AUSTRALIAN LEADER'S WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ AN OXYMORON
Con George-Kotzabasis
August 05, 2007
For people who are not dazzled by the bright “surface” of Kevin Rudd’s “unsetting” polls can see that the leader of the Labor party is no political or military strategist. The Opposition leader’s commitment that if he would become the next prime minister of Australia he will withdraw our troops from Iraq is the epitome of political and military irresponsibility. That he has no personal, historical, and moral compunctions to pull off a “Spanish Zapatero” to the anti-war Australian electorate so that he would astronomically augment his chances of winning the next federal election, shows him to be just another political opportunist in his “sweaty run” to the Lodge. He has enfeoffed himself to the populist cause of No to War, to paraphrase William Shakespeare, hence preparing to lead the country from behind instead of the front in these dangerous times of potentially nuclear- armed global terror. The leader of the Opposition, like the Democrats in the US, is far from unwilling to sacrifice the vital interests of the country to his self, and shortsighted, interest to achieve his lust for power. Rudd, like the Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid, in the US, who in an amazing and incredible statement said, that the Democrat’s stand for an early withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would bring them more seats in the next election, also believes that a bonanza of votes will come to Labor with their stand for an early withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq. Hence the wedlock of the political Scarlet O’Haras Kevin Rudd and Harry Reid with political opportunism and its consummation on the matrimonial bed of political power, will beget the offspring of betrayal to the vital interests of their nations.
Kevin Rudd is deliberately blind to the following facts, since the “dog of opportunism” is his guide in his walk to the Lodge, first that the war against global terror will be a long campaign, and secondly, it will be fought in different countries and regions over a long time. It is and will be a borderless war since the initiative will always be in the hands of the holy warriors who started this war against the West, and they will decide where to fight it. Hence, Western powers that are engaged in this combat against the Islamists will have to assail the latter wherever they raise their warhead. And indubitably, al Qaeda and its affiliate fanatics at the moment have decided to fight this war on many fronts against the infidels of the West and the treacherous Muslims to the cause of their fundamentalist Islam, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Northern Africa. But beyond a shadow of doubt, Iraq at the present moment is the frontline of global terror, and not Afghanistan as both Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd claim. Indeed, this assertion of theirs is shot down by “friendly fire”. Michael Costello, a former advisor to Beazley and a staunch supporter of the Labor Party, mounts an unassailable argument that Iraq is the forefront of global terror, and not Afghanistan. He cogently argues, that Iraq being a modern nation rich with an abundance of oil resources and an educated populace, in comparison to an economically barren and ill-educated Afghanistan, would pose a great danger to the West and to America if it became a terrorist base as a result of a premature withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq.
It’s precisely this great danger and its spread in other regions and especially our own, that the leader of the Opposition so insouciantly disregards at the peril of Australia’s future security. A danger, moreover, that the country will not be able to confront on its own successfully and will desperately need the help of its ally, the US, to rescue it from this deadly peril. Not to mention the by far higher cost in the lives of our armed forces and materiel that the nation will have to pay, in comparison to what is paying presently in Iraq, as a result of the unimaginative, effete, and opportunistic leadership of Kevin Rudd if he became the next Prime Minister of Australia.
Rudd’s commitment to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq with his elevation to the prime Office of the land is logically an oxymoron. While fully accepting the reality that the US and its staunch allies Britain, Australia, and a sundry of European nations, are engaged in a long global war against terror, he nonetheless wants to fight it on a regional basis. It’s this blatantly illogical position of Rudd and all the above reasons that totally disqualify him to become the leader of our country. In these dangerous times Australia is in no need of political shysters and dilettantes, but of leaders of Gulliverian stature and of Churchillian mettle and sagacity. On this benchmark, Kevin Rudd is of a Lilliputian stature.
Kevin Rudd is deliberately blind to the following facts, since the “dog of opportunism” is his guide in his walk to the Lodge, first that the war against global terror will be a long campaign, and secondly, it will be fought in different countries and regions over a long time. It is and will be a borderless war since the initiative will always be in the hands of the holy warriors who started this war against the West, and they will decide where to fight it. Hence, Western powers that are engaged in this combat against the Islamists will have to assail the latter wherever they raise their warhead. And indubitably, al Qaeda and its affiliate fanatics at the moment have decided to fight this war on many fronts against the infidels of the West and the treacherous Muslims to the cause of their fundamentalist Islam, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Northern Africa. But beyond a shadow of doubt, Iraq at the present moment is the frontline of global terror, and not Afghanistan as both Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd claim. Indeed, this assertion of theirs is shot down by “friendly fire”. Michael Costello, a former advisor to Beazley and a staunch supporter of the Labor Party, mounts an unassailable argument that Iraq is the forefront of global terror, and not Afghanistan. He cogently argues, that Iraq being a modern nation rich with an abundance of oil resources and an educated populace, in comparison to an economically barren and ill-educated Afghanistan, would pose a great danger to the West and to America if it became a terrorist base as a result of a premature withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq.
It’s precisely this great danger and its spread in other regions and especially our own, that the leader of the Opposition so insouciantly disregards at the peril of Australia’s future security. A danger, moreover, that the country will not be able to confront on its own successfully and will desperately need the help of its ally, the US, to rescue it from this deadly peril. Not to mention the by far higher cost in the lives of our armed forces and materiel that the nation will have to pay, in comparison to what is paying presently in Iraq, as a result of the unimaginative, effete, and opportunistic leadership of Kevin Rudd if he became the next Prime Minister of Australia.
Rudd’s commitment to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq with his elevation to the prime Office of the land is logically an oxymoron. While fully accepting the reality that the US and its staunch allies Britain, Australia, and a sundry of European nations, are engaged in a long global war against terror, he nonetheless wants to fight it on a regional basis. It’s this blatantly illogical position of Rudd and all the above reasons that totally disqualify him to become the leader of our country. In these dangerous times Australia is in no need of political shysters and dilettantes, but of leaders of Gulliverian stature and of Churchillian mettle and sagacity. On this benchmark, Kevin Rudd is of a Lilliputian stature.
Print
Email
