Call me naive, but I think that on an issue like national security, a government ought to offer coherent policies rather than soundbites. Howard's statements over the weekend fail this test. On the one hand, he reiterated the view that Australia would undertake pre-emptive strikes against terrorist targets in neighbouring countries. On the other hand, he announced the formation of Federal Police counterterrorism teams to operate in South-East Asia.
I think it's pretty clear that any neighbouring country who takes the pre-emptive strike doctrine seriously would be silly to admit a Federal Police team that is supposed to identify terrorist targets. We can choose between co-operation and unilateral pre-emption, but we can't have both.
Fortunately for us, I expect that our neighbours are being assured that talk about pre-emption is purely for domestic political consumption and refers to hypothetical bad neighbours and not to them. Still, the Australian public ought to demand something better than this.
Update As commentator Matt notes, Howard has caved in leaving his supporters high and dry. His attempt to surreptitiously whistle to the attack-dog vote in Australia, while reassuring neighboring governments that he didn't really mean it, has blown up in his face. Downer has backed down even further, raising the prospect of yet more 'clarifications' in days to come. Retractions gratefully accepted in the comments section.
Posted by jquiggin at September 21, 2004 07:14 PM | TrackBackHoward's magalomania is going to get us in trouble if we're not careful. The words needed here are humility and respect. His position is fundamentally disrespectful in that he assumes that our near neighbours cannot deal with terrorism in their own way.
A pre-emptive military intrusion on one of our near neighbours will only make a difficult situation worse.
Posted by: Phil at September 20, 2004 08:22 AMOh, come on. Its an election. Of course we ought to get better than this bulldust, but the cruel fact is that close elections are decided by sound bites and posturing, not logic. Voters actually interested in policy and politics generally acquire a fixed party allegiance - swinging voters tend on average to be the less thoughtful and engaged part of the population.
Kerry is saddling us all with a disaster through failure to understand this simple fact.
Posted by: derrida derider at September 20, 2004 09:40 AMwhoops, sorry about the bold tagging.
Posted by: derrida derider at September 20, 2004 09:41 AMFrom what I understand, it is presented as a hypothetical scenario in which all alternative options are exhausted. Howard never said his first and only option would be a pre-emptive strike. He didn't even say it was his preferred option. The option would only arise if all other alternatives, such as diplomacy and other forms of co-operation failed. So I don't see why you can't prepare for co-operation, but allow for the possibility of its failure.
The exact question Laurie Oakes asked was “if you knew that, say Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists in a neighbouring country were planning an attack on Australia, would you as Prime Minister be prepared to act pre-emptively to stop them?” Howard said he would be prepared to do so. Latham wasn’t prepared to say that he would, that is, “We've rejected Mr Howard's notion of pre-emption”. The question wasn’t about diplomacy or preferred options. It was whether a foreign countries sovereignty is more important than your citizens lives.
Posted by: TJW at September 20, 2004 09:46 AMhoward has already tried out pre-emption and it turns out most of his information was wrong!
If you are going to do something about JI you have to do it jointly. Oz doesn't have the capability of doing it by itself.
Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 20, 2004 10:13 AMSimple rule for anyone in favour of the Howard pre-emption model.
Reverse hypothetical:
Indonesians have intel that a terrorist group in Darwin is planning an attack in Indonesia. Instead of asking us to round them up, they bomb a suburb of Darwin.
Would you accept that behaviour?
No? Then dont threaten to do it to our neighbours. You can act like a bully when you are a global superpower (US, Russia) but not when you are a minnow (like us).
Anyone who opens the door to pre-emption is inviting the reverse hypothetical above and is thus undermining our national security.
Posted by: RoD at September 20, 2004 10:18 AMI will take up Pr Q's invitation to call him "naive".
The War on Terrorism is a Clash within Islamic Civiisaiton, between secular and sectarian Muslims struggling for the control of Southern States in the Arc of Instability.
The Indonesian State is located in a segment of that Arc and is a House Divided between sectarian militants (eg JI + Korpassus rogues) and secular moderates (PDIP, GOLKAR).
Howard is way ahead of both the elite pundits in foreign policy and the mass of populus in foreign politics. It makes perfect sense for Australia to follow a two-track policy here: talk pre-emptive toughness to the sectarian militants and co-optive softness to the secular moderates.
This is how Howard won the first battle in the War on Terrorism: by pre-empting the Sectarian Militants from taking over E Timor and co-opting the Secular Moderates participating in the democratic revolution in Indonesia.
And this is not just tough talk. Howard has beefed up military and intelligence resources to our North. We have a regiment of SAS plus plenty of spooks who are trained in the black arts of insertion and destruction.
If DIO, or whoever, got wind of a terrorist gang cobbling together a dirty nuclear bomb in some island to our North does Pr Q think that the Government would just let our guys sit around twiddling their thumbs whilst the terrorists drew up their attack plans? Imagine the effects of unleashing a radio- or bio-weapon in the middle of Sydney!
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 20, 2004 10:28 AMTJW, your paragraph changes the tone rather completely. I had left for work thinking similarly to JQ, but I take courage from your points that JWH hasn't lost the plot. Surely he knows you only pre-emptively hit countries who are unable to retaliate!?
Seems like Laurie has had a busy weekend stirring the pot with ludicrous questions doesn't it? As this election rolls along, the journalists are looking a little sketchy.
I can't believe that we're back to actively dreaming about nuclear weapons falling on Sydney. Oh we're not? It's just Jack.
Posted by: chico o'farrill at September 20, 2004 11:42 AMJack,
You asked the question ["If DIO, or whoever, got wind of a terrorist gang cobbling together a dirty nuclear bomb in some island to our North does Pr Q think that the Government would just let our guys sit around twiddling their thumbs whilst the terrorists drew up their attack plans?"], so I'll answer it.
There is no freakin' way on Earth that the Rodent would launch a pre-emptive strike on Indonesian territory without the approval, with sugar on top, of the Indonesian government. Because the Indonesians have their own armed forces to rely upon, they probably wouldn't allow Australian forces to carry the can anyway, except as supporting allies.
Talk of pre-emptive strikes is stupid machismo in our context, and damaging to our relationships with our neighbours. Howard is hopelessly clueless in this regard because he continues to believe that Australia only needs one friend in the region, namely the USA. He is the naive one, and his foreign policy is damaging our ability to defend ourselves.
Here's some Q&A on the subject.
Q: Best way to tackle developing terrorist threat in Asian neighbours?
A: Australia and neighbouring powers cooperate to neutralise terrorist threats.
Q: Best way to ensure cooperation doesn't happen?
A: Piss off the neighbours by threatening to violate their sovereignty and bomb their territory.
Way to go, Johnny, you bloody idiot.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 20, 2004 12:13 PMI can't believe that we're back to actively dreaming about nuclear weapons falling on Sydney. Oh we're not? It's just Jack.
I actully specified dirty radiological weapons. But lets pass over fact fumbles from the back of the class.
chico o'farrill is right. The use of WMDs against an Australian urban centre is an absurd hypothesis. Just like kamikazes on the WTC, carbombs in idylic Bali and massacres of schoolchildren in Breslan.
