Author: Kev

Hugh White, visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute, professor of strategic studies at ANU and anti-Bush/Howard/War advocate attacks the management of the War on Terror from his chair at ANU.

WHEN he sent our forces to help invade Iraq, John Howard was sure they would not be there long: months, not years, he said. Last week his new Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, was visiting the troops still in Iraq three years after the invasion. And he made it clear he expected them to stay a lot longer still.

Different phase, Hugh old chap. When the Coalition invaded Iraq as a part of the WOT it was a short campaign and at the end of that phase the SASR and RAAF F-18s we had deployed in Iraq came home. Now we are talking about a different phase of the war. Different troops doing a different job helping to democratize Iraq. This phase is not over and nobody in their right mind would imagine it is going to be quick. Hugh White is obviously an educated man so why is it that he expects a nation like Iraq with its history, location and other baggage to be turned to democracy in a month or two. Did the academics of the 40s harp on about how slow the US were at turning Japan and Germany into democracies? For that matter were they carping about how long it was taking the Allies to win World War 2?. Is this reaction a part of the instant gratification society that we live in? I don’t know the answers but I never expected the War against Terror to be over in months; I would expect it to take many more years and I would point out that Iraq is only a part of that war.

Our leaders claim that we can make a difference by training Iraq’s security forces, so that Iraqis can defeat the insurgency and then get on with forming a government and a cohesive state. I’m sceptical. At the practical level, how can the coalition forces teach Iraqis to fight the insurgency when it is so clear that they cannot fight it effectively themselves? But more fundamentally, Iraq can’t build an effective army before there is an effective government for it to serve. Iraq’s security forces will do nothing to stabilise Iraq until they have an effective, legitimate and broadly supported government to follow.

…so that Iraqis can defeat the insurgency and then get on with forming a government and a cohesive state. As phases often run in parallel, not in sequence, there is nothing to say that the insurgency has to be defeated before forming a government and a cohesive state. ….how can the coalition forces teach Iraqis to fight the insurgency when it is so clear that they cannot fight it effectively themselves? Well thats a subjective statement and not universally accepted as true. Whatever people like Hugh White may say the situation is progressing toward full Government by the Iraqis notwithstanding the fact that the doomsayers have predicted failure for every step. Iraq can start building an effective army before there is an effective government for them to serve. What does White suggest; that we wait until the day after to even start training the troops. Not smart.

The conception at the heart of this enterprise was that, if a fully functioning liberal democratic Iraq did not spring spontaneously from the ashes of Saddam’s dictatorship, it could be speedily and efficiently conjured by the application of American power. Especially military power; the whole project was, after all, a Pentagon initiative.

This misconception was powered by a misunderstanding of the nature and limits of armed force. Armies are good at fighting other armies, but they are of limited use for anything else. The contrary view is the beguiling illusion that military force can be used to achieve political goals and promote values, rather than secure purely military objectives.

Military force has been used to achieve political goals for as long as we have recorded history as often a precursor to achieving political goals is the destruction of the enemies ability to wage war. If, as White suggests the insurgents are still active, and they obviously are, then there is a continuing role for the military, but his statement seems to suggest that the military are the only agency in place – they aren’t. The US aren’t using the miliatry to advise on how to run elections, how to set up beauracries, how to establish and maintain utilities. They are using the military to keep the terrorists back while civil servants and beaurocrats do their thing. It’s easy to say Iraq is a “mess” but this perception is fed by the media and it’s attraction to ten second audio and video bites of bombings and kidnappings. There is a lot more to see if you look and I’m not convinced Hugh White looks for anything that would challenge is preconceived opinion of the war and Bush and Howard.

THE commander of Australian forces in the Middle East claims coalition troops are turning the tables on al-Qa’ida in Iraq, with the ability of insurgents to mount effective attacks steadily diminishing.

Brigadier Paul Symon said that while Iraq was going through an “awkward period” during the transition to a new government, the US-led coalition remained confident that the country would not descend into civil war.

The Brigadier adds;

….the organisation led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was sustaining significant losses. It was now less agile and relying on much less seasoned fighters. “We are seeing an insurgency that is diminishing in effectiveness in its tactics and techniques. It’s trending that way. I think they have lost some of their better people,” he said. The figures on insurgents are tightly held, but military officials said Zarqawi forces had lost hundreds of fighters this year.

That, to me represents a professional opinion of a man on the spot. The trouble is his opinion differs from the left-wing mantra of promoting a civil war so another opinion is sought for the article. Enter Hugh White, an academic.

But Hugh White, head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, said there was no evidence that the Iraq insurgency was in decline.

I’ll take the opinion of an on-the-spot general over an academic from ANU anyday. I’m very, very sure that Hugh White is not in the intelligence brief loop and thus his opinion cannot be based on facts.