Why is John Howard nervous, in spite of the reassurances offered by your editorialists and columnists? Because the allies are already planning how and when to get out of Iraq, and as soon as they do Australia will, too.
The difference between Barack Obama and Mr Howard is that the Democrat opposes the US military presence in Iraq: the conservative wants it to continue. Mr Obama says the invasion was wrong: Mr Howard told us the wrong reasons for it. Mr Obama wants US troops out because they can’t win: Mr Howard wants them to stay until this year’s election. Mr Obama wants to stop the US waging further illegal anti-terror wars: Mr Howard would support a US invasion of Iran. Endless war is what the Bush administration has planned: Mr Howard sycophantically hypes up fear of al-Qa’ida to win endless khaki elections. His intervention in US politics won’t influence voters in America, but voters who’d like to reclaim Australia’s independence won’t forget it. -- Dr Alison Broinowski, letter to The Australian.
Regarding the twilight of John Howard's career as Australia's most notorious traitor, a docudrama released in France in 1993, Pétain, is instructive. It covers the years of the Vichy Government and the cunning subservience to the Nazis of its leader, Maréchal Pétain. Alas, it appears unavailable anywhere.
Thanks to the golden age of the SBS, I have a copy and I watch it periodically, usually after John Howard wins another election. It gives me comfort to know that eventually our very own Pétain -- the man who had no qualms doing the dirty on his own people -- will one day find himself despised and humiliated, shunned in every way.
Oh, he might find a place on the Board of Excommunications with the Exclusive Brethren, or as a figurehead for the Adelaide Institute, or as a staff member with that august group of right wing wackos, the Institute of Public Affairs. But the cycle of influence for these sodalities of darkness is withering, and so will he. Then again, since his only interest is politics and power he might form his own party, Divided Nation, and keep running for office until he carks it. If so, he'll have to find that flak jacket or something more suitable to ward off the rotten eggs and tomatoes.
Both Pétain and Howard had the backing (if not the confidence) of the bullies who ran them. As a result both men were able to strut about with apparent invincibility. One difference between them (again to Australia's embarrassment) was that Pétain was a great hero in World War I. John Howard has never been more than a clever little solicitor. Yet it was the likes of petty satraps such as Howard who ascended to high places to help Pétain.
In Howard's most recent "performances" -- the attack on Barack Obama and his last two encounters with Kevin Rudd in Parliament -- he is looking more and more like Pétain (as superbly played by veteran French actor Jacques Dufilho) in his last days. Face alternating between flushed and colourless, eyes darting all over the place when not looking at the floor, twitchy body movement, including involuntarily flinging himself back in his seat (reminding me of John Belushi imitating an exiting Muppet on SNL way back when). Look for more unnecessary coughs and that irritatingly nervous clearing of the throat. During interviews his usual interruptions of the interviewer -- "well, well, well" or "now, now, now" with increasing shrillness accompanying each word -- will begin to account for most of the interview.
Watching Howard in Parliament the last two days is a reminder that there is nothing more pathetic than a disgraced bully's deputy. Those in the deputy's legion, obsequious in the past, are now speaking out. Yes, the arrogant histrionics are still there when shouting down the opposition, but fear has crept into his eyes.
And the fear has nothing to do with George W. Bush's eventual withdrawal of support (or his simply not paying attention to Little Johnny's best efforts at showing loyalty), or Iraq (he really couldn't care less what happens there … if he did, he never would have gone in to begin with) or even his wife, Janette, the one who truly keeps his bones from turning to jelly. Howard must know now that he is not going to win the next election by making Kevin Rudd look like a fool, because Rudd is making him look like a fool every day. Slowly, with great patience, Rudd is removing the spell from Aussie eyes to reveal a rather unappealingly naked little emperor.
Yesterday may have been one of Howard's last moments of self-congratulation: his chest expanded triumphantly as he challenged Rudd to outline his policy on bringing troops home from Iraq. He even called Rudd gutless for hedging the subject.
Today Rudd moved to suspend Parliament's sitting for an hour so that he and Howard could debate the issue of Australia's involvement in Iraq. If you didn't know that Johnny Chickenhawk -- the war Prime Minister as he must think of himself -- is all bluster and no policy, you would have thought he would jump at the chance. Didn't he just challenge Rudd to tell all? But no, he had a minion move a motion to gag Rudd and that was that.
From 'Gutless' Howard gags debate:
Mr Rudd said he wanted to debate Mr Howard's false basis for the decision to go to war; his misuse of intelligence material to justify his decision; his failure to articulate a mission statement, exit strategy, and strategy to win the war; and his attack on the United States' Democrats.
"And ... the prime minister's lack of guts and courage in refusing to accept the leader of the opposition's challenge to a nationally televised debate on Labor's plan to bring our troops home and the prime minister's plan to leave our troops in Iraq indefinitely," he said.
Mr Howard, who has been under fire for his attack on US presidential hopeful Barack Obama's Iraq policy, yesterday labelled Mr Rudd gutless for dodging questions about the consequences of an early US withdrawal from Iraq.
Mr Rudd, who has challenged Mr Howard to a televised debate on the issue, today reiterated that his policy would be a withdrawal of Australian forces, in consultation with the Americans at the end of a six-month troop rotation.
He said it was Mr Howard who did not have a plan.
"Mr Howard in this debate talks about guts and courage . . . guts and courage doesn't involve sending the sons and daughters of Australian families to fight a war with no exit strategy in mind for them," Mr Rudd told ABC Radio.
"Guts and courage also lies in rising to the challenge of a nationally televised debate on his alternative plan for Iraq and mine."
Australia has no deadline for removing its 1400 troops from Iraq.
"The alternative strategy, by the way, is a continuation of the current military strategy which, after four years, has failed," Mr Rudd said.
"I have a clear exit strategy for those Australian troops, Mr Howard has none and my challenge to him is: what is his alternative strategy (and) if he is a man of courage to tell the Australian people how he intends to win the war in Iraq."
Mr Rudd said a withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq would have to be followed with immediate political pressure on warring Islamist groups.
Mr Rudd, quoting the US Baker Hamilton Report, said a staged withdrawal of troops through until the first quarter of 2008 was the best response to ongoing deaths among both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.
"If you look at the Baker Hamilton plan it talks about a staged withdrawal of US troops into the year 2008 and the consequences which flow from that are how do you best provide the necessary political pressure on the warring Sunni and Shiite factions to bring about some sort of political consensus which ends the civil war," Mr Rudd told ABC Radio.
Mr Howard, speaking on radio at about the same time as Mr Rudd, again challenged the Labor leader to voice his view on the consequences of coalition forces withdrawing from Iraq by next March.
He again defended his decision not to accept Mr Rudd's challenge to a TV debate, saying the pair debated each other in the parliament.
He accused the opposition leader of using the debate as a "smokescreen" to avoid expressing his own views on the consequences of Mr Obama's policy to withdraw troops from Iraq by March next year.
As Paul Kelly said in today's Australian:
Asked about the details of Labor policy, shadow foreign minister Robert McClelland said yesterday an ALP government would stage its withdrawal after consulting with the Australian military and our US and British allies. Full stop. It would not necessarily withdraw with the next troop rotation after Labor's election. Witness maximum flexibility.
Dirty tricks and lies are going to be the only way out for Machiavelli Jr. The campaign is already started. In just the few hours since I started to write this posting, the following stories have appeared on the Internet.
Rudd wants US to surrender in Iraq, says Downer
Rudd's office evacuated after suspect package found
Rudd's wife linked to leak probe
We ain't seen nothin' yet.
-- Olney Garkle
