You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Aussie PM rejects protests, claims right to 'decide' on war
2003-02-17
The Australian Prime Minister insists he will not be swayed by the human tide of protest against a war with Iraq - not by the more than 250,000 people who marched in Sydney yesterday, nor the 10 million who rallied worldwide. "This is a very difficult issue and I accept a lot of Australian people don't agree with me," John Howard said in an interview broadcast last night, after his return from overseas. "I also suspect there are a lot of Australians who do, and they are not perhaps as noisy about it. And there are a lot of people in between."
Squeaky wheels expect to be greased, but they're usually not the only ones on the buggy...
Sydney's peace march from Hyde Park was the biggest in the country's history. In all, 500,000 Australians rallied around the nation at the weekend, while anti-war protests swept 600 towns and cities worldwide. But Mr Howard, who has remained a steadfast ally of the United States and Britain in their push against Iraq, told Channel Nine's 60 Minutes last night: "In the end, while I respect people's opinions and I listen to them ... my charge as prime minister is to make whatever decisions are in the interest of this country. And I believe the way we are handling this is in the best interests of Australia."
Blair's doing the same thing. I was out shoveling snow while the discussion was raging. Since this is a similar topic, here are my thoughts.

If you don't believe that the antiwar movement is closely tied to Iraq, you haven't been paying attention. International ANSWER is the driver behind it, and ANSWER is Ramsey Clark's front organization. Clark not only has never met a dictator that he didn't like, he's been on Sammy's side for years and years. Last Gulf War ANSWER's alias was the Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East, but it's message was precisely the same:
The “coalition” was described by The New Republic as being a front for the Workers World Party, a Trotskyite group distinguished by its support for the massacre in Tiananmen Square. Present were groups like the Hands Off Cuba Committee, Young Koreans United, and a few others, dubbed “bonkerists” by left-wing journalist Alexander Cockburn — who himself was once described by George Will as “the last Stalinist, who should be put in a case in the Smithsonian.”

To warm up the crowd, the organizers played John Lennon’s “Imagine” and “Revolution” over the PA system, along with the new movement’s unofficial theme song, “Give Peace a Chance.” A succession of speakers denounced U.S. imperialism in Central America and the Middle East. Daniel Ellsberg addressed the group. A speaker named Dacajeweah, from the American Indian Movement, told the crowd that the entire history of the U.S. was one of racism and oppression and demanded Amerika’s withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, Panama and Arizona. Mwalimu Keita of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party denounced the “illegal state of Israel” and shouted “Down with Zionism.” Jesse Jackson addressed not only the Coalition’s rally, but also that of the National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, which held its demonstration a week later.
The naive believe all this is spontaneous. Those a little more sophisticated believe it's being nudged along by professional revolutionaries for their own ends — and there is a certain amount of spontaneity to it, drawing people like the lady yesterday who doesn't read the papers but knows she's against war an' stuff. There's a lot more truth to the professional revolutionary idea. All the anti-Globo nutcakes are part and parcel of The Movement™, and they're making as much of it as they can.

People are on edge, waiting for a string of Iraqi-sponsored terrorist atrocities in support of Sammy. But Sammy's never done terrorism well. The best he's been able to do is sponsor other groups who do — Abu Nidal's organization, for instance, and the PLF, and now Ansar al-Islam. Running secret police is a different proposition from running terrorism. Secret policemen are party men; they're there to control the population. They go home at night, wash off the blood, and spend pleasant evenings at home with the wife and kiddies. Terrorists are a different proposition; they're there to subvert an existing political structure. People like Sammy don't want them in their countries, no matter how much they try to foster them, because they already have a political structure and they don't want anybody getting any ideas. So Sammy doesn't have a terror organization to throw at us. The best he can do is secret agents, virtually all of whom were nabbed as soon as they got off the planes last time around. Not a very good record. When we're hit with terrorist attacks, it will be by sympathizers, not agents, and there is a difference.

ANSWER's a different proposition. I don't know if Ramsey's running it for love or money, but we should be thinking of it as the foreign legion of the Iraqi political corps. The war is under way already, with a slashing attack from the left flank on the political front, and a second, spearheaded by the Frenchies, on the diplomatic front. At this point it looks like we're going to lose the Battle of the UN, which is going to leave our diplomatic flank exposed for subsequent attacks when we actually start to thump on Sammy. And if Bush doesn't move quickly, we're going to have our political flank exposed as well. If Dr Rice were to call me for advice this afternoon, I'd tell her to make it days, not weeks.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#1  I think you are right on the money. Picture a French nuke and security force delivered to Bagdad to "keep the peace"
Posted by: john   2003-02-17 14:50:13  

00:00