It must be hard to be in public life. The media is always tailing you, hanging on every word. Just waiting for you to say the wrong thing. Then there are your colleagues, all of whom are jostling, if not downright fighting for prominence, prestige and power.
So it is with our so-called leaders. Each of them attempts to maintain an even presence. By that I mean they walk a tightrope between the values and morals they personally hold and aspire to and the values and morals their party system demands they display in public. The same holds for perceptions, opinions and intellectual ability. If the party wants to promote a perception that all is well, rosy and fine in the world, then no matter how much they disagree, dissent or know, they must put aside their personal views and hold true – for the sake of the party. Occasionally, due to any number of possible reasons, the truth escapes their lips. In doing so it reveals the inconsistencies and irrationality of the public attitude they must uphold – for the party.
This is what Robert Hill, Liberal Party member and Minister for Defense, said during a door stop interview at 7:00am, on Tuesday this week. When asked if he thought Australia was at more risk due to our involvement in the illegal war on Iraq he responded,
The expert advice is that we are targeted for the values that we hold. We hold those values, the values of freedom and democracy, whether or not we're involved in conflict. The official assessment was that we were a medium risk before the Iraqi war. The official assessment is that we're still a medium risk today.
This response followed a line of questioning regarding the need for Australian troops to stay in Iraq. Its worth unpacking to test the logical outcomes of his and the current ruling party’s position on keeping our troops overseas.
If we, as a nation, hold values that make us a target – Hill said "we are targeted for the values that we hold" - then it really matters little if our troops are in Iraq or not. I presume Hill believes our troops hold the same values even when they are overseas, so it is safe to assume that while they are in Iraq they are targets, not because they are there supporting the imperial designs of Washington, but because they hold the values Hill says are anathema to all terrorists.
He also says "whether or not we're involved in conflict" we will remain targets. He then goes on to admit that Australia was a terrorist target prior to entering the current war and even before the 911 events. So, following his logic, we are targets even if we shut up shop, close the borders, pull down the shutters and turn off the lights. So why are we in Iraq? If we were targets prior to Saddam being captured and for no other reason than we are disliked by the terrorists because of the values we hold, then why did we venture overseas to fight someone else’s war on terror when there is the distinct possibility we will have to fight one on our home turf? Hill admits, "The official assessment is that we're still a medium risk today", confirming the reality that nothing has changed. Perhaps the real reason our troops are still there can be found in the response of US Ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer's, who says " to summarily say we are going to pull Australians out of Iraq I think would be very short-sighted and very troubling." In other words, he says to the ruling and potential ruling parties don’t piss off your US masters.
The upshot of Hill’s revelation is that the illegal war and occupation of Iraq has done nothing to lessen the threat of attack against Australian "assets" or citizens. He even lets the cat out of the bag regarding Saddam's so-called WMD’s when he declares the unspeakable (because it hasn’t been authorised by his "officials"). He plainly and without reservation (making a mockery of his need to later publish a "clarifying statement" and you cant help but notice how many of them there are these days), told the press "Now we are confident that there are no weapons of mass destruction". All he has done in this utterance has stated the bleeding obvious. So why are our troops still there? In effect what Hill has admitted is that the smoke and mirrors that is the so-called "war on terror" has driven many of us into paroxysms of fear over phantoms that don’t exist OR if they do exist need to be understood and worked with so their claims can be heard and rationaly responded to. Bombing the bejesus out foreign nations in illegal wars will never solve international problems.
Hill’s admission is, therefore, not logical and certainly not something one would expect an intelligent and well educated person to hold as a personal belief. By stating that we are just as much at risk now as then and then by persisting to keep our troops deployed against the helpless and deprived Iraqis makes no sense what so ever. If our so-called leaders realised we were at risk, and Hill admits they do, then doesn’t it make more sense for our troops to be closer to home. If the terrorist threat is so high here, one would think that our leaders would make sure our best and brightest anti-terrorist squads would be based here protecting us rather than playing soldier in a US imperial war.
There are those among us who would say that we need to arm ourselves. I don’t hold that view and am opposed to it. As a sovereign nation we have the right to decide our own business. The question for our political leaders who choose to follow the party line as demanded by other administrations, is when will we, the Australian people, your constituents, become your highest priority rather than jumping to the orders delivered through Tom Schieffer?