Bush wins hands down

Re: Re: Re: Vicarious victory for Bush

I've refrained from commenting on most of these discussions because they seem to be way too partisan, but as I may have something relevant to contribute here I thought I'd express some thoughts...

Having lived in Australia for a number of years while Howard was PM I've found that the American press rarely mentions anything about Australia, and certainly not much that's accurate.

I doubt that Howard's win was really much of a shock to most Australians. The economy in Australia is still booming and Latham's too new in his role after taking over from Kim Beazley. I wouldn't read anything into Howard's win that translates to the average Aussie's desire to remain in Iraq - it's more likely it's due to lumber in Tasmania, the Liberal's (yes, John Howard is a Liberal!) fear campaign on interest rates and too many new policies by Mark Latham while people are getting to know him.

Public opinion in Australia is and continues to be somewhat against the troops being in Iraq. What's probably moderating these feelings a bit: there are only 900 Australian troops in Iraq - with none in combat roles - compared to the USA's upward of 100,000 (don't know the percentage that are actual combat troops).

Also, there have been no Australian fatalities yet. If there were 8x more troops deployed (keeping the proportion roughly equal to the US ratio of troops : population) and there were upwards of 50 deaths plus another few hundred wounded it might change things. Or not.

An interesting article from The Age (registration may be required). Note that the writer served as Australia's ambassador to Iraq for a couple of years:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/08/1091903443377.html?oneclick=true

An excerpt:

"The coalition of the willing has throughout given the impression of crashing and muddling through. Among their conspicuous failures has been the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the shortage of good medical care, the vulnerability of the oil industry, the looting of the Baghdad museum and the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. Conspicuous failures of rhetoric have included the exhortation to "bring on" the resistance, the notion of a "mission accomplished" and "staying until the job is done".

If Australia's lot is to stay until the job is done - namely when order has been restored and democracy prevails - the public should have this spelt out, including how long it might take and at what financial cost. Honesty here is urgently needed.

Wider involvement at the international level is the key to a new approach for Iraq, together with transparency on issues such as the letting of development contracts."

A recent poll shows that most Australians still believe in sticking with Iraq until the "job's done". Australia's fought side by side with the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI...let's all hope that the job can be done, whether the Commander in Chief is Bush or Kerry.

Cheers,
Mark