The general decline, since the success of the Oslo peace accords, in fundamentalist theocratic militancy in the ME also sets my mind at rest. So I guess Bill Joys apocalyptic warnings, delivered in April 2000, about the violent convergence of theology and technology were all just smoke with no fire.
And now that former nutso states like Pakistan, North Korea and Iran have come to their senses and agreed to give up their nuclear weapons program the risk of proliferation is much lower. The impeccable state of nuclear ordinance security in the CIS & USA also creates peace of mind.
Such bad things as a terrorist WMD attack on Australia could never happen in our beautiful world. So anyone who contemplates them is just a nasty scare monger.
NOT.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 20, 2004 12:31 PMI can't believe that we're back to actively dreaming about nuclear weapons falling on Sydney. Oh we're not? It's just Jack.
I actully specified dirty radiological weapons. But lets pass over fact fumbles from the back of the class.
chico o'farrill is right. The use of WMDs against an Australian urban centre is an absurd hypothesis. Just like kamikazes on the WTC, carbombs in idylic Bali and massacres of schoolchildren in Breslan.
The general decline, since the success of the Oslo peace accords, in fundamentalist theocratic militancy in the ME also sets my mind at rest. So I guess Bill Joys apocalyptic warnings, delivered in April 2000, about the convergence of theology and technology were all just smoke with no fire.
And now that former nutso states like Pakistan, North Korea and Iran have come to their senses and agreed to give up their nuclear weapons program the risk of proliferation is much lower. The impeccable state of nuclear ordinance security in the CIS & USA also creates peace of mind.
Such bad things as a terrorist WMD attack on Australia could never happen in our beautiful world. So anyone who contemplates them is just a nasty scare monger.
NOT.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 20, 2004 12:32 PMJack, the real problem here is how we are supposed to get usable intelligence of this kind of attack without the co-operation of the countries whose sovereignty we have announced we will disregard. Your airy references to "getting wind of this" don't seem to address the problem.
Do you imagine we'll have the kind of detailed info that would permit an air raid? If not, under what kind of circumstances would an invasion of the country concerned give us better prospects of success than co-operation with the local authorities.
To come back to TJW, if you parse Howard as saying "under hypothetical circumstances that are most improbable, I might conceivably support pre-emption", then I would agree with him.
But
(1) It's silly to answer questions in this way
(2) Howard has in fact participated in a pre-emptive attack on Iraq which has turned out to be a catastrophic failure.
It seems more reasonable to focus on the possibility of a recurrence of (2) than to try to dream up scenarios that might make his policy justifiable.
Posted by: John Quiggin at September 20, 2004 12:42 PMJack,
While we're on the subject of terror, I think you've gone off the deep end in your theorising on the War on Terror.
East Timor was not part of any "War on Terror". It was an ethno-religious conflict in an unstable state, of the kind that we've seen in any number of post-colonial states. The militias opposing East Timor's independence were in no way connected to the 9/11 attacks that spawned the WoT, and their motivations were nationalist, not Islamist.
The so-called WoT is NOT a clash within Islamic nations. Unfortunately it has become the current newspeak cover for unilateral US military imperialism in pursuit of dubious foreign policy objectives.
Bush and his cronies have proved themselves incapable of eradicating terrorism for the same reason that other misguided American presidents have proved unable to win the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs". That reason is a failure to address the root causes. In the case of the WoT, it is the inability or unwillingness of the USA to acknowledge the origins of Islamic terrorism, and to choke them off.
The result is foreign policy that antagonises erstwhile allies and radicalises potential enemies. John Howard shows his foreign policy incompetence by taking his cues from the Bush administration, and it's our foreign policy and, inevitably, our citizens that pay the price.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 20, 2004 12:43 PMHoward is like an elephant blundering into a minefield. If we ever faced a situation where a neighbour refused to act against a direct threat to Australia, then we would have a much bigger problem than that direct threat. Beazley would have been smart enough to see this and respond appropriately.
The one thing that's guaranteed to create just such a situation is Howard announcing he's prepared to make a pre-emptive strike on Indonesia to help them out. By the way, I don't believe Senator Hill is incompetent; it's just Howard the suburban solicitor.
As Fyodor puts it: "Way to go, Johnny, you bloody idiot."
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 20, 2004 01:05 PMIt again confirm that he is out of his depth when it comes to Foreign Policy.
The flying squads is not a bad idea but how much cooperation is he going to get when he rabbits on with his pre-emptive strike doctrine.
Laurie Oakes question was stupid and should have been answered as such.
Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 20, 2004 01:11 PMI've been arguing for a while now (see for eg "Howard's lost year?" and "What about Iraq?") that Howard is actually much more vulnerable on national security issues than the conventional wisdom dictates. If there was actually some serious analysis of the way in which the Howard government has responded to the threat of terrorism--especially within our region--since 9/11, and what it has done to address "homeland security", Howard's vulnerability would be obvious. Alas such analysis would require more from our media than simply parroting back his soundbites...
Posted by: David at September 20, 2004 01:23 PMI'd be a wee bit more sympathetic if "hypothetical" weren't one of Howards favourite question avoiding techniques.
At best, I hope this is just a rush of blood to the head after watching Thunderbirds.
Posted by: anthony at September 20, 2004 01:29 PMRod: Your hypothetical was poorly answered by yourself. No we wouldn't accept Indonesia pre-emptively bombing suspected terrorists in Australia.
But you are falsely trying to imply that the method of pre-emption trumps all other methods, including diplomacy. Just because Howard supports pre-emption, it doesn't mean he will depend on it before appealing to diplomacy and law enforcement.
Posted by: Jono at September 20, 2004 01:31 PMwhat a load of rubbish. of course you can have pre-emption and co-operation.
"To come back to TJW, if you parse Howard as saying "under hypothetical circumstances that are most improbable, I might conceivably support pre-emption", then I would agree with him."
this is exactly what howard meant. the question was would he value some other states sovereignty over protecting australian citizens, and the answer is rightly no.
its unlikely, but "most improbable" means your twisting and couching his terms to make it look like he was making a non-statement.
it was a real question with a real answer.
Posted by: c8to at September 20, 2004 02:02 PMIf it's a real question with a real answer, let's try putting some actual countries into the question. That is:
"Supposing that you were advised that a terrorist group in Indonesia was planning an attack on Australia. Would you be willing to mount a pre-emptive attack on Indonesia to stop them?"
I think it's pretty clear that the answer "Yes" , given by Howard to the abstract question, would be a disaster if given in response to this specific question (and similarly for Malaysia, the Phillipines etc).
The correct first answer would be Latham's "We would seek to co-operate with the Indonesian authorities to stop them"
If you followed up with "What if the Indonesians didn't co-operate" the correct answer would be "That's the kind of hypothetical question it's best not to answer".
To sum up, Howard's answer was either a bogus answer to a non-question (my view) or disastrously wrong.
Posted by: John Quiggin at September 20, 2004 02:11 PMCompass - Sunday, July 18, 2004.
Geraldine Doogue:
But like for instance with PNG Papua New Guinea now, there’s a debate in Papua New Guinea about this, about us going in to rebuild a lot of the institutions. I mean, Kim Beazley, do we start rethinking issues of national sovereignty?
