Labor must learn the lesson of Howard’s disastrous Iraq decision

Ray Hartley writes: I am aghast that the Labor government appears to be undermining the war powers reform inquiry (“Labor accused of prejudicing inquiry into who decides if Australia goes to war”). How can we be sure that a future prime minister will make a decision wisely and without prejudice — unlike John Howard who committed us to the illegal invasion of Iraq seemingly predicated on his unofficial title of deputy sheriff bestowed by George W Bush.

It seems the Labor government, as with previous LNP governments, is enamoured with carrying spears for America in its chosen conflicts. Why I do not know, because America demonstrates all the traits of a failed state that is tearing itself apart.

War is not romantic, nor honourable. Nor is it a theatre in which one might prove oneself. It is horrific, and frightening, and leaves indelible scars on those who have the misfortune to engage in its senselessness. Australia needs a new and better way to decide on going to war.

Margery Clark writes: The decision to go to war should never be left to one or two people. There is more reason than ever to leave the decision to the full Parliament. The outright lying and obfuscation of John Howard’s decision to support the US invasion of Iraq is not so long ago and one shudders to think how an Abbott or Morrison government would have handled an invitation from the US to take up arms against the Chinese over Taiwan.

Bruce Dunlop writes: It is hard to believe there could be any justification for an Australian prime minister to declare war or get Australia involved in international armed conflict without the oversight of Parliament. The whole point of a democracy is to hold the executive to account. There can be few if any matters of greater significance or concern to any nation than involvement in war.  It therefore follows that the highest levels of scrutiny should be applied to decision-making in this context.

By now we should have learnt some lessons from Vietnam and Iraq. But no. The current trajectory appears to be one of just blindly following the US.

Roy Ramage writes: After a solid piece on how, when and who should declare war on behalf of Australia, Crikey publishes another piece from Brent Peabody — a graduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School. Peabody clearly writes on behalf of the “rules-based order”: Russia bad, everybody else good. No mention of Russia’s on-the-record NATO stance or the mystery blowing up of Russia’s gas pipeline to Europe, even as evidence is becoming clearer that it may well have been the US and Sweden, both of whom benefit enormously as replacement energy providers.

Australia has already been involved in disastrous wars (Vietnam, Iraq-Afghanistan) and it would be preferable to not be involved in another European disaster. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Volodymyr Zelenskyy are pleasant individuals and it is not our war. 

I would much prefer an investigative Crikey journo to write on the issues without bias than a guest writer who appears only to present the Harvard Kennedy School of thought.

Denis Hanrahan writes: We should go to war only if more than two-thirds of all parliamentarians agree. 

Brown given green light

Roger Clifton writes: The Greens hold the moral high ground (“Bob Brown backs Greens taking Labor’s climate policy hostage”).  It is the only party to pledge to extinguish “coal, oil and gas”.  If all parties were to decree a deadline of 2050 for the destruction of all coal, oil and gas infrastructure, the heavy users would quickly develop replacements for all three.  Instead, Resources Minister Madeleine King is flagging an intention to keep using gas for minerals processing.  And the rest!

Keith Altmann writes: In my reading of the climate science reports the Greens are doing the correct thing. Yes, we have lost a decade, globally and locally. Zero emissions by 2050 — too late. Globally we have blown our chances. The Greens and others (UN, International Energy Agency) are clear that new coal or gas extractions must not be approved. We are effectively locked in to 2 degrees now when aerosol reductions over the next decade or so are considered. We are hooked on the fossil sector as a prop for our low-complexity economy — both are unsustainable. The Greens’ position — now and previously — was correct.

Allen J Brown writes: The Greens are doing the right thing. Opening coal and gas projects is a crime against humanity and the biosphere. The major parties are captive to donations from the fossil fuel industry.

Jim Feehely writes: Bloody oath they’re doing the right thing. Bob Brown is correct: two-thirds of Australians support the Greens’ policy. Labor’s policy timidity is infuriating to Labor voters.

Come rain or shine for Albo

Ray Armstrong writes: Albanese will undoubtedly lose his sheen over the Voice, as Dennis Atkins says (“Liberals likely to hold Tudge’s seat of Aston, as Albanese loses a little sheen”). Whenever Labor looks the goods it hands the looters (Dutton and co) a baseball bat and gives them free hits? An emotional response by Labor to the Aboriginal situation instead of a strategic one. Labor seems to be continuing its historic tendency of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  

Dutton has had no wins to date and he needs one — anything will do — to sustain his leadership. So Albanese hands him the Voice on a plate. Why is he risking his political neck on this?  Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the Northern Territory opposes the Voice because its function will be only advisory, with no teeth. But Dutton holds the view that the Voice will have too much power and may interfere with legislation. Enter with said baseball bat. 

Unless Albo can whittle the concept of the Voice down to two or three simple sentences for the wood ducks, it will never get up because people do not have the time or inclination to wade through thick wads of policy statements. He should have learnt this from Labor’s 2019 election loss where too much policy cost Labor a victory. Unfortunately, the party with the shortest and sharpest slogans will win the debate.

Denise McHugh writes: The best thing Albanese and Labor have going for them is Peter Dutton and the Liberals. People in the seat of Aston should reflect on the past decade and their representation by robodebt family man Alan Tudge. If you were a punting person and looking at past form, no one in their right mind would put money on the LNP.

Ray Sanderson writes: Dear Dennis. FFS, it’s 27 months until the next election!

Grace McCaughey writes: His honeymoon is over as happens to every PM, but many of his strong cabinet members are doing great things. It would be a miracle for him to hold on to his +35 rating, but +25 is still very good compared with past PMs. I think Aston will be won by a teal independent. People want to wipe the Morrison era right off the table.

If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, tell us about it by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.