualties, but not surprisingly, health, welfare, indigenous policies, agriculture and industry are also set to suffer. It’s a familiar story, but one that’s getting old fast. Costello has been a particularly tight treasurer over his tenure, despite the huge increases in revenue supplied by the GST. He has been expert at collecting this money from the Labor run states and returning as little as possible to them (and us). Aside from partisanship though, the stinginess of the current government is motivated primarily by conserving their ‘economic credibility’ as a means of getting re-elected.

Last time we went to the polls, a surprisingly high percentage of Australian’s were taken in by Howard’s scare tactics surrounding interest rates – and his constant reminder of the 18% experienced under Keating (I’m presuming that was why, because there were few other good reasons). Rates were low then, but have been raised on (something like) 6 consecutive occasions in the recent past, putting an increasingly large hole in their argument. Forget for a minute that governments have no direct role in setting interest rates, and maybe you can understand the Libs slashing the budget and sitting on a fat surplus, stemming inflation by not spending a cent.

What’s worse is that come October when the campaign is in full swing, there is sure to be a whole bunch of last minute spending promises (as distinct from actual spending) to bolster support and distract from their industrial relations quagmire. There is also shorts odds of the trademark Howard $7.50 (or other piss weak amount) tax rebate, to give us all that fuzzy feeling as we head into vote. It’s pathetic and hopefully the electorate will see through it this time.

What would I do differently? Given the opportunity, this Administration would become the first in generations to spend actual money on the services that matter to Australians. Imagine free (or at least functional) health care, free tertiary education, toll-free roads, quality public schools, paid maternity leave… (ask the Swedes if it’s a pipedream). While these are currently the responsibility of the cash strapped states, the commonwealth are the ones with the purse strings – and its time they were opened. Give the surplus back to the people, and the irony is, you’ll be eminently more electable.

A New President

With the world in such turmoil there is one event in 2007 that will catch the attention of most: the beginning of the American Presidential Campaign. While a successor for Bush will not be chosen until 2008, it is this year that will see the separation of the hopefuls from each party and emergence of the true contenders. Initially, each party will whittle down the list to one nominee (the Primaries) before throwing all of their support (and dollars) behind this lone figure. As the Presidency of George Bush has shown, there is no other office that has more power in the world, and the next resident of the White House will need every ounce of that power to pull America – and the world - out of its current nosedive.

With the campaign not yet up and running, the full list of nominees is not even yet finalised. Republicans so far considering running include Senator John McCain, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former speaker (and bomb thrower) Newt Gingrich and Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. The merit of each may be discussed further over the course of the campaign, but I like McCain for now, whose credentials include a strong military background (5 years in a POW camp) tempered with honor and honesty (he authored legislation banning torture of US captives). Meanwhile the Democrats in the mix include former Senator John Edwards, John Kerry (beaten by Bush in ‘04, and prone to putting his foot in his mouth), the Reverend Al Sharpton and of course former first lady Hillary Clinton. Hillary may be able to win the primary, but many believe her to be unelectable as President.

Most interesting though to political commentators at present is the possible candidacy of another Democrat: Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Obama is only 45 years old (compared to say McCain who is 70 and Bush who is 60), and has only been a Senator since 2004. He was born to a (black) Kenyan father and (white) American mother, giving him wide appeal as an ‘everyman’ over his short career (he has been compared to Tiger Woods, and Oprah in this regard). He first turned political heads at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where he delivered a rousing and refreshing opening address. While he has not officially announced that he will run for President, he is already polling second behind Hillary – his announcement is expected some time this week.

The buzz surrounding such a young senator is unexpected to say the least, primarily because of his lack of political experience. If he were to become President, Obama would not be the youngest (Clinton was 46, JFK was 43 and Theodore Roosevelt was 42) but he would be the first black man (Hillary of course would be the first woman, and McCain would be the oldest man). What is exciting about Obama is certainly his charisma and skill at engaging the public, but also his reputation as a pragmatist and consensus builder. After 8 years of harsh partisan exchanges between the Democrats and Republicans, coupled with Bush’s authoritarian style – Barack is seen as a welcome change. In short (and maybe unfairly), he is seen by some as the candidate who will restore order and justice to the US and save it from the quicksand it is sinking into around the world.

At this early stage, Barack Obama is standing out because he’s different from your run of the mill politician, he seems like a normal guy, accessible and honest. They type of President the US could be proud of. First, let’s hope he runs, then that he wins – and finally that we realise that the needs and hopes of the American and Australian people aren’t always all that different.

Not the Church Again!

Raging against the evils of religion influencing government filled in much of my 2006. It's an issue that will continue to anger me and my Administration as long as it keeps rearing its ugly head. The primary culprit here in Australia, it’s of course our health minister, Tony Abbott. He was singled out for assassination early on in our campaign and the minute we get elected, a laser sight will hover over his forehead, just before the world becomes a better place.

I'm not going to beat this already dead horse too heavily today, but suffice to say the most recent decision to put pregnancy counseling services in the hands of the Catholic Church is a colossal mistake. It is the second government recommendation in as many months seeking to replace professional counseling services with religious teaching. I can't quite believe that the people of Australia tolerate Abbott, and the Liberals pushing their faith based prejudices on us. The alleged safe guards in place for the Centacare service are guaranteed to be inadequate with The Catholic Church renowned for its strict adherence to biblical dogma throughout the ages. The decision to award this contract to the Church will place extra burdens on women who are clearly seeking counseling because they are in a difficult situation.

The right to choose abortion has stood up to decades of legal challenge in the US and remains a fundamental entitlement of Australian women. Attempting to erode this right through religious indoctrination is criminal. I hope that in 2007 the trend toward right wing observance of religion to make political decisions can be reversed and we can begin to legislate for the good of the people, not for the good of the church.