Kim Beazley:
Look, I don’t think there’s a paradigm that we can apply. You know sometimes it’s right to be concerned about the sovereignty issue, sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s right to intervene with a certain level of force, sometimes it’s not. One thing you do know is that at the end of the day the people who are going to solve the problems have to be the people there themselves, that you can’t in the end, whatever help you can give them up front, you can’t in the end take over their own process of reconciliation or their own process of administration, and the trick is knowing how to tease those issues out.
Jack,
as someone who seems to have informed himself a great deal in the current gobal events, I'm interested in your use of the term 'war on terror', which many experts agree is entirely a misnomer amounting to rhetorical disinformation, given that terrorism is a methodlogy, not a state, army or in any way sentient thing that one can 'war' against.
What we can respond to, surely, is the root causes that see terrorism used as a means to an end (however nonsensical that end may be to us). Ie we can work to alleviate the legitimate greivances in Muslim states that see populations who otherwise are victimised by and hate terrorist organisations give them support, because they align themselves with said legitimate grievances. The obvious place to start is Israel-Palestine, and the vice-like grip of dictatorships such as the House of Saud; and to respond with significant funding for education and poverty alleviation in Muslim countries including these and Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
I'm also interested from reading several of your comments on JQ's board as to why you place so little emphasis in your comments on the many years of support terrorist organisations have received and continue to receive from (in particular) the USA, and ditto, why so little emphasis on state terrorism, eg Israel or USA-style.
It's also interesting to note, and I wonder what you've thought about, recent commentaries that have pointed out how the Bush administration + allies has now achieved every stated aim of Wahhabist poster-boy Bin Laden, via their use of pre-emption against Iraq and the 'war on terror'.
Imogen
Posted by: imogen at September 20, 2004 02:37 PMDo you imagine we'll have the kind of detailed info that would permit an air raid? If not, under what kind of circumstances would an invasion of the country concerned give us better prospects of success than co-operation with the local authorities.
If not, under what kind of circumstances would an invasion of the country concerned give us better prospects of success than co-operation with the local authorities.
Howard has in fact participated in a pre-emptive attack on Iraq which has turned out to be a catastrophic failure.
Co-operation and promotion of regional civic sovereignties should be AUS's first and main tactic for dealing with terrorist agencies that may have sanctuary in a neighbouring state. The home grown solution, together with friendly neighbours, works best in the end.
Some regional states are, unfortunately, divided between secular moderate and sectarian militant forces. The latter sometimes get cover from corrupt elements in the former. This is occurring in Indonesia, as the kid glove treatment to Bashir & JI attests. So the reality of grid-lock in these states means we cannot totally rely on secular indigenous forces to take out the sectarian militants.
The PM is simply stating explicitly as policy what would be an implicit military reality, in the case of worst case scenarios emerging to our North. This is simply hanging out a "Beware of the Dog" sign over our the attack dogs patrolling our Northern regions. Just so terrorist aidors & abettors think twice before starting something.
A preventive war would, as Pr Q rightly says, likely result in catastrophe. But that is several orders of magnitude greater in scale than a pre-emptive strike:
Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.
Pre-emptive strikes against terrorist bases should be considered a tactic of last resort, but not ruled out in the case of WMD-type threats. They should be undertaken in the gravest circumstances, based on reliable intelligence and only after all peaceful avenues of conflict resolution had been exhausted.
Where possible they should be carried out by indigenous forces with AUS support, or perhaps vice-versa. But we should not rule out a unilateral pre-emptive raid, of the kind carried out by Israel against Iraqi reactors or Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, by our own-forces.
I assume that our sig-int resources and human-int assets is capable of identifying and locating significant security threats in our region. We have the military capactity to carry out targetted raids.
Hugh White confirms that, far from being airy-fairy, the DIO had reliable mail on the Korpassus militias running amok in Timor.
Beginning in early 1999 [the DIO] informed government that TNI was actively supporting anti-independence violence, that they were arming and controlling the militias, and that these activities had at least the tacit approval of senior commanders in Jakarta. These assessments are all on the public record - and they confirm that DIO was saying the same as army intelligence officers claim to have been saying.Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 20, 2004 02:39 PM
I agree that the question isn't that helpful as it’s distracting and deals with a situation that is unlikely to occur.
Still, the question was asked, so I guess they have to give some answer.
Howard has given this response: "I've said that if there were no alternative other than to do something ourselves to prevent an attack on Australia from a terrorist group, I would do it" (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10819103%255E36396,00.html)
I can't help but think that Latham’s response isn't that adequate (from a political perspective): "you need 100 per cent certainty, 100 per cent intelligence guaranteed, that you've actually got something to pre-empt" (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10819324%255E36396,00.html).
So if he was 95% certain that an attack was about to occur he would let it happen?
Posted by: TJW at September 20, 2004 03:00 PMJohn "Little Digger" Howard's policy deeds are as good as his political words:
JOHN Howard will unveil a $100 million plan today to create six new Australian Federal Police "flying squads" to tackle terrorism in Southeast Asia.
Under the plan, to be modelled on the joint police investigation between Australia and Indonesia into the Bali bombing, two squads will be located in other Asian countries.
A further four teams specialising in criminal and counter-terrorism intelligence and surveillance would be based in Canberra but would be available to fly at short notice into other regions at the request of neighbouring countries.
The best of both worlds. This policy puts sectarian militants, and their acessories, on pre-emptive notice but retains co-operative institutional & informational accesss with secular moderate security agencies in the region.
No-body does national security better than John Winston Howard.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 20, 2004 03:09 PMRoD stated:
"Simple rule for anyone in favour of the Howard pre-emption model.
Reverse hypothetical:"
OK, how about an alternative hypothetical?
Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?
'We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region in the world,' Russian chief of staff Yury Baluyevsky told reporters at a meeting with United States General James Jones, Nato's supreme allied commander for Europe.
General Baluyevsky, quoted by Interfax news agency, noted that the doctrine of preventive military action against terror targets had been spelled out publicly before, and said such steps were only an 'extreme measure' that did not include use of nuclear force.
In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that Russia's stance was 'understandable' and within international law.
'I think the reaction is an understandable one,' said Mr Straw.
'The United Nations Charter does give the right of self-defence and the UN itself has accepted that an imminent or likely threat of terrorism certainly entitles any state to take appropriate action.'
He added that he did not think that Russian President Vladimir Putin was thinking 'about launching any immediate attack'.
A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington did not oppose Russia's stance.
'Every country has the right to defend itself,' the official said, requesting anonymity because the United States has not yet carved out an official public position on the newly announced policy."
If all the big guys accept preemption, under certain circumstances, how far away from being black-letter customary international law, can the concept be?
Posted by: tipper at September 20, 2004 03:15 PMJack,
All the flying squaddies in the world are no good if they can't get into the countries that need our help because the governments in question don't trust our government.
