Australian Prime Minister Blasts Obama's Iraq Policy

Sunday , February 11, 2007
Associated Press

Australia's conservative prime minister slammed Barack Obama on Sunday over his opposition to the Iraq war, a day after the first-term U.S. senator announced his intention to run for the White House in 2008.

Obama said Saturday at his campaign kickoff in Springfield, Ill., that one of the country's first priorities should be ending the war in Iraq. He has also introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent President Bush from increasing American troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama's proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East.

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

"There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008," Mr Howard said. "Al Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had."

"And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone."

Howard has defied widespread domestic opposition to the war, keeping about 1,400 Australian troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non-combat roles. He is seeking a fifth term later this year, and recent polls suggest voters are increasingly unhappy about his refusal to set a deadline for withdrawing Australian troops from the Middle East.

"You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally," he said. "If it's all right for us to go, it's all right for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes, Iraq will descend into total civil war and there'll be a lot of bloodshed."

Australian Labor Party leaders described Mr Howard's attack against Senator Obama as unprecedented.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said Mr Howard was virtually telling people not to vote Democrat. "It's the first time that I can recall that an Australian prime minister has engaged in American politics in such a partisan way ... actually telling American people what side of politics they should vote for," he said.

"It's most inappropriate, it demeans the Australia-United States alliance to suggest its a relationship between political parties rather than an enduring relationship between two people."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251351,00.html

Of course Howard would say that. He's first and foremost an arsehole, who doesn't give a rats how many people are disadvantaged or die so long as he wins; second he is Bush's lapdog.

howard's just trying to distract from his own policies that have caused the bold parts above.

Obama said it was "flattering" for a Bush ally to attack him the day after he formally launched his presidential bid but noted Australia had contributed 1,400 troops to the war compared to 140,000 U.S. troops.

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

I like Obama, and I despise Howard, but I didn't appreciate these comments. This is America's war which we have, regretfully, thrown our hat into as an ally of the USA. If we sent another 20,000 troops we'd have twice as many troops per capita in Iraq than the USA does and this isn't even our war.

Well I heard May 2008 on tv, but oh well.

If we were to pull out of Iraq without success, this country would be so deep in shit...

I give this article two thumbs up

Obama's plan is to be out of Iraq in March, 2008 and Clinton's plan is that she will withdraw troops immediately after being sworn in. Just like you said, we would be in serious shit if we pulled out of Iraq before we succeed (or, at a minimum, contain a civil war if we are unable to quell the sectarian violence). Both Obama and Clinton have nothing to say in regards to the consequences of their withdrawal plans. Obama seems to take a more irrational "can't we all just get along" philosophy.

President Bush could not have summed up the Democrats better on this issue when he addressed a crowd in Alabama last year....

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on our homeland in history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing. The party of F.D.R. and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."

Amen.

Those are some pretty massive assumptions you've got there.

what do we do after containing the civil war? There will never be a good time to pull out. Our last day in Iraq will no doubt involve a helicoptor lifting the last 3 soldiers off of some roof in Bagdad while trying to avoid the gunfire coming from the very people we trained and armed.

yea why can't these coward democrats realize that we've been this successful after only four years, why stop now? i don't know why they'd ever want to withdraw in the first place. must be the wacky liberal drive-by media!

Really? You haven't been paying attention to what either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama have said.

From Senator Clinton's own website:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she would not have attacked Iraq if she had been president in 2003 and would end the war if elected president in 2008, as she tried to blunt rivals like John Edwards who are stoking anti-war passions in the Democratic Party."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/arti ... w/?id=1293

From Senator Obama's own website:

"Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Well, let's hope we can get things under control and a civil war does not happen. If it seems that a civil war is inevitable, in my opinion, then the responsible thing to do would be to pull back to areas where we can keep outside forces from intervening (i.e. prevent a regional war) while at the same time continue to go after terrorist elements in Anbar Province and Southern Iraq.

And what do you think would happen if we pulled all of our forces out of Iraq, say, in 6 months?

The assumptions had nothing to do with that, you're jumping to conclusions. Your assumptions were about what you said WOULD happen after a coalition pull out. Can I borrow your crystal ball oh wise one?

Ah, I stand corrected...sorry about that.

Well, you are correct insofar that no one can say with 100% accuracy what would happen if we packed up and left. Then again, just about every expert will say that the end result would be a bloodbath and, quite possibly, a regional war.
What do you think would happen if we left, say, in six months?

i really don't know, no one does. maybe things would get worse, maybe with the americans out of the way things would improve. the thing is, we should never have invaded in the first place, and while we're there, people will die. we can't stay forever and we can't win. there's little choice here.

bloodbath..regional war. Sounds about like what I think will happen if we pull out in 6 years..20 years..50 years. Sounds a lot like what has been going on there for thousands of years

Removing troops from Iraq...controversial decision. Controversial with those 30% who still want to be there. Iraq is already in deep shit, thanks to the bumbling of the administration. In a country where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last four years because of poor management, yes, they are in very, very deep shit.

There hasn't been "hundreds of thousands" of people who have died as a result of the regime change. This was one study done and is contradicted by many others.

Well, it doesn't do any good looking back and second-guessing...we are there now and need to work on solutions. I do not agree with the idea that this is an unwinnable situation, either.
What I do know is that until the Iraqi police and army is capable of handling security, we cannot leave. To leave before they are ready would lead to the toppling of the existing government and a subsequent power vaccuum that would likely be filled by extremists. Anbar province would be ruled by the terrorists and leave them a base to plan and launch attacks at will. Southern Iraq would become another Hezbollah with the Mahdi Army controlling the region of the country. The Kurds could decide to break off entirely and get into a war with Turkey.
This is the scenario we have to avoid, and packing up and leaving is the best way to bring this about. This is what the Obama Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine fails to address....the consequences of withdrawal on a timeline while paying no attention the conditions on the ground.