latham- al-quaeda ars#e licker

Editorial: Latham plays fast and loose with security

March 26, 2004
HOW could Mark Latham get himself into such a tangle on the issue of Australian troops in Iraq? This was not the time - less than a fortnight after the devastating terror attack in Spain - to send out a signal of weakness and division to our enemies.

This was not the time to abandon an effectively bipartisan approach that agreed our troops were in Iraq until their job there was done. And this was definitely not the time to make national security policy on the run.

The future of democracy in Iraq is not an issue for cheap politics. And yet, since it is impossible to identify any trigger for Labor's shift apart from the success of the Spanish opposition on an anti-Iraq war platform in the March 14 election, political opportunism is a compelling explanation. "We don't believe that chopping and changing your position is good for the defence of Australia," the Opposition Leader said yesterday. But that is what Labor is doing. Last October, Labor foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd berated Defence Minister Robert Hill for trying to "weasel out" of our post-war responsibilities to the Iraqi people by leaving prematurely. Labor, he said, recognised that Australia was responsible "for the ongoing civilian population of Iraq - including for the physical security and basic needs of the Iraqi people". But on Tuesday, in the course of a radio interview, Mr Latham tossed all that overboard. Now the presence of our 850 military personnel in the Middle East hinges on two arbitrary dates: the formal transition to Iraqi sovereignty on July 1 - which nobody, not even Mr Latham, pretends will settle the "physical security and basic needs of the Iraqi people" - and, even more inexplicably, Christmas.

Whether he means to or not, Mr Latham is doing what the terrorists want. It has become increasingly clear their two-pronged strategy is to fracture the unity of coalition forces, and intimidate voters in democratic nations. Their highly selective choice of targets - the UN and Italian headquarters in Iraq, Iraqi civilians who co-operate with the coalition, and finally an anti-terror government on the eve of an election - shows their aim is to make Western democracies fold. On Tuesday, Labor folded. Indeed, Mr Latham has gone further than incoming Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who is prepared to stay in Iraq under UN command.

The real danger is in the timing. Coming only 10 days after a terror-numbed Spanish electorate delivered unexpected victory to the Socialist party, Labor's abandonment of bipartisanship on troops in Iraq looks even more like a cave-in to terror. Nobody who listened to Mr Latham in the house yesterday doubted his commitment to national security. But a department of homeland security offers only an administrative response to the problem: the real response is to stand firm and united against the terrorists, alongside our allies.

Like any election result, the outcome in Spain on March 14 had more than one cause, and more than one meaning. But to the terrorists who plotted the devastating bomb attack that cost more than 200 Spaniards their lives only three days out from the poll, the result must have announced that, if you carry out an atrocity in one of the countries you despise, you may get a government more willing to bend to your program. Intentionally or not, the Spanish voters delivered Osama bin Laden and his forces a precious dividend. Mr Latham has given the appearance of being prepared to pay interest on it.

Mr Latham's about-face on what brings our troops home - the real stabilisation of the situation on the ground in Iraq, or the formal handover of sovereignty - has implied, because of its timing, that al-Qa'ida can hope to interact with our political system and the formation of our national policy. It has therefore inserted a new political dynamic into the war against terror. Insofar as they pay attention to the internal politics of the nations they seek to destroy, the terrorists will now see here a Prime Minister who remains rock solid against their ambitions, and an Opposition Leader gone wobbly. Any prediction on how the terrorists might respond to this new dynamic is undercut by their psychopathology. But what is possible is that, on an election-year roll after Spain, they will now see some kind of fit between their ambitions and those of the Labor Party. And they could interpret this as an incentive to do mischief here.

The Australian has argued repeatedly that our participation in the campaign to defeat Saddam Hussein did not increase the likelihood of a terror attack in Australia. The election result in Spain, however, shifted the needle by telling the terrorists they may have discovered a way of disposing of staunchly anti-terror governments. Does anybody really believe the needle has not been shifted deeper into the danger zone by Mr Latham, the first opposition politician from the coalition of the willing countries to break ranks after Spain? If he intended to change Labor policy, he should have allowed a seemly delay after the deadly events in Madrid. By not doing so, he has unintentionally engaged the interest of the terrorists in Australia's domestic politics. In place of the nation united against their ambitions of a fortnight ago, they may see a beguiling window of opportunity, and divisions to exploit. Nobody accuses Mr Latham of intentionally placing Australians in danger, here or in Iraq. But by playing politics with a dangerous issue at a dangerous time he may have done just that. His only responsible course now is to close the window by saying that, like the Howard Government, a Latham government would leave our troops in Iraq for as long as they are indispensable to security and democracy there


the australian