I used to think that Alexander Downer set the low mark for gross diplomatic incompetence, but John Winston Howard is giving him a run for his money. The Rodent is an incompetent liability to our country's foreign policy that should be removed ASAP, for our safety.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 20, 2004 03:17 PMAustralia is not the US. I'm not talking about tub-thumping nationalism. The ADF just does not have the capacity to start launching pre-emptive strikes and given the size of our economy is never going to have the capacity.
To accept the Strocchi hypothetical about bombing a Jakarta suburb. What planes will deliver the bombs? What is their range? What bases will they fly from? What rules of engagement will they have if they encounter opposition from Indonesia's armed forces?
More importantly, why are bombing runs better than a quick phone call followed by a joint police operation? The vast majority of al-Qa'ida captures since the alleged War on Terror began have been the result of old-fashioned police and intelligence work.
What sources of intelligence does Australia have that would allow us o detect the bomb-makers, without Indonesian co-operation, in the first place?
Howard knows all this. The only possible conclusion is that the pre-emptive strike is aimed fairly and squarely at the wilder reaches of the Australian electorate rather than anywhere in Southeast Asia.
Posted by: Alan at September 20, 2004 03:43 PM"No-body does national security better than John Winston Howard."
No comment, I just wanted to see the Joke of the Election Campaign so far set out nicely on the page a second time.
Unbelievable.
Posted by: Frankis at September 20, 2004 03:45 PMEver seen someone really aggressive, with a chip on their shoulder, walking around threatening and pushing people a lot bigger than them, until someone smacks them in the teeth?
Did you feel any sympathy for the morons?
The problem with the theory that we have put in a behind-the-scenes phone call to the leaders to placate them, is that we didn't also put in a behind-the-scenes call to every member of the islamic students' wings in Indonesia and Malaysia, or to much of the public who find us a rather testy neighbour.
Mega may tell Johnny she understands his need to be a jackass for the populace, but there will be little understanding among JIs recruitment base...
Posted by: Martin Pike at September 20, 2004 03:56 PMjohn,
thankyou for your clarification, its much closer to the issue and i agree moreover with your point.
i find this statement puzzling:
"If you followed up with "What if the Indonesians didn't co-operate" the correct answer would be "That's the kind of hypothetical question it's best not to answer"."
why is this best not to answer. i think it is good the PM says the truthful and correct answer to this question.
in the face of JI arming to attack australian mainland, and indonesian authorities not stopping it, we should strike pre-emptively to protect our interests. this may unleash hell, but its the best course of action in an awful (and unlikely, in terms of indonesian inactian) situation.
the truth is, latham probably feels exactly the same way. this is a non-differentiation between the two, except in terms of spin. howard wants to seem tough, latham wants to seem inclusive.
(see israel's destruction of osiraq reactor in 1981 for pre-emptive strike which preserved israeli interests, and created surprisingly little fallout, and probably stabilised the middle east to boot)
as for your iraq example, clearly howard does support intervention over sovereignty in some circumstances.
the fact is, sovereignty is hardly the dominating concern in real international affairs (political science literature notwithstanding), and rightly so.
Posted by: c8to at September 20, 2004 04:48 PMProblem is, Iraq weren't in a position to whip Israel's a***.
And assuming at least several thousand dead on each side, in the event of open war with Indonesia, would we really consider this a straightforward decision to make in order to thwart a "terror attack" or two?
The reason Europeans are so anti war is their awful experience of it, in recent history. I can say this with confidence, Australia would never again be so aggressive if we got into a nasty blue with Indonesia...
Posted by: Martin Pike at September 20, 2004 04:55 PMI think it's important to consider how these things are read internationally. As "Mr Pike" suggests, the channels at diplomatic levels are all very well and good, but meeja will tend to reduce to soundbites.
Considerably moreso overseas - you don't think the Straits Times are going to extrapolate best security meaning from Mr Howard's carefully nuanced speech? Nope, they're going to run a short paragraph stating "Australians will strike pre-emptively if need be", and that's the message that goes to the student rooms and cafes where the radicals meet.
Which takes us back to JQ's opening thoughts.
Posted by: chico o'farrill at September 20, 2004 04:56 PMI think the way the Howard Government has been working with Indonesian government with low key policing and intelligence work has been the right strategy. After the recent bombing JI will be on the nose with most of Indonesias population and Howards comments will undermine this marginalisation of JI.
Jack Strochi your talk of a radioactive bomb is an example of the silly ideas that are found on the web. Not only is such a device dificult (as in dangerous ) to construct but as a weapon it would not be very effective, even if detonated in the centre of a large city ( as portrayed in a recent British documentary). Terrorists as we have seen tend to make bombs out of easily obtainable materials that have a horrific enough effect for their purposes.
I think you guys are missing the point about the scale and specification of any AUS pre-emptive strikes against the IND homeland. The ADF/AFP would not be aiming at populated targets on a "national" or even a "municipal" scale. Nor would it soley be interested in knock-outs of bug-eyed "terrorist" hang-outs.
The targets would most likely be one or two rogue "individuals" in the Indonesian security forces that secular moderates have fingered as co-ordinating, financing or arming sectarian militants eg students or seperatists. The standing threat of AUS-organised or personelled "flying-squads" would be a fairly effective deterrent to any rogue officer contemplating such activity.
I am guessing that Howard might have something like the US's Plan Columbia model of counter-terrorism in mind, although as a pilot-study on a micro-scale. One hopes that this sort of thing does not escalate into a "dirty war". And one has to wonder at their legal status.
Bear in mind that the AUS government would regard a break-up of the INDON state as a greater security threat than most types of terrorist attacks. It is this eventuality that we, and Jakarta, would be most keen to "pre-empt".
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 20, 2004 07:00 PMHoward is not talking about flying squads to protect the integrity of the Indonesian state Judging from unhappy examples like Messrs Aristide, Karzai and Allawai, using US forces for personal security is not necessarily an excellent survival technique.
Plan Columbia, even though US legislation restricts it to drug enforcemnt, is already degenerating into a dirty war. Human Rights Watch's testimony before the Columbian senate is instructive.
Posted by: Alan at September 20, 2004 07:28 PMWhy the scare quotes around "Mr Pike", chico? Are you suggesting Martin's really a woman? ;-)
Posted by: mark at September 20, 2004 07:39 PM" No-body does national security better than John Winston Howard. " Jack Strocchi.
If this were so it would not have been necessary to release that mis-information that there'd been an SMS warning to the Indonesian Police that this was JI.
The main intention seems to have been to draw attention away from any possible Alqaeda and Iraq connection. Howard would've looked distinctly vulnerable on national security if his attention had been focused on the Iraq debacle at the expense of security concerns closer to home.
Posted by: Don Wigan at September 20, 2004 08:39 PMJohn Howard, from what I hear, is in the habit of being somewhat pre-emptive about the election result. His comments about the Indonesian election were not given in the spirit of a Caretaker Government. The other comments about pre-emptive attacks, in other national sovereignties, strike me as extraordinary foolish.
The requirement here is for proaction, rather than pre-emption, which presupposes we have cordial, close and cooperative relations with all our neighbours.
This Comment box et al says says ad nauseum:
Howard lies! People might die![BLAH X 3]
I am trying to stick to the old-fashioned method of examining a politicians records. On this score, it is hard to see who has a better record on national security than Howard.
