The January 9 announcement that 1550 Australian Special Air Service (SAS) and other troops will be sent to the Gulf in coming weeks is further confirmation that Australians will take part in an attack on Iraq.
In fact, some may already be. According to a report in the January 5 Boston Globe, Australian special forces have been part of covert US operations in Iraq for the last few weeks — "searching for scud missile launchers, monitoring oil fields, marking minefield sites, and using lasers to help US pilots bomb Iraqi air-defence systems".
The government is strenuously denying the obvious: that it has already decided that Australians will go to war at the behest of US President George Bush.
Consider the government's January 6 response to the Boston Globe's allegations. First, defence minister Robert Hill said, "Australians have not been operating in Iraq and any questions about whether we are doing covert work in other countries are hypothetical".
He was immediately contradicted by his media spokesperson, who told Melbourne's Herald Sun that it was "impossible to keep track" of Australian SAS troops stationed with British and US forces. Federal tourism minister Joe Hockey then weighed in, saying that it was "possible" that Australian troops were in Iraq, only to be swiftly contradicted by acting prime minister, John Anderson, who said simply: "Australia has no formal engagement in that part of the world."
Aside from indicating that the government has little idea what its defence forces are doing, Canberra's attempts to downplay Australian logistical support to US troops is important because it is trying, ludicrously, to claim that there is some democratic process involved in committing Australians to a war that most do not support.
In this vein, Prime Minister John Howard has promised that there will be a "parliamentary debate" before Australian troops are employed in the field.
But none of this offers any real democratic control. A Newspoll published by the Sydney Daily Telegraph on December 29 recorded that 50% of respondents flatly opposed Australian participation in an attack on Iraq, with only 41% in favour.
We have nothing to gain from this war, which even former general Peter Gration estimates is likely to slaughter up to 500,000 Iraqi people.
There is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, never mind that the country is capable of using them against neighbouring states. No link has been found between Iraq and the mass murderers who blew up the World Trade Centre. There is certainly no evidence that the regime the US is likely to install will be any better for the Iraqi people.
@box text =
It is an open secret that this war is about the US securing tighter control of the world's oil supplies, and trampling the bodies of Iraqi children to do it. Its implications are even broader, however. In forcing the overthrow of a government it doesn't like, Washington is signalling that it intends to defend and extend its economic and political domination of the world with military force.
And the Australian government is just desperate to ride shotgun to prove it is Washington's "ally of the month". Writing in the New York Times on November 20, columnist Thomas Friedman commented on the importance of Australian support for the war. Pointing out that any military contribution from Australia would be "niche" rather than central, Friedman explained that Australia's support had allowed the US to portray the offensive against Iraq as led by a "coalition".
"The new NATO is made up of three like-minded English-speaking allies — America, Britain and Australia — with France as a partner for peace, depending on the war", Friedman stated.
The ALP's desperate claim to have a less pro-war position than the Coalition parties raises little more than a sardonic smile. You would need a magnifying glass to see the difference. Many ALP figures, including former minister and right-wing faction heavy Laurie Brereton, have been calling for the ALP to take a stronger stand in opposition to a war on Iraq.
Brereton's position, that Australia should oppose any action against Iraq not sanctioned by the United Nations and, if action is sanctioned by the UN, should restrict itself to offering intelligence support, and not troops, is hardly radical. But it has been rejected out of hand by Labor caucus, which has only just ruled out supporting US action without UN support.
A Labor-led government would be leading forces into Iraq just as Howard, after pretending to consult, will do. In coming weeks, rallies will be held around Australia calling for the government to abandon its war drive.
Already tens of thousands of people have participated in such rallies. With hundreds of thousands, we may be able to force the government's hand and help stop this war.
From Green Left Weekly, January 15, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.