The “by March 2008” comment becomes a lot clearer on reading this:
Looks like Howard’s got that March 2008 date right in his craw because of the Baker Hamilton plan of troop withdrawals being completed by then. Tangle all that up with the fact that he can’t see himself working with Obama in 2009 – and you have the Comment That Stirred Two Continents.
As hawthorne says … this is really just all about the Aussie election.
Now the Foreign Minister is weighing in.
The tactic clearly is to try to get a meme going that withdrawal equals “surrender” and “defeat” (concepts entirely unacceptable to True Patriotic Australians and for that matter Americans, no doubt).
You can probably expect similar in the US in the right circumstances and at the right time.
Good luck finding Aussies who are anti-Bush and pro-Howard.
I think the March 2008 reference was to the proposed pull-out date, overlooking the fact that GWB will still be president at that time.
I also think that the illusion that Howard is clever is based on the complete dearth of decent political opposition over the last 10 years. Now that the ALP is being led by someone with a spine and some principles, stand by to see Howard shown up for the gutless follower he truly is. I, for one, will take great pleasure watching Rudd run rings around the rodent between now and November.
Howard’s one dimensional comment amounted to little more than a thin variant of “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists”.
I was a pro-war Australian who has come to be an anti-war one (as documented here in the Pit recently, and I took my lumps accordingly).
Howard’s comments were indeed either unfortunate or fucking stupid, depending on your level of anger with him. That’s all well and good, and I’m not defending him.
However, I do have a point to make with many (esp. the Greens, IIRC) who took what I consider to be a hypocritical stance on the matter. For years, they have accused Howard of being a US lackey, and refusing to stand up to America over anything. Howard always responded to them by saying he was “observing a traditional international alliance between Australia and the US” (or words to that effect). Now, Howard has started finally putting pressure on the US over the David Hicks affair (Australian in Guantanamo), and then in the last few days, this attack on Obama. So what did his opponents say? They said Howard is “damaging a traditional alliance between Australia and the US” (or words to that effect). WTF? You can’t have it both ways. Howard is a toady if he supports the US and a danger if he opposes them? I suppose people will respond to this post by drawing a distinction between the US and Bush, but it’s bordering on hypocrisy to me.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll be voting Labor at the next election, and I quite like Rudd, but the attitude of some of those opposed to Howard is a bit off-putting.
It would take a comment or situation with far more firepower than that squib to “endanger Aussie-US relations” in any way. I heard and read those comments, the shock-horror tone of them, and laughed. The relationship between Australia and the US is rock-solid. The US needs Australia as back-up regionally, at the very least. All this is just hot air, and comments like those from the opposing side in Aussie politics are just more electioneering.
What Howard has really done in issuing that set of statements is still largely unknown in terms of longer-term effect. That’s what I’m waiting to see.
I do think this will damage the alliance. Previously, the government of Australia has been a friend to the government of the US, regardless of what party has been in power in either country. And I think part of the reason that Howard has not copped much flak over Iraq is down to that. People who claim that Howard has been Bush’s lackey in Iraq have clearly missed the point that Australia’s support in Iraq has been … well, just slightly more than symbolic (the consequences or lack thereof of this being another reason that Howard hasn’t copped much flak over Iraq).
What’s different about this is that Howard has cast his support not towards the US but to a particular party. Against the idea that “whoever happens to be your government, whoever happens to be our government will be your friend”. I do think this harms the alliance, but as Ice Wolf said, it’s very strong. But clearly it undermines one of the reasons that Howard has not felt much political pain on this matter: rather than a supporter of America at a time when it happens to have a disastrous policy, he’s now a supporter of America’s disastrous policy. (I suppose I’m doing what tLD said.)
I don’t think that this was a gaffe. I think it is a gamble. Howard has backed his political acumen (and the advantages of incumbency) and started a fire in the belief that he will find a way to make it pay and the opposition will get burned.
Two quick points: are the Greens are hypocrites - duh.
Is the government really putting pressure on the US over Hicks? Nuh. They could ask for him to be released and haven’t. They say they don’t want to because he hasn’t committed any offence prosecutable under Australian law (!!) They blame defence tactics for the delay in his “trial” - despite the fact that these “tactics” have involved successful challenges against the legality, fairness and (US) constitutionality of the “trial” system. The government’s concern is just PR.
Yes, you’re right. Very good point.