Howard has participated in three (victorious) foreign wars over the past five years, with total casualties now approaching one. Just good luck? As Gary Player used to say, "the more he practices, the luckier he gets".
The Indonsesian state, our greatest security threat, now appears to be sympathetic, integrated and heading in a democratic direction. This is, in some measure, due to firm but fair handling by Howard of both the INDONs and the US. A lot better than the appeasement that preceded it.
The US-AUS alliance, our greatest security asset, is stronger than it has been in two generations. This is definitely Howards doing, and a good deed done cheap.
Time for the Howard-haters to put-up or shut-up with the chattering class. Point to me one Australian politician in the post-war era who has a better record in furthering the national interest in an adverse security environment at a lower cost.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 21, 2004 12:26 AMThe right to preemption should by now be obvious to everyone. What needs to be addressed is "payback time".
When a terrorist causes a major incident, the meejda tends to focus on the ratio of suicide bomber(s) to victims.
If you go onto the Islamist sites, they tend to praise those bomber who have the highest suicide bomber to victim ratio.
So what to do to dissuade them?
As a rule when bombers commit dastardly act, there is no extra price to pay. That's why it is so popular. They go out and blow themselves up and that's the end of it for the Islamist community. No need to worry any further.
What needs to be done is to dissuade the Islamists, big time, that martyrdom is not a good idea.
As I see it, there is three scenarios which can be implemented to change this situation.
First is to kill members of their family. So if they kill 20 people, 20 of their immediate family will be killed.
The problem with that is that some "innocent" people will have to be killed. You can just hear the "sensitive" politically correct, complaining. already.
So the next alternative is to carpet bomb them. This way no "innocent" people will be targeted. They will all be killed, like in WW11, in Hiroshima and Dresden.
However I don't like those alternatives. A better option is to take out those who are connected with the outrage.
In Bali there was one suicide bomber for 202 victims. Of course there was a lot more roped in, but that was the exception to the rule in Indonesia. So what needs to be done is ”pay back time" preemption.
A one on one is not good enough. There is a need to factor in economic costs. My figure is ten to one
What needs to be done, is that anyone who backs the terrorists needs to be slaughtered. For instance, Stephen Hopper would be the first to have his throat slit in the event of an outrage in Australia, along with the Islamist bankers and public servants who run block for them.
For an idea on how to do it properly, see here
Jack, when you write all this stuff about Howard's successful record, are you deleting Iraq from your memory bank?
Your tone on Howard doesn't seem to have changed at all, even though you now agree (I think) that the Iraq war was a disaster. The resources committed to that war (including the political costs incurred by the West) are the biggest single initiative he has made in this area. The result has been a recruiting boom for terrorists who will now doubt make their existence felt in our region some time soon.
And you are rewriting history (again!) on Howard and Indonesia. As long as Suharto was in power, Howard was as craven as the previous government in his appeasement.
Posted by: John Quiggin at September 21, 2004 06:09 AMThe success of our various military excursions has nothing to do with Howard. It was due to the superb training and skill of our armed forces. In East Timor the superb generalship of Cosgrove also played a vital role.
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 21, 2004 06:40 AMJack,
I thought you were joking before, but you obviously believe the Rodent is a national security champion. In the hope of disabusing you of this preposterous notion, let's reconsider the record you just cited:
1. "Howard has participated in three (victorious) foreign wars over the past five years, with total casualties now approaching one."
East Timor wasn't a war, it was a police action only possible because the Indonesian government allowed it to happen.
Afghanistan was a war, but our contribution amounted to flag waving. It's easy not to suffer casualties when you're not taking big risks [yes, I know about the SAS ad nauseam but their contribution overall was slight].
Likewise Iraq: symbolic, not material. As JQ points out, our involvement in Iraq was a mistake. It has done nothing to improve Australia's national security, and may have damaged it by antagonising potential enemies.
Conclusion: East Timor aside, Howard's "three (victorious) foreign wars" amount to populist grandstanding aimed more at domestic politics than protecting our country. Is he lucky that "only one" soldier died? Damned right he is.
2. "The Indonsesian state, our greatest security threat, now appears to be sympathetic, integrated and heading in a democratic direction. This is, in some measure, due to firm but fair handling by Howard of both the INDONs and the US. A lot better than the appeasement that preceded it."
Ahem. Bulldust. The relatively peaceful overthrow of Suharto and emergence of a more stable and democratic Indonesia has nothing to do with any good works on Howard's part. There was no "firm but fair" handling of the Indonesians, and Howard is no less craven than his predecessors in treating with them. More importantly, Howard seems to be incapable of engaging with the Indonesians in a productive way. Arguably he cannot so long as he is seen in the region as a stooge of the USA. That is his doing, and his weakness.
3. "The US-AUS alliance, our greatest security asset, is stronger than it has been in two generations. This is definitely Howards doing, and a good deed done cheap."
Wrong. The alliance isn't strong if it doesn't serve our interests. Under Howard, Australia has voluntarily subordinated our foreign policy direction to the USA. We have allowed ourselves to be led into a conflict (Iraq) not of our choosing, for no gain on our part. This is a crucial blunder on Howard's part, and reveals an inability to grasp what our national interests are, and how best to pursue them.
4. "Point to me one Australian politician in the post-war era who has a better record in furthering the national interest in an adverse security environment at a lower cost."
Admittedly, Howard doesn't face much competittion in this regard. Most of our governments since 1945 have been particularly weak on foreign policy, preferring to doze contentedly (apart from the odd bit of feudal service in places like Malaysia and Vietnam) under the US security umbrella.
IMO the Hawke/Keating governments surpassed the Howard administration in foreign and security policy, but did not face the same unstable environment. They faced the late stages of the Cold War, but not terrorism.
The question you should have asked is, "would Latham do it better?" Relative to the low benchmark set by Howard, I'd say "yes".
Posted by: Fyodor at September 21, 2004 08:52 AMtipper,
If I read you correctly, you support killing innocent people that are connected to terrorists in a ratio of 10:1. Very clever. Unjust and brutal reprisals have always worked so well in the past in curbing those pesky terrorists. It's a well-known fact that violence is an effective deterrent against people willing to kill themselves for their own cause...NOT.
Maybe you could convince the Rodent that ex-judicial executions could become part of our foreign policy. Actually, why stop there? Why not bump off all the domestic undesirables as well? Forget that "rule of law" crap, that's for wussies.
BTW, why are you proposing the murder of Stephen Hopper? Why is he a threat to national security?
Posted by: Fyodor at September 21, 2004 09:06 AMFunny how Howard thinks this one of the few hypothetical questions worthy of a response.
Ask him a hypothetical about his health or education policy and he gets all coy.
Howard thinks that shooting his mouth off as US Deputy Manosteel helps Australian national security, but even more to the point he thinks it will win him the vote of Jack Strocchi. Right on one count. But tell me again what personal experience of war or the military or of counter terrorism has John Howard? None? Then I'll continue to support the efforts of good people in the field as they grapple daily with the damage done to Australian national security by Rodent PM, Lord Downer of Baghdad, and their warblogging battalions of bigmouths.
Lest we forget that it's the kind of naked incompetence exemplified by this style of leadership that has left good people dead and prematurely retired.
Meanwhile Tipper sure talks the talk, but perhaps he could share with his us his own qualifications for espousing the murder of Australians from the comfort of his barstool? I'd guess Tipper may murderously hate Hopper as much as he does because Hopper these days is sounding convincingly like he's a much brighter lawyer than is the over promoted suburban solicitor desperately trying to get himself re-elected to high office - at the expense of his country's national security.
Someone who recently has made Howard sound like precisely the fool that he is on national security matters is Kim Beazley. The transcript of SBS' Insight program last week contains a wealth of good stuff from Beazley, including the simple comment "... we have got to be a clever ally of the moderate Muslims who are our friends, not a stumble-footed ally ... ". There's plenty of good stuff from Beazley there, a clear win over what was gibberish from Ruddock in reply.
Falling into line behind fools hasn't been helping Australian national security for years now - the last eight of those unambiguously on the Rodent's watch.
Posted by: Frankis at September 21, 2004 11:19 AMIt seems John Winston Howard has left his Jack and other supporters high and dry.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1203731.htm):
"Mr Howard insists he would not attack another country without its cooperation."
And then:
"
Today Mr Howard moved to reassure Australia's neighbours.
"I wasn't saying that we were going to launch an attack against another country," he said
"
Seems he likes the support of the preemptive loonies but isn't so keen on sounding like one himself. He's trying to redefine the idea of preemptive strike into a cooperative action.
In terms which all sports participants and enthusiasts will understand, our current Prime Minister "talks a good game" on foreign policy. It's arguable whether the Foreign Minister even accomplishes that.
Or as Texans might say of both "all hat no cattle".
hmmm,
so what howard is saying is that he'll try to co-operate, and if that fails he'll strike pre-emptively.
this was my interpretation (and howards intention) all along.
his now clarification is to all the lunatics that thought he was about to launch a pre-emptive strike (before trying to get the indonesians or whoever to do it themselves)
Posted by: c8to at September 21, 2004 06:54 PMAs commentator Matt notes, Howard has caved in leaving his supporters high and dry. His attempt to dog-whistle the attack-dog vote in Australia, while trying to reassure neighboring governments that he didn't really mean it, has blown up in his face. Retractions gratefully accepted in the comments section.
Grrr...Woof! Woof! Down Boy.
As one of Howard's designated "dog-whistled attack-dogs" I am happy enough to issue a retraction of my uncritical support for his clumsy political handling of the ticklish "preemptive loonie" matter. Howard, although prone to smoke and mirrors, has never been one to guild the lily.
But that does not solve the real policy problem of dealing with the clear and present danger of a terrorist attack launched from a harbour in friendly neighbouring state. Bill Joy raised this problem before 911: what do you do about sub-state theo-miltants using super-state techno-military weapons who might be finding sactuary in failed states?
So I put it to the comments box: what should the AUS PM do if he is notified that:
The scenario is not so wildly far-fetched. The Bali bombers were harboured on an island near Bali. And JI has received some high-level political protection from sectarian-symp INDON politicians and officials.
Smiling sagely, Bashir - who, despite being linked with the alleged Bali bombers, vehemently denies that JI even exists - looks just like any other aged cleric, and consequently is generally accorded quiet respect. Listen to what he has to say, however, and you can only wonder at the reluctance of high officials to so much as speak critically of him, much less robustly investigate him and his radical religious school.
Do we just sit around waiting for the suit-case nuke to be shipped into Sydney and hope that plod can track it down before half-a-million people get fried?
Or do we send in our commandoes/cruise missiles/whatevers to pre-emtpively strike the terrorists, destroy their arms cache and then smooth things over later with outraged INDON authorities?
PS I believe that the per-emptive signal Howard was sending was to terrorist sponsors in the INDON apparat, not AUS political attack-dogs. Does the term Kopassus ring any bells?
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 21, 2004 07:21 PMjack,
the PM should do exactly what he said (at least was clear to any reasonable person)
1) attempt to get indonesia (or whoever) to prevent the attack
2) strike against them using australian forces if the above fails, and there is a perceived net benefit of military action (eg a dirty bomb is going to go off in sydney harbour, or we risk war with an non-acting indonesia)
for all the lunatics out there that think australia would be wiped out if we bombed a clear and direct terrorist threat in another country in the face of that countries inaction, do you really think the world would let indonesia attack mainland australia in retaliation. that would be like afghanistan and the sudan declaring war on america after the clinton administration bombed terrorist bases there.
(incidentally, australia is well prepared for defending our border and furthermore, do you think the US would sit idly by while a western liberal democracy gets overthrown. no, they would unleash nuclear hell)
Posted by: c8to at September 21, 2004 07:40 PMAs quite a few people have already pointed out, the challenge to the Howard supporters is simple. Draft a statement for the Indonesian President setting out the circumstances under which a pre-emptive attack on Australia would be justified, and argue plausibly that Howard would and should publicly assent to that statement.
Once you've done that, I and others will be happy to endorse the statement with the positions reversed.
Posted by: John Quiggin at September 21, 2004 08:04 PMThe issue is that a Minister of Australia making foreign policy announcements should have more brains than to talk about "pre-emptive strikes," especially where it concerns Indonesia, who already thinks we're too big for out boots. It's not really about our response if needing to strike; it's about the little suburban solicitor not having a clue. See elephant in minefield, above. Beazley would not have been this stupid.
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 21, 2004 08:13 PMFrom Howard's position, it does not matter that he has backed down. Those who heard the dog whistle will remain anxious, and like me will not be listening to the post hoc (I suspect) qualifications. Expect more of the same. This is now the main way, other than the electoral bribes, that Howard can win.
Posted by: wmmbb at September 21, 2004 09:03 PMStepping back from the context of the Australian election for just a moment (and I know that might be tricky for some of you), it's interesting that some in the above thread are framing the policy of pre-emptive strikes as part of a global war on terror.
In the Likud doctrine (a piece written a few days after the terrible events in Beslan), Naomi Klien wrote:
"An unnamed Israeli official was quoted as saying that Russians "understand now that what they have is not a local terror problem but part of the global Islamic terror threat".There has indeed been a dramatic rise in religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world. The problem is that under the Likud doctrine there is no space to ask why this is happening. We are not allowed to point out that fundamentalism breeds in failed states, where warfare has systematically targeted civilian infrastructure, allowing the mosques to start taking responsibility for everything from education to garbage collection. It has happened in Gaza, Grozny and Sadr City.
Sharon says terrorism is an epidemic that "has no borders, no fences", but this is not the case. Terrorism thrives within the illegitimate borders of occupation and dictatorship; it festers behind security walls put up by imperial powers; it crosses those borders and climbs those fences to explode inside the countries responsible for, or complicit in, occupation and domination.
If we want to see where the Likud doctrine leads, we need only follow the guru home, to Israel, a country paralysed by fear, embracing policies of extrajudicial assassination and illegal settlement, and in denial about the brutality it commits daily. It is a nation surrounded by enemies and desperate for friends - a category it narrowly defines as those who ask no questions, while offering the same moral amnesty in return. That glimpse of our collective future is the only lesson the world needs to learn from Sharon."