Thanks hawthorne. I find your post reassuring, and I hope many others thik as you do on this.
I tell you what though… by fuck, my below-the-line preferences next election are going to be even more weird and schizophrenic than ever before (and I’ve done some doozies!)
ALP
LIB
NAT
GRN
…or something. Ze mind, she boggles…
“Mmph mph mmm…mmph.”
I think it was a terrific comeback, but I also think it was inappropriate. Of course, Obama knows that Australia will not be providing 20,000 troops. He is saying, “Mr Howard is writing check with his mouth that we will cash with your sons.” It’s not something he should be saying, if he wants to be president. If he could get Dick Durbin to say it, that would be OK.
Except that we wouldn’t, even if such a thing were possible, and Obama is against any troop increases. It’d be stupid for anyone to take it literally.
If it was 2009 and Durbin was Obama’s VP, maybe, but that wouldn’t make any sense today.
Sorry, by “your,” I mean Obama’s audience, Americans.
Durbin would of course be prohibited constituionally from being Obama’s VP, but could still be an attack dog for him. If he made the statement on the floor of the Senate, he could get plenty of coverage and not involve a possible future president.
Why? Durbin’s old enough, native-born, and has lived here long enough. They’re both from Illinois, but that just means that one of them would have to change his residency to be eligible for IL’s electoral votes, which isn’t difficult.
Then I understand your comment even less.
I know he couldn’t actually be his VP, it was just a hypothetical. Obama was the one criticized, he should be the one to respond. What does it say for him if Howard says Al Qaeda is praying that he becomes president and he has somebody else speak for him? He doesn’t need to be protected from anything, particularly at this stage.
Actually, one would have to change his residency to be eligible to serve in the office. They wouldn’t do that, though. They’re Democrats.
The point is that if he doesn’t respond in this way he won’t be president.
I don’t know much about the Hicks case, but I can’t imagine many Americans would be offended by the leader of a country looking out for one of its citizens in a foreign jail. We’d expect as much from our leaders. What Bush thinks might be another matter, but in the long run I don’t see the harm.
And if any Australians think for a moment any Americans believe Howard wanted to interfere in our elections, you underestimate our insularity greatly.
No, there is no residency requirement for the Presidency other than living in the US. If they were both officially residents of Illinois, then they would forfeit Illinois’ electoral votes, and thus most likely have a much harder time getting elected, but either way Obama and Durbin would both be perfectly eligible to either position.
How can people equate Obama with the US/“them”? Howard is still toadying to the current administration. Obama is just a candidate for leadership of the Democrats. Howard is still “a US lackey and refusing to stand up to America over anything”.
What makes you think the Howard government is putting pressure on the US over Hicks - the fact that they said they are? You don’t seriously think Howard give’s a rat’s arse about what happens to Hicks, do you?
I reckon Howard gives a LOT of rat’s arse about David Hicks… well, he does now. Quite cynically, it means votes. 3 years ago, not so much so. The jury was still out on just why the bloody hell the guy was over in Afghanistan in 2000 where he was. But after almost 6 years, the majority of Australians are now rightfully asking why charges haven’t been formally prosecuted after all this time, and by extension it’s becoming an increasing political liability for John Howard if he continues to be seen to NOT be giving a rat’s arse.
As for Howard’s Obama comments? In particular, regarding Obama’s preferred option of withdrawing US troops by March 2008? I think he’s largely correct, oddly enough. I don’t think anyone could quite have imagined how much of a civil war shitfight Iraq was going to become back in 2003 - at least not regarding the sectarian bombings. To prove my point, I went back recently to a thread started by Sam Stone in Great Debates in February 2003 called the “Middle East Prediction thread”. I read it all from beginning to end. Go read it yourself if you like. I posted in it at the time. The brightest and best of us here on this messageboard wrote our predictions as to what would become of Iraq, and not one of us predicted the sectarian breakdown of civil society in Iraq - although I, and many others DID predict an influx of foreign insurgents.
Accordingly, I reckon Iraq won’t be anywhere near stable for at least another 48 months. Should we have gone in there in 2003? No… should have gone in there in '98 but it’s a moot point. We’re in there now. Bottom line? Rightly or wrongly, regardless of why we’re there - we dug it, we fill it.
The question remains whether or not we’re actually filling it, but we’ll be there for at least 24 more months anyway, since Obama’s proposal will never pass.