Australia is still a long way from becoming an Israel of South-East Asia, but with this nonsense about pre-emption, combined with our involvement in Iraq, our desert detention centres, and the purchase of long-range stealth cruise missiles, Howard is pushing a worldview I find repellant.
And the mentality behind this worldview is worrying - c8to (above) asks rhetorically"if we think the US would sit idly by while a western liberal democracy gets overthrown. no, they would unleash nuclear hell"
Great, that's just what we all want - nuclear hell on our doorstep. I thought we had left the days of Mutally Assured Destruction behind?
Posted by: Nathan McDonald at September 21, 2004 09:47 PMits not mutually assured destruction, indonesia has no nuclear allies, and their capability to develop a nuke before australia is seriously questioned. it is the threat of nuclear attack if indonesia were to attack australia.
john,
the statement is the same for indonesia: an australian based group is going to bomb the civilian population of jakarta, australia does nothing about them despite intel from indonesia, the correct thing for indonesia to do would be to bomb the base in australia.
(the reason this sounds ludicrous is that no australian groups are likely to attack the civilian population of indonesia. unlike indonesian based groups attacking western civilians like in bali)
furthermore, states don't normally act to enhance the power of other states. so while you may want to be morally consistent, international politics isnt. (im not making a normative statement here, perhaps it should be consistent, but at the moment, it just isnt.)
Posted by: c8to at September 21, 2004 11:19 PMc8to, firstly: how do you know that there are no other Muslim states without the capacity to attack Australia or the U.S.?
Secondly: your rationale for pre-emption includes this concept of a military response being deterred by overwhelming force.
It is not military response from our regional neighbours that we should be concerned about (although we should be concerned about annoying them with these kind of soundbite 'policies').
We should be worried about what effect a doctrine of pre-emption has on those people vunerable to recruitment by JI or al-Qaeda.
Unless you would like South-East Asia to become as much a hotbed of al-Qaeda recruitment as Iraq, it should be about co-operation, not intimidation.
Posted by: Nathan McDonald at September 22, 2004 01:39 AMi agree nathan, if were not killing more terrorists than we are causing to be recruited, we should rethink our policy.
however, pre-emption would be use in the face of a clear threat.
it would be unwise to say "oh we'll let a bomb go off in sydney just so we dont recruit more terrorists"
each individual circumstance needs to be considered. people ruling out pre-emption subscribe to an ideaology which is both unrealistic and dangerous.
there are huge dangers with appeasement (bosnia, world war 2) and there are huge dangers with taking a military stance (korea (after the US decided to invade the north), vietnam)
anyone who says one of these is better in all circumstances is a fool, and knows nothing of history or international politics.
(i dont think you guys think this, just that you are too quick to rule out pre-emption)
Posted by: c8to at September 22, 2004 09:10 AMc8to, you have not understood the issue. It is not whether Australia would strike. It is that, firstly, a need for a pre-emptive strike would indicate much bigger pre-existing problems. An intelligent response to the question would have recognised and addressed this. Howard lacked this awareness.
Secondly, boldly announcing such strikes shows incredible lack of diplomacy. At this level, that is the important dimension. Howard failed badly on this deceptively simple test.
I would go further and suggest the failure is indicative of a more dangerous ignorance of defence and the region. Howard would fight to the last drop of our - not his - blood.
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 22, 2004 09:23 AMQuoth TJW "The exact question Laurie Oakes asked was “if you knew that, say Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists in a neighbouring country were planning an attack on Australia, would you as Prime Minister be prepared to act pre-emptively to stop them?”" I agree with Quiggers on this one . Deploying some micro logic reveals that this question is of the form " have you stopped bashing the person you shouldn't?" Only suckers would answer the question. In this particular instance the wily John Howard was out foxed and the gooser goosed .
Posted by: Bill O'Slatter at September 22, 2004 09:36 AMnow we know there will be no strike on an asian country, why would JI be in an Asian country, but an ungovernable Pacific country we can safely be assured that some F-18s will take out some Ji windsurfers in the solomans?
Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 22, 2004 01:29 PMDraft a statement for the Indonesian President setting out the circumstances under which a pre-emptive attack on Australia would be justified, and argue plausibly that Howard would and should publicly assent to that statement. Once you've done that, I and others will be happy to endorse the statement with the positions reversed.
Easier done than said.
Mr Howards latest Pre-emptive terrorist strike policy (Mk VIX) is now released:
Ladies and Gentleman: Its fine by me if Indonesia pre-emptively strikes our terrorist harbours without co-operation from our local authorities, so long as its fine with the Indonesians if we pre-emptively strikes their terrorist harbours without co-operation from their local authorities.
I am glad thats settled.
Now back to my original policy question: what would you guys do if you were PM and a nuclear armed JI cell was operating with sectarian political protection in an Indonesian island or failed state to our North?
Just sit around and hope plod turns something up?
Or better yet, write another anti-Howard blog. Yeah, that should do it.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 22, 2004 02:09 PMPS. Howard should publicly assent to this because it is:
Jack, go and take your tablets and wonder why such terrorists are only known to OZ and not the said country.
when you clearly think it through the original question from Oakes was silly and anyone who wasn't incompetent in foreign policy would have done so.
Imagine australia takes unilateral action against Ji people in Indonesia. how may potential terrorists would bring on?
you only only mange these people by co-operative ventures not hairy chested bleatings.
Posted by: Homer Paxton at September 22, 2004 02:25 PMDear Abbey
I have a great fear that a neighbourhood dog will attack my wife. To this end, I stood on my front law and shouted "any of your dogs think about attacking my wife and I'm going to come over and gut 'em". I've since told my neighbours that I wasn't referring to them in particular but still they won't talk to me. What should I do?
yours
Bamboozled in Bennelong
Use a dog-whistle next time.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 22, 2004 03:34 PMOk I guess that settles the question. Lefty Blogospheroids are more interested in the politics of Hating-Howard than the policy of pre-emptive strikes against terrorists. I always suspected as much.
Which explains why Howard is PM and wins security conflicts whilst the Lefty-Blogos are non-PMs and non-security conflict winners.
So, if and when, a Lefty blogoshperoid (GREEN most likely) candidate wins office and, if and when, one of the many shaky island-to-our-North-states ever fails (INDON/PHILIP/PAPUA/BOUGAN take your pick) and, if and when, a WMD-armed, AUS metro area-targetting terrorist group harbours in one of those failed states (JI, MILF, AQ there are so many to choose from!) then I will know when to starting heading for the Blue Mountains.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 22, 2004 04:14 PMThe narrative of an Australian strike on Indonesian soil would probably have much in common with the Arab attacks on Israel. Be interesting to see if, when the dust settled and Indonesia consolidated its hold on a good chunk of our north, the world recognised their need to protect themselves against a beligerant, international law breaking aggressor to their south.
Get over it- we'd get our heads kicked in. THis is a case for assertive diplomacy, and co-operative action.
Posted by: Martin Pike at September 22, 2004 04:39 PMJack, it's a bit of a pity this has become the black vs white issue it seems to have become. I for one see no reason for it to become an issue against you. Regarding Howard, he has some merit. It's just that in this context, what he said was very dumb.
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that as a result of Howard defence decisions, Australia might not actually find it so easy to carry out strategic strike in the region anyway. SASR will certainly retain its capability in that role, but our F-111's will be losing relative capability through the rest of the decade due to cost cutting. They might even be retired as early as 2006.
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 22, 2004 04:48 PM
jack,
i too am saddened that you despair of the "leftoid howard-haters" (it's always an intersting exercise to try and etablish if one's character falls within the parameters of a nonsensical group term like that!), but as many have stated already, security from terrorist cells 2004 ain't black & white, it sure as heck isn't a military issue, and it's been co-opted into an election camnpaign exceptionally clumsily by howard.
i don't hate howard. he's a rather insignificant nebbish-type of guy who's a great book-keeper, and rather enjoys a position of power. good on him - maybe if i had a taste, i'd be the same. i wish for the long term security of my kids, of everyone's kids, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that a combination of latham/rudd/beasley would be any more or less capable than howard/downer/hill. actually, that's unfair, hill is such a lame duck, i think the ALP on paper has a better team to handle the job. hill usually looks incredibly surprised to be involved in defence matters, beasley speaks with relish & authority.
hate howard? i don't like what he's done for the fabric of my country, i wish him the worst on election night, but hate is a big, passionate term, saved for big passionate people & issues. i wouldn't waste it on howard. if he wins the election, i'll be saddened briefly, but buoyed by a genuine resurgence in articulate opposition, and real hope for the future.
do i have a solution to addressing the growth of terrorist cells in nearby countries? no i don't - but i have great faith in the Federal Police, and in the work of those professionals who simply do their jobs. as i understand it, professionals across the asian pacific are working closer together where cells overlap. do i expect anyone to have the ultimate solution here and now? not for a moment....
Posted by: chico o'farrill at September 22, 2004 05:12 PMQuiggin:
Update As commentator Matt notes, Howard has caved in leaving his supporters high and dry. His attempt to surreptitiously whistle to the attack-dog vote in Australia, while reassuring neighboring governments that he didn't really mean it, has blown up in his face.
Thats the most shameless bit of spinning and editorialising I've seen in a while. Howard has never "caved in". All he did was reassure the hyserical leftist media that pre-emption is not his first preference, as if it wasn't already painfully obvious. And "attack-dog vote" ? I guess I didn't know there was a significant proportion of the electorate out there just waiting to vote for a first-strike policy. Oh well, they must exist right ?
How canny of Howard to appeal to them, because he is really a warmongering RWDB who is buying missiles in preparation for a first-strike attack right ?
/sarcasm
Funny you should mention that. He is buying missiles whose primary role is long-range bombing:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/26/1093456725698.html?from=storylhs
Before the armchair generals get their knickers knotted, the stand-off missiles are replacing the existing long-range strike capability of the F-111s, which are being phased out.
Still, goes to show that the Howard/Downer/Hill combo seem to go out of their way to piss off the neighbours.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 22, 2004 06:11 PMRussia is going to be the standard setter in preemption. As soon as the grieving period (in two weeks) is over, we will see what the future of the War On Terrorism is going to be.
I'm guessing that "sensitive" bedwetters, on the looney left, are not going to like what will happen.
They won't be following the The 1940 Laws of Robotics
Actually, there's debate as to whether the stand-off missiles are adequate replacements for the F-111 capability. They are mainly meant to be force enhancers for the FA-18's, especially in maritime strike. Realistically, they are also a recognition that our FA-18's, especially, face a higher risk of being shot down these days, and thus need to attack from afar.
The whole rationale of the F-111 has been its ability to penetrate fast at low level at night and deliver a high bomb load. This has been a key part of our strategic posture. There is debate as to whether the FA-18 with stand-off missiles can fill this role, especially since regional air forces are upgrading to top of the range fighters, and we're not.
My opinion.
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 23, 2004 09:41 AMThanks, Tony. There is a debate on whether the missiles are sufficient to replace the F-111 capability.
My opinion is that not only do they replace it, but from an overall force effectiveness perspective, they provide an improvement.
The battlefield the F-111 was designed for does not exist any more. The whole idea of fast, low-level strikes with free-falling (dumb) bombs is arguably obsolete with the increasing prevalence of airborne early warning and sophisticated surface-air missiles. That's why the USA phased out the F-111s - they knew that they would not stand much chance of penetrating Soviet airspace without substantial fighter and electronic warfare escort. We in Australia have continued to maintain these ageing, expensive beasts because we've assumed the surrounding airspace is of sufficiently low-tech that the F-111s would still be able to operate independently. The upgrading of Indonesian air force capability challenges that notion.
I would contend that the F-111s have outlived their usefulness and represent a dangerous (to their pilots, due to the age of the platforms) and expensive strike option that would be better replaced by cruise missiles launched by F/A-18 or submarine. This is essentially the approach taken by US forces, and I think they're right on the issue: smart missiles are just as accurate, less expensive to buy and maintain and don't risk pilot lives. Managing the diplomacy/politics of the issue is a different matter, and it's obvious to me that Howard/Hill botched it.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 23, 2004 11:54 AMThe F-111 is a medium bomber. The Americans replaced it with the B-1B and the F-117, which we don't have. To use the FA-18, essentially a lightweight multirole fighter, for the same job means using four times more aircraft plus escorts and, for some jobs, refuelling aircraft. That exposes lots more pilots to risk.
There had been programs to upgrade the F-111's survivability, and they already carry and use smart weapons including the Harpoon. Before Howard chose the budget option, air force had been happily planning to operate the F-111 till 2020.
What I see is a penny pinching approach to national defence that will really bite us next decade. The FA-18's and even the JSF will face first tier fighters with longer engagement range. Stand-off missiles are one obvious and necessary response, but they will not change the underlying weakness in our defence posture from 2010 to 2020.
Posted by: Tony Healy at September 24, 2004 09:38 AMTony,
I'm very critical of the Howard administration's conduct of defence and foreign policy, but retiring the F-111s is one move I agree with.
While the air force loves having bombers and long-range strike capability, the F-111s are past their use-by date. The design is 40 years old, the aircraft themselves are 30 years old and, because we're the only country using them, spare parts are increasingly hard to come by. IMO the air force was committed to the F-111 for symbolic/emotional and status-led rationales, not a hard-nosed assessment of force requirement and economics.
Stand-off missiles in conjunction with air refuelling for the F/A-18s are an effective replacement for the F-111 capability. It's questionable whether we really need the ability to lay bombs deep in Indonesian (Malaysian?) territory in any case.
I'd much rather see the air force dedicate more resources to air superiority, and I agree with you that we may be overmatched in the period you mention, until the lead-in of the JSF.
Personally, I'm very sceptical on the cost-effectiveness of the JSF in what will be its primary role in our air force, air superiority. I suspect we're being sold a very expensive solution that may not even meet our fighter requirement.
Posted by: Fyodor at September 24, 2004 03:47 PM